Comment by sennight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sennight | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Oh boy, that memory bus... I'll get to that in a second. First, yes, IBM creates IP blocks that they then license. Maybe I'm weird, but I view that as software - and I also heartily dislike IP block shops. What makes matters worse is how IBM has an awful track record when it comes to these licenses - they somehow always pick a partner that ensures the tech seeing little to no use. For example, you mentioned their memory bus... guess how they did that: they licensed (or sold?) Centaur to a single party, Microchip, who lists[0] a single memory controller with no price and no apparent interest in actually selling the thing. Also, Synopsys - one of those fabless companies that I love so much, is somehow involved[1]... resulting in memory controller binary blobs. It is pretty awesome really, I don't think IBM could have more surely murdered their tech if they'd tried.

Now I'm pulling for them, I actually own a POWER9 machine. I think it is great that they want to get memory controllers out of the CPU - but they've done it in such a way that leads me to believe that it is an intentional sabotage, which would only happen if they genuinely had no interest in an active hardware role.

[0] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/PM8596

[1] https://github.com/open-power/ocmb-explorer-fw/blob/6570112a...

A while ago I came across a really cool technology I wanted to use. Turns out it was patented, and the patent was bought by IBM.

IBM had merged it into Watson, kept the acronym, but changed the words. Then they stopped making it available in any meaningful way.

I was so pissed. I’m sure my company would have paid out the nose for it.

I got the feeling it was a capture-and-kill situation.

They've got a hefty patent portfolio, but I can't think of a recent example of them using it to freeze everyone else out à la eInk. Of course, the barrier to entry into their market is so incredibly high that there would be only a small number of companies who'd actually be able to test that. The only instance of them really going after someone (over IP) that I can think of was in the 80s when Hitachi was pretty brazen in the way they were stealing source code. Very low effort, like: Step 1 - acquire from a subcontractor the entire source tree for IBM's current mainframe OS; Step 2 - sed s/IBM/Hitachi/g; Step 3 - package the OS with Hitachi mainframes sold in Japan. They got along famously though, after Hitachi lost the legal battle and started paying them a royalty for the rebadged OS.

IBM does have a reputation for buying competitors in very niche areas, like process planning software, and then not doing anything with them except maybe parting them out several years later. It looks suspicious, but I think that is more to do with the way they stick to hyper-specialized enterprise solutions... the pickings are naturally very slim.

> They've got a hefty patent portfolio, but I can't think of a recent example of them using it to freeze everyone else out à la eInk.

I work in the display industry. I've never heard that e-ink "freezes everyone else out" from colleagues, coworkers or even gossip at conferences. Surely, if this was true we would have heard about it. Could you elaborate on your claim and if you experienced this? Please see my comment history to see why I keep asking about this.

lol, I'm already familiar with you. I'm not really interested in generating billable hours for someone who behaves exactly as I'd expect a reputation management rep to. But I am curious to know if your script addresses this logical contradiction:

Electrophoretic display technology has a barrier to entry that can be vaulted by anyone capable of standing up a moderately sophisticated light industrial facility.

Electrophoretic display technology is so useful that E Ink Holdings Inc rationally leverages the legal protection of the USPO through a large number of patents to maximize profits.

Electrophoretic display technology is so useless that consumer demand is only able to support a small number of manufacturers (who are able to demand very high prices).

Ok, if that's what you want to believe then I can't change your mind. It is pretty clear to me that this is equivalent to me as a display guy claiming Microsoft is blocking progress in operating system development just because they have a lot of patents and they maximize profits. I hope it is clear that I think this is not a valid argument. Also, I'd encourage you to live up to the spirit of HN and try to provide evidence instead of being rude to people who challenge your claims.

> It is pretty clear to me that this is equivalent to me as a display guy claiming Microsoft is blocking progress in operating system development...

I'd need to have a very low opinion of a "display guy" to believe he was genuinely arguing in good faith, and in keeping with the spirit of HN (hallowed be its name), that the market forces an OS is subject to (like user training with regard to network effect) have any overlap with display hardware (which is unaffected by prior user uptake). Because anyone arguing that would have to be ignorant of both subjects... but why would such an ignorant person be so invested in white knighting a hardware company? Oh well, doesn't matter - my opinion was already arbitrarily settled upon for completely irrational reasons.

> a very low opinion of a "display guy

> HN (hallowed be its name

> white knighting

You clearly have very high opinions of yourself and your belief system. It is clear you are unwilling to respond with facts when simple questions challenge your claims and react with hostility. I don't think there's any beneficial discussion possible going forward. Best of luck in your endeavours.

> I think it is great that they want to get memory controllers out of the CPU

The trend is out of the CPU now? I was hoping they would instead start layering DRAM stacks on the CPU die.

The writing has been on the wall for a while when it comes the next major bottleneck. I'm surprised that Intel was able to keep their quad-core game running for as long as they did, but "chiplets" were obviously going to have to happen, which stresses IO. IBM solved that a long time ago - as demonstrated by the massive IO bandwidth on display for several hardware generations. POWER9 came in two flavors, one with on chip memory controllers and one with their traditional off die strategy. So definitely not new - but its always been very boutique and therefor very expensive. Their OMI proposal was supposed to change that - but it won't, given the awful way they've executed it. Anybody remember that time that IBM's PS/2 offering had a major positive impact on the industry and didn't lead to a mess of dead ends? Me neither... this will be like that.

It goes both ways.

HBM on the die is crazy high performance.

With a bus like CXL you could have a card full of memory chips that is shared by multiple CPUs. The z machines have a system like this it is just proprietary for them.

Memory that is less coupled to the CPU won't be as fast as HBM but you can have a lot more of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com