HP Patents Nanoscale "Street Map" Technology 93
radsoft, pointing to this HP press release, writes: "HP says silicon electronics will reach a dead end in 2012, and wants to have a 16KB prototype of its molecular memory working by 2005." Basically, it looks like they've worked out some of the details of interfacing molecular components (still in their infancy of course, but promising) with traditional silicon.
Re:tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:1)
The laws of physics always win in the end (Score:1)
Re:DARPA paid for HP patent? (Score:1)
Re:Vapourware or protection ? (Score:1)
Moore's law likely doesn't apply (Score:2)
million geek march (Score:2)
--
Hm... (Score:3)
How does slashdot differentiate between good patents and evil, bad patents? Is the litmus test "Jesus Christ, I could have thought of that!"?
- A.P.
--
Re:DARPA paid for HP patent? (Score:1)
Simple.
Re:DARPA paid for HP patent? (Score:1)
So how about the gummint doing half as many projects , funding them fully, and getting the IP results for the public? Then HP can fund its own projects, and get hte IP for that. Just as much research money spent, but the public doesn't pay for IP development they're restricted in using.
DARPA paid for HP patent? (Score:4)
Something ironic in there about the government funding research so that we can be forced to pay a company for it.
More details here (Score:3)
--
Re:Steganography Implications (Score:1)
On second thought, just put it on your laptop harddrive. Customs doesn't have time to go over everyone's data to see if there is something "bad" coming or going.
Oh no! (Score:2)
--
Re:tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:2)
"Why, if Moore's law applies to this new technology and they get a 64-fold increase over the following decade, they'll have built a 128KB memory by 2015!"
You have to walk before you run lad. Personally I'm excited about what may be possible.
Re:Patent or technology: which removed the obstacl (Score:2)
I can see RMS exploding with rage right now if he's reading this sentence. How exactly did the patent remove the obstacle?
No, it's a misprint. It removes the major obstacle to making molecular-scale computing a royalty .
Steganography Implications (Score:2)
Patent or technology: which removed the obstacle? (Score:2)
Not again.... (Score:4)
"The world's petroleum reserves will be depleated by 1980."
"The world demand for computers should be no more than 5 or 6 units."
"No one should ever need more than 640KB."
"Silicon will be a dead technology by 2012"
Umm, is it just me, or am I the only one that sees a pattern here? For christ's sake, the only thing that will probably die (and SHOULD die) are uniprocessor systems. When we get to the point where SMP is an obsolete technology, let me know. Until then, theres absolutely no need to push in a new direction when it comes to the way we fab processors..Time and time again, history has shown that the instant ANYONE whips out a hammer and chisel in this industry, and starts making a tombstone for any technology, they're views ultimately go down the tubes as alarmist and horribly myopic.
My $0.02,
Nice troll, lamer. (Score:2)
Patents make things harder for companies to ADVANCE technologically.
Fortunately, companies don't care about that. What they DO care about is making tons of money, and the patent system is VERY good about facilitating this. Espicially if it involves not having to do expensive things like research unless absolutely necessary.
Companies (especially large ones) just LOVE the patent system and the patent portfolio wars it inspires. The bigger their portfolio, the more a company supports it.. being a patent house is much more profitable than being a technology house. A room full of lawyers can create a hundred times more wealth than a room full of pesky research scientists.
Next time, if you are going to troll, try to not look like a total idiot. It will help your cause. Trust me.
Re:Nice troll, lamer. (Score:2)
It's even better than that (Score:1)
That corporation produces the product and sets a price. South Africans cannot afford to pay for the monopoly-priced drugs, so they produce their own generic brands of the same drugs. The corporation then sues the South African government based on IP violations.
Given that the corporate funding was something like $20 million, and the lawsuit is contending BILLIONS of dollars in lost profit, why not just pay them back the $20 million and put the drug on the free market for anyone to produce? Hell, give them $25 million -- a 25% return is pretty damn sweet.
