Jump to content

Talk:Seagate Technology/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Seagate Technology PLC is an American data storage company?

What does it take to earn the label "American?" Didn't this company originate in Ireland? And how relevant is such a nationalist label in our increasingly globalized economy?Landroo (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seagate originated in Scotts Valley, California USA, and until recently had its operating headquarters there but has now relocated to Cupertino, CA USA and may even move to Fremont, CA USA. It's place of incorporation has moved from time to time, apparently for tax purposes, but it is no more an Irish company due to its current place of incorporation than it was a Cayman's company in its previous incorporation. Tom94022 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

AAM not available

Due to patents AAM is not available in any (!) of seagate drives. They don't have a license from "http://www.convolve.com/" so they can't use their efficient alghorithm to speed up and silence the drives. It's worth mentioning as they can't really compete with other companies and the market is quite distorted because of that, especially in the notebook sector. 151.61.24.234 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this commercial bullshit? Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Acoustic_Management say the exact opposite? Quote: "in effect, sacrificing performance for quieter operation" This does sound like competitor/Convolve spam. Either clarify or get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.55.89 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The AAM entry is added. Anyway, the suit was filed as early as 2000, way before Seagate started removing AAM from its products. --Jacob Poon (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The section Seagate_Technology#Automatic_acoustic_management_and_Convolve_lawsuit reads like a Convolve lawyers brief and to my eyes is both POV and TMI. Apparently Convolve has sued a number of companies such as Dell, Compaq, Western Digital, HGST, but this is the only article that mentions this lawsuit (TMI). Patent litigation is quite common in high tech industries so what is it about this lawsuit that merits mention (TMI) over the many others that come and go? As I read the biased material it appears to me that a number of the claims have been denied and Seagate has basically worked around the remaining claims leaving perhaps the only issue the amount of damages if any, but you don't get that sense in the article (POV and TMI). Nor do you get Seagate's position, "The Company believes the claims are without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously. " My recommendation is to strike it in its entirety. Tom94022 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If there is lawyer brief involved, that's because it is about a lawsuit. It is not like someone claiming a lawsuit that has never taken place. If you believe the coverage is biased because other similar lawsuits didn't gain any attentions, deleting existing information over the lawsuit isn't going to help restore balance. In any case, the lawsuit coverage does mention a number of claims against Seagate have been dismissed and/or expired. 142.150.48.206 (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As I read the biased material it appears to me that a number of the claims have been denied and Seagate has basically worked around the remaining claims leaving perhaps the only issue the amount of damages if any, but you don't get that sense in the article (POV and TMI). Nor do you get Seagate's position, "The Company believes the claims are without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously. Tom94022 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What Seagate believes about the case is irrelevant. That's the standard response you would expect from a defendant party. In any case, Seagate was convicted for violating Convolve's patent, along with Dell Inc., Western Digital Corp. and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc.[1] -- 142.150.48.218 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The decision you reference did not involve Seagate. Seagate has been found to not infringe either patent and that was sustained on appeal for one patent and remanded for retrial on the second patent US Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, July 1, 2013. So until the case is determined the article should present both sides. BTW, the award in the Dell et al case was so small as to make the whole matter not notable. Tom94022 (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pocket hard drives

The timeline section of the article says that Seagate's pocket hard drive debuted "somewhere near the beginning of" 2005. Well, checking their news releases, the drives were unveiled in June 2004 [2], shipped in the US in October [3], became available in stores in Australia and Europe in December [4] [5], and were in stores in Japan in April 2005 [6]. Well, I didn't read the news releases themselves, but the titles look like they say this, at least. :P So, uh, what should the article say? --Peng 04:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CNN source

Lots of interesting material here to draw from: http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/30/magazines/fortune/obrienseagate.fortune/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooperbloob (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

This page has been restored from a previous edit from the same IP address. For those that may be interested, this is an IP for a school. (Thus explaining a large amount of vandalism orginating from the IP.) I apologize for any inconvenience that any students here may cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.244.174 (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In late December 2009, a section regarding recent problems regarding Seagate expansion drives has been deleted, despite the fact that the sources are serious, coming from hundreds of consumers on Seagate's own forums and acknowledged by a serious online PC magazine. Please monitor the current thread to avoid vandalism and deletion of objective information about a product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.54.242 (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars

Ha! You make me laugh. Edit wars over content on a Wikipedia article. Why don't you stop cencoring Seagate Technology? It baffles me over your stupidty. Thank you. 152.31.193.38 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the content is being censored, you'll need to defend your case. See dispute resolution. See also no personal attacks. Accusing other contributors of "stupidty" may lead to your IP being blocked from contributing, which will not help you make your case for the inclusion of the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Explain where I can take it, hun? 152.31.193.80 (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Q: Explain where I can take it, hun?
A: See dispute resolution (from the post you replied to... you will need to click on link yourself, however...) TFOWR 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential WSJ resource

Convolve lawsuit section

As I stated in the AAM not available talk section above, it appears to me that the main article section Automatic acoustic management and Convolve lawsuit is not neutral. I now also agree with Widefox (talk) that main article section lends undue weight to a minor issue now settled. Accordingly, unless there are objections, my proposal is to remove the entire section. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seagate_Technology/Archives/2013&oldid=746177408"