HP Memristor prospects
I had an e-mail from Blaise Mouttet re the notion that the memristor could be an important part of any HP recovery. Here it is:-
In your story last month "Flashboys: HEELLLP, we're trapped in a process size shrink crunch" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/12/nand_shrink_trap/] it was commented by Bennet that "If it works who cares?" in spite of the fact that the memristor models appear wrong. Imagine if Violin Memory tried to manufacture flash memory arrays using incorrect models of transistors. Somehow I don't think that would work out too well for product development. In engineering good models are required to manufacture reliable products. The fact that Bennet does not understand this point is illustrative of either his incompetence or his inability to grasp what the "memristor" argument is really about.
Regarding the comment by Gartner's [Valdis] Filks that the memristor could represent the saving of HP this is probably based on a misunderstanding of HP's patent position. Samsung owns the patent for the TiO2 device HP originally claimed to be a memristor (see US Patent 7417271 - http://www.google.com/patents/US7417271). HP does not have a basic patent for metal oxide ReRAM and most of the metal oxide ReRAM patents are held by other companies (Unity Semiconductor, Panasonic, Sharp, Samsung). Meanwhile Stan Williams basic memristor patent (application 11/542,986 filed in 2006 -http://www.google.com/patents/US20080090337?dq=electrically+actuated+switch+williams&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FOqTULHMDNDU0gG804CwDw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg) has been repeatedly rejected by the US patent office and Hynix's relevant patents are almost completely devoted to phase change memory based on chalcogenide materials rather than the metal oxide ReRAM which HP claims to be a memristor. How exactly does the memristor represent the "saving of HP" if they don't have any fundamental patents and their alleged manufacturing partner is devoted to a different technology?
Is HP delusional over its memristor technology and IP?