Peace PatientZero
Re:Moore's law is dead. (Score:2)
You mean Gattaca (Score:2)
Now I have to ask you--just to play devil's advocate--what is so horrific about genetically "better" people being more successful (never mind how they got to be genetically better)? That's the essence of evolution, the way we came to be human. The only difference is how the genetic change is happening. If you think having some people be "better" than others is wrong, I suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". I just know I'm going to get flamed for this, with people complaining about how the "better" genes are getting allocated. Well, how do you propose to allocate them? Lottery? Government program (please no!)? Corporations (I don't have to worry about anybody on
Now that the human population is so large, and travel prevents the isolation of small groups capable of sustaining genetic drift, and social security nets prevent "unsuccessful" people from dying out or being unable to reproduce (and possibly even encourage them to reproduce), I can't see any other way for human evolution to happen.
Of course, we have to be very careful to avoid the dangers of "eugenics" and other forms of disguised racism. The best way to avoid that is to not have any sort of large, organized program. Just leave it up to parents what they want to do, and, if necessary, have the government subsidize it for poor parents.
Finally, if you still think it's wrong to be able to buy "better" genes for your children, I've got a thought experiment for you:
Now, as for nanomachines, yes, letting governments have them would be a bad call. I think the best possible solution would be the nano-equivalent of Free Software. Eric Drexler [foresight.org] and others have already thought of a lot of this stuff, and are working on answers to your concerns. Also, check out the transhumanist philosophy. There used to be a website at www.transhumanism.org, but it appears to be down.
You can't hide from the future--you can only prepare for it.
Re:A few questions about possible problems.... (Score:1)
Re:A few questions about possible problems.... (Score:2)
slashdot, hp and banner ads (Score:1)
Could it have something to with the banner ads HP is running? A little journalistic hypcricy?
Naaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh, not here!
Imminent Death of Silicon Electronics predicted (Score:2)
Hardly. Even if a feature size limit IS reached.
They only hit the wall if they stay two-dimensional. Given that the circuits are getting to near molecular thickness you have a LOT of doublings available before the chips are as thick as they are wide and high - or a closer limit (like heat dissipation) is reached.
Re:Imminent Death of Silicon Electronics predicted (Score:2)
Like I said: It will hit a wall ONLY if it stays one-dimentional.
Even with optical lithography you can go multi-layer - and the industry already has. The interconnects are obvious. But vertical profiles have been built by growing epitaxial layers and doping those - sometimes repeatedly.
Still, they've generally only used this for creating "buried layers" of a single plane of components.
But why stop at one layer of components? Grow some more semiconductor, make another layer. And another, and another, and another.
Yes, yield would be a problem. (But remind me to go into the "Preposterous Scale Integration" rap some time. There is a solution. It abandons lithography for ion and electron beams and per-circuit computer feedback, but allows you to correct imperfections on-the-fly and build to ridiculously large sizes.)
Cooling the thick chips. (Score:2)
The "Preposterous Scale Integration" rap involves a 6 foot diamond cube, with power and heatsinking on two opposite faces, completely covered by the ends of two water-cooled silver buss bars. I/O on the other four faces using a forest of optic fibers, and the whole thing running red hot (diamond is very stable) in an inert atmosphere (but it's flammible!) filled glass envelope.
(The idea is to create the visual impression of a component of a golden-age SF author's idea of a computer. Like something you'd find in the Skylark of Space. B-) )
Re:Steganography Implications (Score:1)
You could name one turd 95, turd 98,... Wouldn't that be fun?
Re:A few questions about possible problems.... (Score:2)
Actually, I DON'T really understand the HP technology, and that's why I'm asking these questions!!! Current technology involves the inclusion of nice, standard sized "pads" or "landing zones" on a silicon chip around its perimeter where nice, standard sized preinspected wires are put in place and attached by micromanipulators. That's how a current technology silicon chip is attached to pins leading (pun) to the outside world, and it is a very well understood, deterministic, inspectible process via a microscope that has all sorts of ISO9000 and MILSPEC standards applied to assure reproducibility and quality. On a wire only a couple of atoms thick made by chemical etching, how do you assure that it doesn't have a narrow, pinched off point somewhere along it that is subject to breakage or failure? The only way to inspect someting that small is by something like an electron microscope, and blasting an atoms-thick wire with a beam of high energy electrons just to image it doesn't sound like too good of an idea.
