View Full Version : Has Anyone Picked Up On This!!!!
Ghstmars
2005-01-08, 19:11
does anyone have any info on this
http://www.articasemi.com/
morpheus?
anyone care to comment, i think this is a big deal !!!!1
I think it has nothing to do with Apple directly, but may mean the rise of a new CHRP for other vendors.
I think it has nothing to do with Apple directly, but may mean the rise of a new CHRP for other vendors.
If it doesn't have anything to do with Apple, what the hell does this schematic mean? (http://www.articasemi.com/page1.html) Is it purely hypothetical? Do they want to get sued out of existence by Steve? Do they know something about PCI-express, hardware RAID, and DDR2 memory that we don't?
Gargoyle
2005-01-08, 19:47
What do I think???
1.) I think you should read the posting guidelines before you think up anymore thread titles
and
2.) I think that site is a load of bullshit!
Apparently they've been around for some time not to have released any products:
Domain Name: articasemi.com
Created on..............: 05 Dec 2002 10:53:15
Expires on..............: 05 Dec 2005 10:53:15
Registrant Info:
aRTiCA Semiconductor Inc.
Gary McMillian
7603 Midpark Court
Austin, TX 78750
US
Phone: 5124236872
Fax..:
Email: mcmillian@mindspring.com
Apparently Gary McMillian has been involved (http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2002-05/msg00613.html) with the IEEE.
It looks more and more like a shell site. No content, just a tidbit to generate rumors. I call vapor.
Gordon Pape
2005-01-08, 20:08
http://www.macintouch.com/g5reader06.html
Gary McMillian strikes again.
Messiahtosh
2005-01-08, 20:08
It (the website) was made in RapidWeaver.
I would know. ;)
Do they want to get sued out of existence by Steve?
What basis would "Steve" have for a lawsuit?
Do they know something about PCI-express, hardware RAID, and DDR2 memory that we don't?
well, they seem to know that the G5 doesn't have any of those, and that the U3 system controller dissipates a lot of power.
If it doesn't have anything to do with Apple, what the hell does this schematic mean?
it means that they're developing a system conroller which can work with the PPC970 processors.
SonOfSylvanus
2005-01-08, 21:39
It (the website) was made in RapidWeaver.
I would know. ;)
I was about to say ;)
Messiahtosh
2005-01-08, 21:44
Yeah, it's a good load of B.S.
Yeah, it's a good load of B.S.
Why do you say that?
What basis would "Steve" have for a lawsuit?The graphics hints to a "Apple Macintosh Modular System Architecture".
It's bogus, but the specs looks nice.
I've never heard of that. But it sounds like it could make for high speed, low power processors.
Messiahtosh
2005-01-08, 22:14
Why do you say that?Because the site was thrown together in RapidWeaver.
www.rapidweaver.com
Look, I'll give it a try, just for fun.
http://homepage.mac.com/rcpm/The%20Shit%20House/
See, took 3 minutes! :lol:
Because the site was thrown together in RapidWeaver.
www.rapidweaver.com
Look, I'll give it a try, just for fun.
http://homepage.mac.com/rcpm/The%20Shit%20House/
See, took 3 minutes! :lol: Wow. That app is easy. Now I'm gonna make a site about farts! (except I do not have .mac :grumble: )
EDIT: Just for the sake of this thread's topic, maybe this wiring or whatever it is will be implemented in the next powerbooks!
What basis would "Steve" have for a lawsuit?
Breach of confidentiality, if the schematic is real.
well, they seem to know that the G5 doesn't have any of those, and that the U3 system controller dissipates a lot of power.
it means that they're developing a system conroller which can work with the PPC970 processors.
As it is presented, however, that schematic is either a breach of Apple's trade secrets, or deeply misleading (it's presented as being real, not a hypothetical setup). It'd be illegal under Australian law — what about the US?
Breach of confidentiality, if the schematic is real.
Uh, first they'd have to publish Apple's proprietary information. What in that diagram fits that description?
As it is presented, however, that schematic is either a breach of Apple's trade secrets,
Again, what in that diagram is a "secret" of Apple's? Nothing that I can see.
(it's presented as being real, not a hypothetical setup). It'd be illegal under Australian law — what about the US?
