Comments on: IBM and Apple chip competitors? Not quite

Judge issuing preliminary injunction preventing Mark Papermaster from working at Apple believes the companies have competing chip businesses. Both work on chips, but it's not that simple.

[alegr]

Good luck IBM with finding technology executives. You will need it badly.

[The_Decider]

Apple is not a hardware company and IBM doesn't make phones.

The judge is clearly a moron.

These sorts of clauses need to be made illegal in all 50 states.

[iRhapsody]

"Apple is not a hardware company"

your statement is absolutely absurd. Perhaps your definition of Hardware Company is different from the norm. Designing and developing their own chips has already made it a hardware company.

[The_Decider]

Apple uses off the shelf hardware.

At best they are an OEM that has their own OS.

Intel is a hardware company, so is nvidia, ATI, ASUS, etc.

Apple is not.

[kgsbca]

Apple is most definitely a hardware company. They design all of their hardware. they may outsource manufacturing of their products, but so does every other CE and computer company.

Maybe you mean they aren't a semiconductor company, but even that is not true, as they design some of their own chips. They outsource the manufacture of their custom designed chips to silicon foundries, just like other chip vendors do. The big difference, however, is that Apple doesn't sell their chips to anyone else.

In fact, Apple is easily the best hardware company in the world. They combine their hardware with very desirable software. I'm not saying they're perfect (I could come up with a long list of changes), but they do a much better job on both ends than their competitors, which is why they are so dam* profitable.

[kgsbca]

p.s., but you're right about the judge. he is a moron. there is no direct or even indirect competition with IBM. I don't see how his decision will hold up in CA, which rarely allows non-competes like this one.

[esthon]

Hi, does anybody know what kind of architecture PA Semi was making chips? Was it ARM or POWER?

[blues_coup]

PA Semi was working on Power Architecture chips previously (see: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9926461-37.html?tag=mncol).

Though it seems rather unlikely that Apple would port it's 2-3 year old ARM version of the iPhone/iPod Touch OS to Power (see: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9965854-37.html?tag=mncol).

I tend to trust Tom, which is why I went back to cite those articles. It seems to me this is more about power wrangling on IBMs part, Apple stole one of it's higher ups and they aren't happy. Given the history though I would be extremely surprised if Apple was considering anything to do with the Power Architecture. I mean they only publicly went Intel 3.5 - 4 years ago, if I recall correctly. Just my two cents.

[Tom Krazit]

P.A. Semi made Power-based processors. The main one was the PWRficient processor, which had a somewhat limited use inside military hardware and things like that.

But it's been pretty clear that Apple is thinking ARM with its P.A. Semi people, based on a LinkedIn profile of a P.A. Semi engineer, a probable ARM architectural license acquired by Apple, and court documents filed in the Papermaster case that reveal IBM's Power license with P.A. Semi was amended after the company was acquired by Apple to prevent P.A. Semi from developing new lines of processors based on Power.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10041809-37.html?tag=mncol

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10002705-37.html?tag=mncol

And btw, Don Dobberpuhl, the founder of P.A. Semi, designed the old StrongARM processor, a derivative of the ARM architecture.

[esthon]

If "it seems rather unlikely that Apple would port it's 2-3 year old ARM version of the iPhone/iPod Touch OS to Power", why didn't Apple buy a ARM maker instead of a Power maker?

[Tom Krazit]

P.A. Semi's main expertise was power-management technologies, which can be applicable across multiple architectures. Also, ARM companies aren't really for sale (TI, Samsung are the best of the biggies). Apple could have conceivably bought Freescale or Marvell, but both those companies come with a lot of stuff Apple doesn't really need. P.A. Semi was a small well-respected private shop based down the street from Cupertino with a solid team of engineers that Apple could put to work on an important project.

If Apple was to port back to Power, as well, all those iPhone applications would have to be redeveloped, and for no real solid reason: it doesn't seem that anybody has chosen to use Power in a smartphone.

[mbenedict]

The notion that Apple will continue with ARM instead of Power, if anything, *strengthen* IBM's non-compete arguments. Papermaster presumably knows much about IBM's proprietary Power R&D efforts, and he might influence Apple's ARM-based designs based on those.

IBM invested a lot of effort to make PowerPC work in embedded systems. Their 4xx series even had a version specifically targeted for cellphones, PDAs and similar applications (e.g., the PowerPC 405LP). AMCC has subsequently bought the 4xx business, but IBM still owns much of the IP and continues to develop the Power architecture.

In any case iPhone is just *one* area where Apple might overlap Power-based businesses. For example, there are set-top boxes with PowerPC SoC, which competes with the AppleTV. There are wireless routers using PowerPC, which competes with AirPort. Etc.

Not to mention that Apple might enter the IC business itself. Ie still don't know why Apple purchased all of P.A. Semi -- instead of just hiring some key engineering employees and/or licensing IPs. What are those P.A Semi sales guys doing at Apple these days? Selling MacBooks?

[crue24]

I don't know enough about non-competes to say they should be banned, but this sounds like IBM is really stretching it on this one. All the major R&D players, (IBM, HP, Microsoft, etc.), have engineers coming up with just about anything you can think of. To say that this guy is violating his non-compete because of a product they might get into is ridiculous. Based on that, this guy couldn't get a job anywhere in the tech industry. If they had even 5 or 10% of the smart phone processor business, fine, but they have nill and that seems to be their argument just because their processor has the potential to be used in smart phones and supposedly they want to get into that business. They can't claim this guy is having a material impact on a business that doesn't even exist yet. And somehow I doubt IBM really wants to get into that field in the first place. They make their money in the enterprise where the margins are much better. I don't see them spending tons of money trying to get into smartphone processors.

[hardmanb]

Apple has always focused sharply on their own strategic plans for the future...which do not include directly competing with IBM. IBM, reorganized and refocused on corporate services and products. has no intention of competing directly with Apple in consumer electronics, or design of ARM chips.

Then what is IBM's problem? The most likely answer is to enforce their comprehensive (some say overbroad) non-compete agreement, to control upper management.

This whole problem could be solved in negotiation...and probably will. It would save face on both sides, and a modified non-compete could leave IBM with its executive agreements intact and untested in court. After all, long before it reaches trial, the one year restriction in Papermaster's contract will have expired, and the legal issues will have become moot.

[jragosta]

There's a lot of misunderstanding here. The court didn't rule that IBM WOULD be irreparably harmed by this guy joining Apple. Instead, they ruled that IBM had shown that the harm would be irreparable IF IBM WINS THE CASE and therefore, IBM is entitled to keep him from joining Apple until the case is settled.

This is only round one.