I hope the HP technology is robust enough to overcome these challenges, and if it's not, some other technology will. I'm not defending cavalry!!! I want isolinear chips and positronic brains and all of that sci-fi tech as much as the next guy. My main point is that here's a new technology, it's a lot smaller, hooray, but now we have to rethink all of the supporting technologies around it to make sure they will work, too. That's a logical and rational step that has to be taken...and I'm confident that somebody will figure it all out.
Re:A few questions about possible problems.... (Score:2)
A few questions about possible problems.... (Score:4)
Re:Imminent Death of Silicon Electronics predicted (Score:3)
Big-O means we'll always be limited in the 3d growth of chips, unless practical superconducting ICs come along. However, the problem is really not surface area as much as total energy output. I doubt that the average consumer wants a 1000W cpu of any kind in their box; at that disapation manufacturer's need to worry about burning down their customer's houses, to say nothing of the electrical cost. In addition, the forced-air heatsink would need 100 times more surface area or much more air; pretty prohibitive!
Within reasonable limits, we can generally get rid of heat in proportion to the linear size of the CPU, especially when you go to water (or better) cooling, increase the surface area by boring passages through the chip itself, etc. Even when the chip becomes so small that metallic sinks are ineffective at transmission we can always immerse the sinks in the cooling medium. Only then will we approach your hard surface area vs. volume limit.
Re:A few questions about possible problems.... (Score:2)
---
Re:Hm... (Score:1)
Re:Vapourware or protection ? (Score:2)
Rhetorical question: If only one company is allowed to play in a particular field just because they got a critical step patented early, then how exactly is this meant to promote a competitive free market?
How far we have come (Score:3)
I just can't wait for usefull nanobots to become a reality.
The 16k jokes are getting on my nerves... (Score:2)
So, just so that ppl understand. The chip that is on their 128meg DIMM is actually only a 256Mbit chip, or to put it in nice terms, each chip can hold 256kbytes.
What it does is use a shitload of them.
Kingston does a better job of explaining it [kingston.com] so I will let them.
16k molecular scale chips are a big deal.
Re:Imminent Death of Silicon Electronics predicted (Score:3)
It's worth thinking about the history of aircraft development. Aircraft performance showed a steady, rapid growth curve from 1900 to the late 1960s. The 1960s produced the SR-71, the 747, the C-5A, and the Concorde. And there things stopped. All those aircraft are still flying, and performance improvements since that era have been marginal.
In the 1960s, the aviation industry expected continued rapid progress. Supersonic and hypersonic transports, spaceplanes, suborbital ballistic transports, and rocket planes were expected in the near future. Super fuels with higher energy density were discussed. Giant aircraft capable of carrying many truck-sized shipping containers were proposed. Nuclear powered aircraft were in development. There was serious DoD-funded work on antigravity.
None of it worked. Aviation never moved to a new technology. Wings and petroleum-based fuels were used by the Wright Brothers, and that's what we use today.
This could be what happens to electronics. There are several known alternatives to optical lithography on silicon. But none of them are better in a business sense.
Re:Imminent Death of Silicon Electronics predicted (Score:3)
True. And you can build up multi-layer ICs. Slowly. The problem is that fab time, and cost, climbs linearly with the number of layers. So there's no real benefit to doing it other than packaging density. And, of course, there's the yield problem.
There are some semi-3D technologies. One consisted of making up a stack of dies with connections along one edge, slotted into a "backplane" wafer like a rack of boards in a card cage. The problem is that at current RAM speeds, getting rid of the heat is a bigger problem than finding physical space for the memory modules. For a while, there was enthusiasm for wafer-scale integration. Think of a whole 6" wafer of RAM as a single component. Products were demonstrated. But there was no point; traditional dicing, packaging, and assembly into memory modules turned out to be cheaper than packaging a giant IC, something that required a heavy metal frame to keep the chip rigid.
