# NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Patent Infringement



## Cristian_25H (Sep 4, 2014)

NVIDIA today announced that it has filed complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm at the International Trade Commission and in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, alleging that the companies are both infringing NVIDIA GPU patents covering technology including programmable shading, unified shaders and multithreaded parallel processing.

The identified Samsung products include the Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S4 mobile phones; and the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro and Galaxy Tab 2 computer tablets. Most of these devices incorporate Qualcomm mobile processors -- including the Snapdragon S4, 400, 600, 800, 801 and 805. Others are powered by Samsung Exynos mobile chips, which incorporate ARM's Mali and Imagination Technologies' PowerVR GPU cores.



NVIDIA co-founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said: "As the world leader in visual computing, NVIDIA has invented technologies that are vital to mobile computing. We have the richest portfolio of computer graphics IP in the world, with 7,000 patents granted and pending, produced by the industry's best graphics engineers and backed by more than $9 billion in R&D.

"Our patented GPU inventions provide significant value to mobile devices. Samsung and Qualcomm have chosen to use these in their products without a license from us. We are asking the courts to determine infringement of NVIDIA's GPU patents by all graphics architectures used in Samsung's mobile products and to establish their licensing value."

A pioneer in computer graphics, NVIDIA invented the GPU. The graphics processing unit enables computers to generate and display images. It brings to life the beautiful graphics that shape how people enjoy their mobile devices and is fundamental to the rise of mobile computing. NVIDIA GPUs are some of the most complex processors ever created, requiring over a thousand engineering-years to create and containing more than 7 billion transistors.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 4, 2014)

I don't like patent trolling but somehow I feel torn on this one.  If NV are asking for a fee for use of it's IP, then that's fair enough.  Is it?

I mean, if Samsung and Qualcomm are using NV patents without licence it should be clear cut.  It's not as if it's based on concepts is it?  Like Apple suing for having a feature loosely described in it's patent cases.


----------



## Cheeseball (Sep 4, 2014)

They should be complaining about Qualcomm only since they are the ones who are making the SoC with the GPUs in question (Adreno, which is basically ATI/AMD's Radeon [anagram!] HD 5000 series on mobile).


----------



## Kaotik (Sep 4, 2014)

Cheeseball said:


> They should be complaining about Qualcomm only since they are the ones who are making the SoC with the GPUs in question (Adreno, which is basically ATI/AMD's Radeon [anagram!] HD 5000 series on mobile).


Adreno is nothing like Radeon HD -series.
First Adreno, Adreno 200, was also known as AMD Z430. Most similar AMD/ATI GPU to that was Xenos in XB360, but even that isn't that close. Sure, it's unified shaders etc, but that's about it.
Since Adreno 200, all Adrenos have been developed in-house by Qualcomm (by ex-AMD/ATI/BitBoys people who they aquired with the Imageon tech etc) and every iteration has pushed them further and further away from Z430 roots


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 4, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> I don't like patent trolling but somehow I feel torn on this one.  If NV are asking for a fee for use of it's IP, then that's fair enough.  Is it?
> I mean, if Samsung and Qualcomm are using NV patents without licence it should be clear cut.  It's not as if it's based on concepts is it?  Like Apple suing for having a feature loosely described in it's patent cases.


If this were Apple, they'd be screaming for an injunction to stop Samsung's sales.
EDIT: Seems Nvidia are too!


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 4, 2014)

Another patent troll


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 4, 2014)

I don't see nVidia being a patent troll here at all.  They aren't throwing around injunctions to stop Samsung/Qualcomm from selling their products.  They aren't asking for insane amounts of money.  What they are doing is asking the courts to decide if the patents are being infringed and if so having the courts decide proper licencing fees.  This is exactly how patents should work and how patent disputes should be handled.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 4, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> Another patent troll


The company don't have a record of initiating frivolous or frequent litigation. Their last suit was against Intel. The previous suits of note (against SGI and 3Dfx) would have resulted in judgements in their favour - both SGI and 3Dfx transferred IP in lieu of damages - in SGI's case, their whole pro graphics program which launched Nvidia's Quadro brand.


----------



## Maban (Sep 4, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> They aren't throwing around injunctions to stop Samsung/Qualcomm from selling their products.


