4 ms·

> “If you want to really rethink computing architecture, we’re the only game in town now,” he said. Another way of putting this: because of patents, we're in a

> “If you want to really rethink computing architecture, we’re the only game in town now,” he said. Another way of putting this: because of patents, we're in a privileged position of being the only people who are allowed to work on this problem. So instead of the whole world rushing to make something interesting with this new tech, we get a group of people working in an ivory tower trying to come up with the perfect thing. If we're lucky, they'll execute well and deliver a compelling product that they have monopoly power over for 10 years, or however long the patents last. If we're not lucky, they'll bumble around like cable providers trying to develop "valuable add-ons", and the only reason they'll have any success is because no one is allowed to compete with them. Sorry if that's overly pessimistic, but that's how this article came off to me. I guess patents do have the benefit that we are getting to hear about this development at all instead of it being a tightly-controlled trade secret. And this kind of payoff is what funds the R&D gamble to begin with. I just hope that they actually deliver reusable parts that other people can build into bigger innovations instead of trying to control the innovations themselves.

ohitsdom 12y ago
I don't think it's a patent issue so much as a question of resources. Sure, Google, Apple, Microsoft and others have the resources to develop a similar machine, but a new type of computer would wipe out their business model in a much more devastating manner than HP. HP has the resources, but also isn't enjoying too much success to scare away this risk.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  Or, on the other hand, Google/Apple/MSFT are actually incentivized to research this technology, precisely because it could disrupt their revenue. When new technology 5-10 years down the road threatens your present business model, it makes sense to research it so that you're prepared to adapt when it arrives.
- haberman 12y ago
  You don't think the fact that HP has a bunch of patents around this sort of disincentives others? Also I'm not seeing how radically denser/faster storage is going to make search engine or consumer device business models tank.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  If HP invents an insanely superior computer it will still need software, and HP hasn't lit the world on fire with its software. The real victim would be Intel/ARM. It's not like Linux / Mac OS X / Windows won't run on a computer with a huge amount of RAM and no "hard disk". Most users won't care if a 100x faster computer runs their existing stuff only 10x faster.
bluedino 12y ago
>> Another way of putting this: because of patents, we're in a privileged position of being the only people who are allowed to work on this problem. Isn't that fair since they are the company putting the R&D into it?
JackC 12y ago
I don't think patent incentives work this way. HP are not "the only people who are allowed to work on this problem." Patents don't forbid research, only use. And patents stack: if HP has a patent on the general idea of memristors (for example), and you get a patent on a particular way of making memristors, then no one including HP can make them your way without licensing your patent as well as HP's patent. (This is different from copyright, where if I write the first Harry Potter story and you write a derivative Harry Potter story, I just own your story.) The ultimate idea is when you sell something complicated like a car, a share of the money gets divvied up among a bunch of people/companies who contributed to it -- sort of like selling a movie, where royalties get divvied up among a bunch of people/companies who worked on it. So, R&D incentives: right now HP doesn't have a commercially viable way of using memristors -- they have to invent a bunch of new stuff first. If someone else invents that stuff before HP can, that person/company will share in the megacash that comes from the breakthrough. The part that is theoretically bad for R&D is that it's literally a gamble to research a particular topic, because whoever makes a particular discovery first wins all the royalties for that discovery. If you think HP's lab is way ahead of everyone else then you might not want to sink a bunch of money into memristors, because they might be about to patent whatever technique you start researching. On the other hand, this means you ought to sink your research money into a different angle than HP is investigating, rather than just duplicating what they're doing. Your incentive is to find the highest-payoff place to put down your R&D bets, which (we hope) is a net win for everyone. We talk a lot about the evils of software patents, but mostly that's because the model of "make a car and pay out royalties to people who helped" doesn't seem to translate/scale to software, so the incentive systems break. If you're coming from software you have to be careful translating your intuitions back to hardware, where the incremental-invention/royalty model is more workable.
- haberman 12y ago
  > Patents don't forbid research, only use. From what I have read patents disallow others from doing commercial research unless that research falls inside a narrow exception. The exception covers getting regulatory approval for a drug, or for "amusement", but not for other commercial purposes. The exception is specifically disallowed if the research can further the alleged infringer's legitimate business. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption > This is different from copyright, where if I write the first Harry Potter story and you write a derivative Harry Potter story, I just own your story. I am almost certain this is not true: "Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both [original and derivative] works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests. Derivatives and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