I always liked direct-writing E-beam fab technology myself. It's been tried repeatedly for about 25 years now. Works fine, writes slowly, costs more.
The problem is not that there aren't higher-density technologies than lithography on silicon. A number of approaches are known. But they're all more expensive.
There's an analogy with supersonic flight. Works fine, and inherently costs about 3x more than subsonic flight. That's enough to kill the commercial market for it.
There may be future 3D technologies, but they'll probably be fabricated by something that looks like biological growth or real nanotechnology, and can thus work on the whole volume simultaneously. That's a long way off.
Wow, no kidding... (Score:5)
What a smashing way to turn one's boobs into a computational device.
Silicon Electronics versus CDs (Score:1)
They said the same thing about CDs coming to a dead end in the 1990s. Who are you going to trust? Some company going for the early patent hoping for a jump start on the market? Or the market full of consumers that are the ones truly in control of it all?
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
---
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
---
Re:Not again.... (Score:1)
Re:Not again.... (Score:3)
"This transistor thing is going to spell the end for the vacuum tube"
"After 1970, man will not return to the moon for many decades"
"If people don't stop destroying their habitat, the dodo will most certainly become extinct"
I have no idea who said those things. But someone probably did, and they were right so no one remembers them. There are even famous examples like Gordon Moore's famous statement that seemed preposterous at the time and now is held as a universal truth.
No. I'm afraid the only pattern you are detecting is the selectivity of human memory. Some of these predictions turn out to be true, some don't. Simple as that.
Re:tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:2)
That is, if they can double their memory capacity every two years, and there's no reason they can't do this, or even faster.
Nanotechnology and GE are misunderstood, too (Score:1)
I believe in the near future rich parents will genetically modify their babies. They will be made smarter and they in return will take away all the college scholarships and perhaps take all the admissions to universities as well.
If you think that, perhaps they will. Genetics is, and will only ever be, part of the story when it comes to childhood development. Kids from well-off familes do, and will continue to get into universities more often that kids from poor families, for pretty much the same reasons they always have. When you're well-off, higher education is an affordable priority. You don't need to worry that you're spending three or four (or more) of your possibly most productive years not earning anything.
How would you like your non engineered children when they grow up to be working in a McDonalds because litterally everyone will have 140-170 IQ's!
There are already kids working in McDonalds that have 140-170 IQs. Anyway, engineering for "intelligence" I expect to be easy. Sickle-cell anaemia's easy. What comprises intelligence?
Ladies, how would you like every women to look like Cindy Crawford while your current average looking body now seems repulsive in society?
When Cindy Crawford becomes "average", average becomes special and exotic.
He could also monitor for non orthodix thoughs and recommend a physcologist to your boss if you are doubting the greatness of Microsoft.
Thought isn't that easy a process to track. Although he might be able to track distress as you dealt with MS products, something as ephemeral as a doubt is hard, if not totally infeasible.
There are also many cruel and authoritive governments out there like Congo, China, and Iraq whom would love nano-bots to track down its citizens.
Authoritarian. Any why just them?
Even with nanotech and GE, people don't know enough about cognition to do half the things you suggest.
Someone should .... (Score:1)
Now who's with me?? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? ...
Re:Nice troll, lamer. (Score:1)
Actually, lawyers create little more than billing statements and friction in the economy. They only transfer wealth from one pocket to another and siphon off a big chunk of it in the process.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
Thats total nonesense. In fact the memory that most resembles your "battery" scheme is dynamic memory aka. DRAM or SDRAM if you like. It consists out of one transistor and one capacitor per cell.
Flash/Eprom memory work using fowler-nordheim tunneling to store tiny charges in isolated gate oxides. Writing is even slower than with a capacitor. There are other nonvolatile memory techniques which work in a totally different way. (FRAM: storing data by moving atoms, MRAM: magnetic memory, phase change memory etc..)
The second reason memory is slow is size. The smallest simple memory circuit you can make with silicon takes two transistors (a basic flip-flop circuit)...