It's a block diagram of something either proposed or under development. I can't see how that would be illegal.
Because the site was thrown together in RapidWeaver.
Suit yourself.
Question:
Uh, first they'd have to publish Apple's proprietary information. What in that diagram fits that description?
Again, what in that diagram is a "secret" of Apple's? Nothing that I can see.
Answer:
It's a block diagram of something either proposed or under development.
You answered yourself.
If it's under development or proposal, I *GUARANTEE* you it is under NDA, and is considered a trade secret.
So two scenarios: 1), it's bogus, 2) it's real and he violated an NDA. A contract. That's illegal.
Uh, first they'd have to publish Apple's proprietary information. What in that diagram fits that description?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The schematic is labelled as being the layout of an Apple Macintosh. If it is real, it clearly represents an unreleased product. Is this making sense yet?
In fact, they wouldn't even have to publish Apple's proprietary information to breach an NDA. That's the point of an NDA — it's a contract not to reveal, regardless of who owns the information.
Again, what in that diagram is a "secret" of Apple's? Nothing that I can see.
Again, they're making the claim that it is in use in an Apple product. The fact that it hasn't been released, if it is real, means that someone must have breached an NDA.
Of course, it could be total bull, or wishful thinking, in which case, there has been no breach of confidence. See below.
It's a block diagram of something either proposed or under development. I can't see how that would be illegal.
From the Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth), section 52:
(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
The implicit claim in the schematic is that the product is real. It labels the diagram "aRTiCA Semiconductor PowerPC™ SoC Application - Apple Macintosh™" (emphasis mine) NOT "potential application". And why the hell mention Apple at all if they don't have anything to do with it?
If the product isn't real as the schematic as presented argues, it's misleading and deceptive conduct subject to some pretty stiff legislative penalties, at least here in Australia. I'm sure that whoever administers US corporate law would be interested as well (SEC?)
edit: seems Kickaha got there first with the more lucid explanation. Figures.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The schematic is labelled as being the layout of an Apple Macintosh. If it is real, it clearly represents an unreleased product. Is this making sense yet?
But is it an APPLE product? just because they used it as an example doesn't mean Apple is actually planning on using it. If they are, then the hammer is likely to come down. If not, then there's no NDA to break. But I highly doubt that if 1) this thing is real, and 2) Apple is planning on using it, artica would be so stupid as to put the info up. We all remember what happened when ATi let word slip of new Macs a few years back.
:no:
Whether Apple plans on actually using it or not has ZERO bearing on whether or not the information is subject to being a trade secret and subject to being labeled proprietary under an NDA.
ZERO.
If he claims it is an Apple product plan, then either he's lying, or breaking NDA. Those are your only two options. Period. Any other possibility is strictly a delusion.
Whether Apple plans on actually using it or not has ZERO bearing on whether or not the information is subject to being a trade secret and subject to being labeled proprietary under an NDA.
And if this company is developing it independently of Apple? Then what trade secrets have they violated? It's quite common to develop a product, then offer it to potential customers.
Those are your only two options. Period. Any other possibility is strictly a delusion.
Option 3 is they're developing it on their own.
option 4 is that it doesn't exist at all.
In which case their claiming that it is an Apple Power Macintosh is a LIE.
See Option #1 I outlined above.
Really, you get #1 or #2, that's it. That's all. There is no third option.
Please, could you tell me where I was unclear about the OR in the middle of that sentence in the previous post? #1 OR #2. OR. If not #2, then it must be #1. If not #1, then it must be #2.
You now are stating that it was not #2. Therefore it must be #1.
Can we drop this thread now?
And if this company is developing it independently of Apple? Then what trade secrets have they violated? It's quite common to develop a product, then offer it to potential customers.
You need to get your head around the fact that there are two different things we're talking about here:
(1) breach of confidentiality: a common law action for revealing of trade secrets where the person who revealed the information was in a position of trust and ought to have known that releasing the information would harm the person it harmed. The elements are: information which was secret; imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party imparting it;
(2) breach of NDA: this is a contractual action for revealing something that the contract prohibits you from revealing. The reason they exist is that they are much broader in the scope of the protection they provide.
Even if you can't prove (1) here, it's highly unlikely that Apple does any business of this kind with anyone without an NDA as to the relationship with Apple.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.