I am not surprised by this. This is a reflection of IBM's difficulty in ramping 90 nm yields as originally promised to Apple in 2002/2003. Foundry fabs, like the E Fishkill facility, are going to have a much more difficult time getting low-volume, high end parts like the low-power G5 out the door because of the special OPC problems arising on each special part.
Intel, on the other hand, has an easier time, becasue they deal with a few high-volume parts. Their "copy exactly" strategy is based upon this. Apple is therefore going to be afforded less distinguishing features on its chipsets, and this will eventually hurt it.
I would guess that IBM is more hurt than it seems form the NYTimes article. Prestige counts for a lot in ths business, and IBM's other customers were initially attracted to this prestige.
I'd like to comment on the following statement made by Candidate Cobb, quoting the Green Party platform:
"...Mathematical algorithms are discovered, not invented, by humans; therefore, they are not patentable. The overwhelming majority of software patents cover algorithms and should never have been awarded, or they cover message formats of some kind, which are essentially arbitrary. Format patents only exist to restrain competition, and the harm falls disproportionately on programmers who work independently or for the smallest employers."
Anyone who has ever applied for a patent in software knows that you cannot patent a mathematical algorithm. Yes, a mathematical formula is considered a part of nature. Nevertheless, it is legal, and right, to patent the IMPLEMENTATION of said algorithm into computer code. Again, anyone who has done work here knows that there is a major difference between deriving an equation, and writing robust code to generate its solution.
By the way, what is the difference between a "discovery" and an "invention"? Did we discover DVD players, or invent them? Would the Green party care to define this? It all sounds great to appeal to the earthy-crunchies, but it gets real messy when you actually try it out.
Also, many small companies benefit from such a system, although I will admit that the largest companies do take advantage. But remember, there are many algorithms, only a tiny fraction of whose implementations have been patented; more of them are kept as trade secrets (preferable to small companies), and countless others not yet invented. Or discovered, like my TV.
Perhaps the Green Party could use a lobbyist from the technology industry to explain this stuff to them so they don't sound so clueless next time.
In this poster, they discuss this topic precisely, including Abel's theorem. One of the readers was correct: although Abel proved impossibility of solution for polynomials higher than degree 5 IN TERMS OF ROOTS AND OTHER ALGEBRAIC ENTITIES, there is nothing ruling out a solution in terms of, say, hypergeometrics. This is precisely what they do, and there's a nice development of this using power series. So, although I didn't get to read the PDF, it seems from the posts here that this is what the student did. Thus, no big deal.
That said, I salute the student for figuring this out on his own, and he shouldn't be discouraged by discovering something that is not new.
Slashdot Mirror
See S. Rushdie, "The Satanic Verses". I'd pay $10 to see a movie version of that.
I am not surprised by this. This is a reflection of IBM's difficulty in ramping 90 nm yields as originally promised to Apple in 2002/2003. Foundry fabs, like the E Fishkill facility, are going to have a much more difficult time getting low-volume, high end parts like the low-power G5 out the door because of the special OPC problems arising on each special part. Intel, on the other hand, has an easier time, becasue they deal with a few high-volume parts. Their "copy exactly" strategy is based upon this. Apple is therefore going to be afforded less distinguishing features on its chipsets, and this will eventually hurt it. I would guess that IBM is more hurt than it seems form the NYTimes article. Prestige counts for a lot in ths business, and IBM's other customers were initially attracted to this prestige.
I'd like to comment on the following statement made by Candidate Cobb, quoting the Green Party platform: "...Mathematical algorithms are discovered, not invented, by humans; therefore, they are not patentable. The overwhelming majority of software patents cover algorithms and should never have been awarded, or they cover message formats of some kind, which are essentially arbitrary. Format patents only exist to restrain competition, and the harm falls disproportionately on programmers who work independently or for the smallest employers." Anyone who has ever applied for a patent in software knows that you cannot patent a mathematical algorithm. Yes, a mathematical formula is considered a part of nature. Nevertheless, it is legal, and right, to patent the IMPLEMENTATION of said algorithm into computer code. Again, anyone who has done work here knows that there is a major difference between deriving an equation, and writing robust code to generate its solution. By the way, what is the difference between a "discovery" and an "invention"? Did we discover DVD players, or invent them? Would the Green party care to define this? It all sounds great to appeal to the earthy-crunchies, but it gets real messy when you actually try it out. Also, many small companies benefit from such a system, although I will admit that the largest companies do take advantage. But remember, there are many algorithms, only a tiny fraction of whose implementations have been patented; more of them are kept as trade secrets (preferable to small companies), and countless others not yet invented. Or discovered, like my TV. Perhaps the Green Party could use a lobbyist from the technology industry to explain this stuff to them so they don't sound so clueless next time.
In this poster, they discuss this topic precisely, including Abel's theorem. One of the readers was correct: although Abel proved impossibility of solution for polynomials higher than degree 5 IN TERMS OF ROOTS AND OTHER ALGEBRAIC ENTITIES, there is nothing ruling out a solution in terms of, say, hypergeometrics. This is precisely what they do, and there's a nice development of this using power series. So, although I didn't get to read the PDF, it seems from the posts here that this is what the student did. Thus, no big deal. That said, I salute the student for figuring this out on his own, and he shouldn't be discouraged by discovering something that is not new.