This is static memory, yes. The smallest version requires at least FOUR transistors because you have to adress the cell by some means. But as mentioned abovce - the smallest memory cell requires just a single transistor.
and switching speed, which increases geometrically with transistor count, due to radio interference considerations (aka crosstalk).
No, switching speed is mainly dependand on line and gate capacity. (see low k dielectrica). Crosstalk is a totally different issue...
as well as the fact that most nanotech is mechanical
Fictional stories are not a reliable source for scientific information.
If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:3)
---
nanotechnology and genetic engineering are wrong (Score:1)
If you oppose this genetic engineering you will hurt your children. How would you like your non engineered children when they grow up to be working in a McDonalds because litterally everyone will have 140-170 IQ's! I guess you would have to engineer them for their own good fow when they grow up. I am sure they these greedy biotech firms wouldn't charge an arm and a leg would they? After all they own the patents in your children and thefore own them! So only the rich and bio-tech firms control the new society?
Ladies, how would you like every women to look like Cindy Crawford while your current average looking body now seems repulsive in society?
I believe nano-tech is similiar and in the same subject range as genetic engineering. With nano-bots you can imnplement a cell phone right in your skull and modify your body simuluar to genetic engineering. I heard an example of one application where your just walking arund and suddenly you see an image of yoru friend calling and chatting with you while you keep walking. Cool but what if an authoritive power comes where they claim to give you health nanobots to ensure your bodies health but really implement mics or thought monitoring bots. The bots would signal out to several micro supercomputers which can track down what you say and even what you think. Perhaps a coporation and not a govermnet would love to control thoughs or monitor them as a way to increase their profits. Perhaps you may be working and hear an ad for pepsi in your internal cell phone implant while you are trying hard to concentrate on a project. Or your thoughts will be monitored and if you think of a coke a pepsi message will pop in your head.
Bill Gates could put MSN Messenger in all the nanobots so if someone calls you in your head you would have to pay bill $2 dollars. He could also monitor for non orthodix thoughs and recommend a physcologist to your boss if you are doubting the greatness of Microsoft.
Sure this sounds laughable and silly but if someone told you 10 years ago that someone would patent file transfering on a point of sale device like a pc, wouldn't you just laugh that away? Guess what someone wants to make money off it and pantented it. Read the other slashdot articles.
There are also many cruel and authoritive governments out there like Congo, China, and Iraq whom would love nano-bots to track down its citizens. I belive absolute power corrupts and genetically modifed humans would love to use nano-bots to keep everyone else in check. They would permentantly become the new High class like the inner party did in 1984 by using telescreens and the thought police. Also you can make tens of thousands of hidden nano-bots in things like paint on a wall to monitor conversation and report it back to big brother for example. The telescreens in 1984 will seem innocent compared to what hidden nano-technology in the wrong hands might do.
I fear these things from nano-bots more then I fear IA.
Re:Patent or technology: which removed the obstacl (Score:1)
Re:Patent or technology: which removed the obstacl (Score:1)
I can see RMS exploding with rage right now if he's reading this sentence. How exactly did the patent remove the obstacle? Did they mean "...a key patent on technology that could remove..." or did they really mean what they said? If the latter, then what was the obstacle? Their competition?
Yes, and yes! A major obstacle to building a nano-circuit is that the connections are so delicate that random radiation, a stiff wind, etc., could destroy the effectiveness of the circuit. You would have to wrap it in lead, make it redundant, etc, etc, and, if someone wanted to take it out to examine it, they would destroy it.
So, if they get it working, then the competition can't open it (to try to reverse engineer it) and destroy the chip, because it is protected by a patent. Physical limitation solved. Once the competition buys a license for the tech, they can pop open the shell, and HP doesn't care if it gets detroyed (Pop open all you want, we'll make more...).
So, you see, patents really do contribute to some technological problems, like radiation shielding and sub-standard encryption...
Re:nanotechnology and genetic engineering are wron (Score:1)
Jaysyn
Re:DARPA paid for HP patent? (Score:1)
Re:Great for the multinationals... (Score:1)
but no, sir, that *can't* be true!
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:2)
This is a first step. The second step will put more functionality into the nano device. In the end you'll see a few microcircuits left for interfacing between the nanocircuits and the macro world with all the funtionality in the nanocircuits.