ohitsdom 12y ago

I don't think it's a patent issue so much as a question of resources. Sure, Google, Apple, Microsoft and others have the resources to develop a similar machine, but a new type of computer would wipe out their business model in a much more devastating manner than HP. HP has the resources, but also isn't enjoying too much success to scare away this risk.

chatmasta 12y ago
Or, on the other hand, Google/Apple/MSFT are actually incentivized to research this technology, precisely because it could disrupt their revenue. When new technology 5-10 years down the road threatens your present business model, it makes sense to research it so that you're prepared to adapt when it arrives.
haberman 12y ago
You don't think the fact that HP has a bunch of patents around this sort of disincentives others? Also I'm not seeing how radically denser/faster storage is going to make search engine or consumer device business models tank.
Tloewald 12y ago
If HP invents an insanely superior computer it will still need software, and HP hasn't lit the world on fire with its software. The real victim would be Intel/ARM. It's not like Linux / Mac OS X / Windows won't run on a computer with a huge amount of RAM and no "hard disk". Most users won't care if a 100x faster computer runs their existing stuff only 10x faster.

bluedino 12y ago

>> Another way of putting this: because of patents, we're in a privileged position of being the only people who are allowed to work on this problem. Isn't that fair since they are the company putting the R&D into it?

JackC 12y ago

I don't think patent incentives work this way. HP are not "the only people who are allowed to work on this problem." Patents don't forbid research, only use. And patents stack: if HP has a patent on the general idea of memristors (for example), and you get a patent on a particular way of making memristors, then no one including HP can make them your way without licensing your patent as well as HP's patent. (This is different from copyright, where if I write the first Harry Potter story and you write a derivative Harry Potter story, I just own your story.) The ultimate idea is when you sell something complicated like a car, a share of the money gets divvied up among a bunch of people/companies who contributed to it -- sort of like selling a movie, where royalties get divvied up among a bunch of people/companies who worked on it. So, R&D incentives: right now HP doesn't have a commercially viable way of using memristors -- they have to invent a bunch of new stuff first. If someone else invents that stuff before HP can, that person/company will share in the megacash that comes from the breakthrough. The part that is theoretically bad for R&D is that it's literally a gamble to research a particular topic, because whoever makes a particular discovery first wins all the royalties for that discovery. If you think HP's lab is way ahead of everyone else then you might not want to sink a bunch of money into memristors, because they might be about to patent whatever technique you start researching. On the other hand, this means you ought to sink your research money into a different angle than HP is investigating, rather than just duplicating what they're doing. Your incentive is to find the highest-payoff place to put down your R&D bets, which (we hope) is a net win for everyone. We talk a lot about the evils of software patents, but mostly that's because the model of "make a car and pay out royalties to people who helped" doesn't seem to translate/scale to software, so the incentive systems break. If you're coming from software you have to be careful translating your intuitions back to hardware, where the incremental-invention/royalty model is more workable.

haberman 12y ago
> Patents don't forbid research, only use. From what I have read patents disallow others from doing commercial research unless that research falls inside a narrow exception. The exception covers getting regulatory approval for a drug, or for "amusement", but not for other commercial purposes. The exception is specifically disallowed if the research can further the alleged infringer's legitimate business. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption > This is different from copyright, where if I write the first Harry Potter story and you write a derivative Harry Potter story, I just own your story. I am almost certain this is not true: "Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both [original and derivative] works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests. Derivatives and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work