I am not objecting to the term Direct Current, but "DC Architecture" is at best a misuse of the English language in the title of a press release. In fact, Pentadyne itself does not use the term "DC Architecture" anywhere on its website or claim a trademark for it. AMD does not use the term "DC Architecture" either, since it would be ambiguous with the common meaning of "DC." If AMD had a press release saying "AMD Uses Proprietary DC Architecture to Power Servers," you would object, as would I. It would imply that AMD invented direct current. Similarly, using DC Architecture in a sentence talking about Intel and Sun servers implies that Sun was now making Intel-CPU servers with Direct Connect Architecture. If a Pentadyne guy wrote this, it would be an honest mistake, but something tells me that the Intel Rep on this project, Pavan Kumar had something to do with writing the headline.
If you google "DC Architecture," every one of the handful of hits is on the following site: hightech.lbl.gov
But the term does not exist anyplace on Pentadyne's website as of now and there is no press release there or it has been withdrawn.
pentadyne.com
A presentation by Sun on the same demonstration is found here
hightech.lbl.gov
It does not show any involvement by Intel, nor should it -- the use of DC->DC conversion instead of AC->DC is CPU agnostic.
But Intel got involved, and according to this --
hightech.lbl.gov
they are providing "servers." Intel makes servers?
So there is obviously no trademark infringement, just a poorly-worded headline that does not make it clear whether "DC Architecture" means "Data Center Architecture," "Direct Connect Architecture," or "Direct Current Architecture."
Petz |