StoneWolf
tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:4)
Two kilobytes? WOW!
Why, if Moore's law applies to this new technology and they get a 64-fold increase over the following decade, they'll have built a 128KB memory by 2015!
Move over, DRAM! Step aside, SRAM! A new memory king is coming to town!
Tim
Re:Molecular-sized obstacles (Score:1)
Check out that DDR memory some time, and compare to Rambus.
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
Re:nanotechnology and genetic engineering are wron (Score:1)
I mean, what does IA stand for?
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
Re:tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:1)
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
There are two reasons why memory is slow. First off, with the fastest ways to do memory, they're all active. You not only have to store data, you have to keep it stored. So, to effect a change, you have to overcome the circuitry thats holding state, or you have to turn it off, neither of which is a zero time process. Nonvolatile memory (passive) is even worse, because NV memory is almost always capacitive... you're basically charging and discharging microscopic batteries, which is inherently slow. Nanotechnology does not inherently get rid of either of these problems, but because its so small, the timescales involved are shortened as well... you don't have as much potential energy to overcome.
The second reason memory is slow is size. The smallest simple memory circuit you can make with silicon takes two transistors (a basic flip-flop circuit)... that's for one bit... once you put more bits together, you also have to do address decoding, which increases your transistor count exponentially. Even with a smart row/column scheme for addressing, the minimum number of transistors required is (N^0.5), where N is the number of bits of memory on a chip. For ECC ram, it's (N^0.5 * log N^0.5). The distances that the electricity has to travel limit your maximum speed via two mechanisms, the fundamental restriction that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, and switching speed, which increases geometrically with transistor count, due to radio interference considerations (aka crosstalk). Nanotech addresses this by making the distance that signals have to travel much shorter, as well as the fact that most nanotech is mechanical, not electrical in nature. At the scales where nanotech is applicable, the speed of light isn't as fundamental a barrier, but crosstalk becomes increasingly important due to the inverse square law, so having a non-electric means of conveying information is incredibly important.
So, short answer: nanotech will incredibly increase the speed of one of the slowest components of a solid-state turing machine, which will allow the field to advance while legacy devices are still in use.
We will always need a method of converting nanotech information into other forms of information, but you will see that the conversion gets closer and closer to the human being, which can only process information at a certain speed regardless.
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:1)
Thats total nonesense. In fact the memory that most resembles your "battery" scheme is dynamic memory aka. DRAM or SDRAM if you like. It consists out of one transistor and one capacitor per cell.
Flash/Eprom memory work using fowler-nordheim tunneling to store tiny charges in isolated gate oxides. Writing is even slower than with a capacitor. There are other nonvolatile memory techniques which work in a totally different way. (FRAM: storing data by moving atoms, MRAM: magnetic memory, phase change memory etc..)
Storing tiny charges in isolated gate oxides... hmm, sounds a lot like a capacitor to me. Also, notice the words always and basically in the original text. I recognize that this is not a 100% accurate description, but close enough for the purposes of this discussion.
The second reason memory is slow is size. The smallest simple memory circuit you can make with silicon takes two transistors (a basic flip-flop circuit)... This is static memory, yes. The smallest version requires at least FOUR transistors because you have to adress the cell by some means. But as mentioned abovce - the smallest memory cell requires just a single transistor.
As mentioned above, the smallest simple memory circuit; I know that there are better ways to do this, but wanted to keep the discussion simple and focused on theoretical limitations of silicon, which in this case is die size. Addressing was also covered later in this same paragraph, if you had bothered to read it.
and switching speed, which increases geometrically with transistor count, due to radio interference considerations (aka crosstalk).
No, switching speed is mainly dependand on line and gate capacity. (see low k dielectrica). Crosstalk is a totally different issue...
At the speeds we're talking about (the limits of silicon), crosstalk becomes an incredibly important design issue, and will fundamentally limit your design and architecture, thereby decreasing your maximum speed. While I generally agree that other factors also affect speed, we're talking about theoretical limits and how to overcome them.
as well as the fact that most nanotech is mechanical
Fictional stories are not a reliable source for scientific information.
