So that should mean that NVDIMM DDR4 should be out at least by end of the 1st half of 2015, and I'd guess it has design features developed with collaboration with Microsoft.
NVDIMM, DDR4 coming out early next year, per the September Hallum conference..
Now let’s talk about HyperVault. HyperVault is a brand new technology. Actually we’ll be shipping it about this time next year. (Sept/Oct 2015) We take that HyperCloud memory technology, we mirror it with our vault technology, hybrid memory. We merge them together. You can picture this as an NVDIMM on steroids, right? So imagine that instead of going out to your hard disk, you really have a hard disk running at memory speeds in the memory channel, in SSD. We’re talking about a terabyte of Flash, with 16 gig of RAM in each memory socket. You can really reduce your total memory count, DRAM count, which greatly saves you a lot of money, and you can do a lot more work with each server.
So we make three products in that area. We sell two of these today. So we sell our ExpressVault, which is part of our Vault family, that’s a PCI card.(EV-3 due this month) So you remember what Fusion IO did, when they invented the PCIe SSD market years ago. We have a product that works in the same fashion there but very fast in its ability to write because we write to DRAM. We take that same technology and move it to the memory bus directly with an NVDIMM. And that’s selling today. We make 2 gig, 4 gig, just came out with 8 gig versions of that. In DDR3. DDR4 coming out early next year. And then we go, we put that on steroids and we call that HyperVault and that will be out in about this time next year (Sept/Oct). And that’s a complete game changer.
Today it takes about $10,000 to put a terabyte of RAM into a server. About $10,000. You can probably soon, we think, with our HyperVault product, replace that with about $500 of Flash. So tremendous opportunity to reduce overall capital costs as well as power costs because you can reduce your server count.
czuckrey, the Judge has given herself the option to keep the injunction in place. She referenced Rule 62.1 (a)(3), which gives her this option... seeing as she is also presiding over the patent case, there is a chance she could, they begin the process April 3rd and the hearing is on the 10th.
The custom designed HyperVault for the mobile phone is going silicon in a couple months. I believe that is separate from the main HyperVault that they guided for Sept/Oct 2015?
The Judge could have granted the motion to dissolve the injunction already. That was one of her options. She instead opted to point out that her pre-trial judgment differed from the jury verdict and that the motion to dissolve the injunction raises a substantial issue, which means the decision on the temporary stay is pending her answer.
The market for 2015 is about $400M, I guess some of that comes later in the year.
A temporary stay, it was sent back to district court, rule 62.1 gives her the option to keep the injunction in place after she indicated "motion (to dissolve injunction) raises a substantial issue" Proceedings will help determine the matter.
I'd say pending final appeal/decision, that might be shuttled to re-exams at the USPTO.
Patent trials will incorporate expert testimony to spell it out to the jury.
SNIA tweet from Jan 20th, 2015 at SNIA conference. The NVDIMM SIG is a member community under the SNIA and the Solid State Storage Initiative
Absolutely, a jury can be influenced by a lot of minor issues unrelated to the law.
NV-DIMMS have been around for several years, all of Netlist competitors in NV-DIMM have only combined to ship 25,000 pieces vs. Netlist 500,000 since their inception. The market has been slow to catch on, but if you follow SNIA on twitter, you can see Microsoft's presentation from January where they indicate NV-DIMMS as being part of the future: "What's next? The Cloud marches on" Microsoft shares vision of #cloud evolution at @SNIA #nvmsummit. #nvmexpress #nvdimms #smrhdds and more!
Some patents run to the end of the road of patent re-exams, as we have seen with IPHI, and some are protected from patent re-exams as we have seen with SanDisk/SmartMOD.
The Judge already commented on her pre-trial disagreement with the jury verdict, she indicated she would propose "the motion (to dissolve the injunction) raises a substantial issue', which would lead to proceedings where she still has the option of maintaining the injunction. April 10th.
Reminder of rule 62.1 that Judge referenced:
Often it will be wise for the district court to determine whether it in fact would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose. But a motion may present complex issues that require extensive litigation and that may either be mooted or be presented in a different context by decision of the issues raised on appeal. In such circumstances the district court may prefer to state that 'the motion raises a substantial issue', and to state the reasons why it prefers to decide ONLY if the court of appeals agrees that it would be useful to decide the motion BEFORE decision of the pending appeal. The distrcit court is not bound to grant the motion after stating that 'the motion raises a substantial issue'; further proceedings on remand may show that the motion ought not to be granted