Nanotech is, by its definition, mechanical in nature. I have yet to see a working design for any nanotech device that isn't at least partially, if not totally, mechanical in nature. By working design for any nanotech device, I'm referring to a theoretical architecture for a molecular-level computing device which performs calculations or does work at a molecular level, which has been shown through computer simulations to function.
Re:If they are just connecting nano to micro... (Score:2)
I would assume that they could build the linking components out of molecular technology and see signifigant performance increases because the main bit pipelines would be super fast.
Greg
16 kilobits (Score:4)
Actually, 16 kilobits. That's some sweet power.
Fast forward, 2005. Buy one of these nano machines from Target. Buy copies of COMPUTE! NANO. Stay up till 3AM entering programs into it like this:
25,254,3,5,32,60,251,232:4A5D
...
Re:Why Patents Are Necessary (Score:1)
I guess what gets people so upset about patents is that they create inconveniences in the short term and benefit only in the long term. In the short term, you can't use something that's patented without paying (sometimes you can't use it at all), which is bad. It makes people upset when they know exactly how to do something but are restricted from doing it. However, the good done to the economy in the long term due to increased R&D outweighs the bad.
Patents directly help companies (through protections and licensing revenues) at the expense of the public (higher prices and less availability for patented items). You have to look past that, though, to see that the indirect effects of patents (increased money for R&D) benefit everyone.
Molecular-sized obstacles (Score:2)
A patent removed an obstacle? What are they smoking? Patents create obstacles.
The technology removed the obstacle, the patent ensures that everyone must bow down to HP and pay megabucks to compete in the new "molecular memory" market, unless they work around the patent. Companies probably will waste money working out an inferior way of doing it just to aviod paying license fees. Remind me again how patents are supposed to foster innovation and benefit the economy?
Re:DARPA paid for HP patent? (Score:2)
Second, why would HP invest ~half the money for this project if all there competitors could have the technoogy also, when they were finished with the research. The patent it their insentive.
And this brings me to my third point. I think that the government invests too little in research. This technology is a little far off, so it may not be economically feasible for a company to reasearch it alone. The government should fund more research.
If it still bothers you, think of it from HP's stockholders perspective if the government got the patent. It would be the same situation. Both organizations can't get the patent. So, the government, being the nice guy it is, decided to let HP have it.
Read the title too fast... (Score:1)
Re:The laws of physics always win in the end (Score:1)
Better say that the laws of physic will evolve in the end...
Look, some time ago, universe was flat, and a fire was the burning remnants of a poor soul...
That was (almost) physics law.
Today we dvelve in Nano scale, Matter that is considered Wave AND Particle !
go on, explain that this particle works like a Wave, then come back to me and repeat
"I don't know. It seems to work that way, lets do it so for now"
And in a few years a guy/girl/AI/Diney Exec/LSD addict will find a more precise model...
If tomorrow, somebody lets go of a new discovery (Beam Lithography on an industrial scale, fusion ina bun,...)physics laws will just change and adapt.
Just like a politician 8) Evolve to survive.
Re:tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:1)
Go Lance Armstrong!
Why Patents Are Necessary (Score:3)
Remind me again how patents are supposed to foster innovation and benefit the economy?
Sure thing. If you invented a device that cures cancer, patches the hole in the ozone layer, and cooks a juicy turkey in under 5 minutes, there's not a company in the world who would touch it if you didn't have a patent. The reason is that without a patent, the company would almost certainly *LOSE* money on the device. Getting a successful product to market requires not just the initial invention, but product development, packaging, market research, advertising, product placement, movie tie-ins, etc. Each of these things requires time, money, and people (i.e., money, money, and more money).
When company A finally releases the product, the list price is significantly higher than the manufacturing cost, because company A has to recoup the costs I just listed. However, if the technology isn't protected by a patent, then company B can come along and release an identical product for only slightly more than the manufacturing cost (since company B didn't have to do any of the ancillary work), undercutting company A and usurping all of the income for the product.
So without a patent, company A does all the work and company B gets all the profit. Clearly, company A isn't going to engage in this kind of business. However, if the invention is protected by a patent, then company B can't undercut company A's prices (or at least, company B has to pay company A for using the technology), so company A can make money by developing the technology. That's how patents foster innovation and benefit the economy.
Go Lance Armstrong!
Re:Not again.... (Score:1)
16K (Score:1)
pressure/grep
--------------------------------
Re:tremendous capacity beckons! (Score:2)
A new twist on an old joke... (Score:3)
:)
You guys don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:nanotechnology and genetic engineering are wron (Score:1)
I assume most of the genetically modified humans will also abuse their power to make sure they stay part of the upper class. History is full of this...
Yes, history is full of genetically modified humans trying to stay in power! I remember reading about that in school.
For example, Star Trek tells us about the eugenics wars of the 1990s. This was when Khan Singh (of "Space Seed" and "Star Trek II" fame) came to power. These people believed they were a race of supermen who deserved to rule the rest of us.
Of course, in later years, Star Trek revealed that the eugenics wars, also known as World War III, were actually so subtle that the average 1990s citizen wasn't aware they were going on until afterward. That's why most of you people never noticed them even though history is full of examples of genetically modified humans trying to oppress the rest of us.
Fight the power!
Great for the multinationals... (Score:1)
Frankly, I don't see this technology being within the budget of the common user for at least another 30 years. That leaves us with a serious problem: around twenty years of growing obsolescence. Add to that the problem that HD tech and processor technologies are fast reaching their particular dead ends as well, and that means we'll be in a computing backwater for much of the forseeable future.
Re:Great for the multinationals... (Score:1)
Re:nanotechnology and genetic engineering are wron (Score:1)
Cunt.
In the future/The "lost contact" scenario x 10000: (Score:2)
Oh SHIT, I dropped it!...
Nobody move!
Everybody help me look for it!"
:)
Moore's law is dead. (Score:1)
Moore's law is dead, if it ever was alive. Increased competition from AMD and Transmeta forced Intel off their 18-month schedule and kicked their asses until Intel finally got back into gear (hence the problems Intel faced for about a 1 1/2 years). Moore's law should actually be considered a side effect of the Intel monopolistic stranglehold on the PC market, instead of an actual Law.
Re:Moore's law is dead. (Score:1)
Same here... but I didn't say monopoly did I?
Care to explain, a bit more?
I said monopolistic because it is the way Intel behaves. Intel may not fit the established definition of a Monopoly, but then neither does Microsoft. They do however behave in a monopolistic fashion, attempting to create massive barriers to entry and crushing competitors out of existance (worse than MS).
Intel increased the barriers to entry into the x86 market, and controlled 95% of it for years through intense legal pressure. Read up on it, the story is fascinating. AMD is lucky to have survived, and are now thriving since they got their foot in the door. But the K5 processor should have been their breakout -- but Intel pushed frivolous lawsuits on them until the PII came out and the K5 was outdated, then they dropped the lawsuits.
However, since the USDOJ started hounding them they have been much better (still not saying much) at allowing competitors to exist. And since then the monopoly power they held has diminished. And thus, "Moore's Law" was also thrown out the window.
Clearer?
Vapourware or protection ? (Score:4)
Their 'patent' by the looks of it is being a protective measure in case someone else comes up with the idea and actually gets it to work - they estimate they will have a 16kb prototype in approx 4 years - in other words they have patented the theory that this may work but now one has actually physically made one yet - they are working on this but just in case someone else manages it HP will have the patent and thus are due a royalty on anmy product ?
Also one more comment - this is really nothing that unusual - patents like this are awarded all the time - yet this is getting some news covergae - the wording makes it sound at first glance like they have this thing working, only when you read it do you realise they dont.
Arent H P in some trouble at the moment - their profit is down and several of their divisions arent permforming and their stock price has fallen, their is talk of managment shuffles at the top. Could this be a bit of positive news to salve the market ahead of the realease of their financial data today ?
Re:Great for the multinationals... (Score:1)