"We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures." http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/04/nvidia-launches-patent-suits/

For those wondering the patents in question are:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6198488
http://www.google.com/patents/US6992667
http://www.google.com/patents/US7038685
http://www.google.com/patents/US7015913
http://www.google.com/patents/US6697063
http://www.google.com/patents/US7209140
http://www.google.com/patents/US6690372

"In particular, the Accused Products infringe claims 1, 19 and 20 of the ʼ488 Patent; claims 1-29 of the ʼ667 Patent; claims 1-5, 7-19, 21-23, 25-30, 34-36, 38, 41-43 of the ʼ685 Patent; claims 5-8, 10, 12-20 and 24-27 of the ʼ913 Patent; claims 7, 8, 11-13, 16-21, 23, 24, 28 and 29 of the ʼ063 Patent; claims 1-7, 8-10, 12 and 14 of the ʼ140 Patent; and claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-25 of the ʼ372 Patent"
http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=2996&SizeId=-1&SizeID=-1


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2014)

Our products aren't selling well 
Quick lets sue the competition


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

Everyone should and will be happy once nvidia goes bankrupt.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 5, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> Our products aren't selling well Quick lets sue the competition





Sony Xperia S said:


> Everyone should and will be happy once nvidia goes bankrupt.



You guys keep backing the wrong horse, and the endless tears are hilarious.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 5, 2014)

Fluffmeister said:


> You guys keep backing the wrong horse, and the endless tears are hilarious.


 In this one case Nvidia is sucking hind teat on mobile, their last chips were flops, and the new one is barely becoming available and already outclassed by competition, so yeah I see this as a BS move to try and hold up the competition and gain market foothold, not sure it will work, since Nvidia is like #1589 in companies VS Samsung at a meager #22.


----------



## XL-R8R (Sep 5, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't see nVidia being a patent troll here at all.  They aren't throwing around injunctions to stop Samsung/Qualcomm from selling their products.  They aren't asking for insane amounts of money.  What they are doing is asking the courts to decide if the patents are being infringed and if so having the courts decide proper licencing fees.  This is exactly how patents should work and how patent disputes should be handled.



I think this is one of the better* comments in here.


Theres a lot of fans, trolls and flame jugglers to be found already.... this thread may be cause for some special mod attention in the future lol



*special mention and thanks for @the54thvoid for being on point and level headed and @Maban for researching, in-depth, what the patents/IP was all about.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 5, 2014)

Lol they just asked the ITC to stop shipments of all phones without Tegra cpu...
Sure that sounds reasonable.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

Patriot said:


> Lol they just asked the ITC to stop shipments of all phones without Tegra cpu...
> Sure that sounds reasonable.


And you think Samsung represents all  PowerVR phone and tablet sales? Did you forget about all the other PowerVR graphics core SoC users like Apple ? like MediaTek? like Intel ? like Allwinner? like Texas Instruments ? like Amazon ? like HTC ? like Sony? like Microsoft/Nokia ? like Google/Motorola ? like a pretty long list of other vendors?
At least four of the members of that list (and probably more if I could be arsed to check) have pretty extensive licensing agreements with Nvidia - maybe that's why they aren't listed in the complaint


----------



## Patriot (Sep 5, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> And you think Samsung represents all  PowerVR phone and tablet sales? Did you forget about all the other PowerVR graphics core SoC users like Apple ? like MediaTek? like Intel ? like Allwinner? like Texas Instruments ? like Amazon ? like HTC ? like Sony? like Microsoft/Nokia ? like Google/Motorola ? like a pretty long list of other vendors?
> At least four of the members of that list (and probably more if I could be arsed to check) have pretty extensive licensing agreements with Nvidia - maybe that's why they aren't listed in the complaint



Read that statement wrong...  
Carried that And .... Samsung phones and phones with those components...   
They might have agreements with the others... but samsung is the big fish... if they get an agreement out of them they can settle out of court with the smaller fishes.
If they attack all at once they seem more the patent troll.


----------



## dwade (Sep 5, 2014)

What isn't Samsung stealing anyways. They should offer their services to other companies.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 5, 2014)

Steevo said:


> In this one case Nvidia is sucking hind teat on mobile, their last chips were flops, and the new one is barely becoming available and already outclassed by competition, so yeah I see this as a BS move to try and hold up the competition and gain market foothold, not sure it will work, since Nvidia is like #1589 in companies VS Samsung at a meager #22.



That's all just swell, but none of it changes the fact the girls I responded too keep backing the wrong horse.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 5, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> And you think Samsung represents all  PowerVR phone and tablet sales? Did you forget about all the other PowerVR graphics core SoC users like Apple ? like MediaTek? like Intel ? like Allwinner? like Texas Instruments ? like Amazon ? like HTC ? like Sony? like Microsoft/Nokia ? like Google/Motorola ? like a pretty long list of other vendors?
> At least four of the members of that list (and probably more if I could be arsed to check) have pretty extensive licensing agreements with Nvidia - maybe that's why they aren't listed in the complaint


http://www.techpowerup.com/185891/nvidia-to-license-its-gpu-ip-la-arm-and-powervr.html


Nvidia is going after end users, when Imagination Technologies is the company Apple, Samsung, and others are licensing the patents from, and if infringement is happening Imagination should be held up here, so again, Nvidia is butthurt over the lack of adoption of their mobile chips, and want to try and force their way into the market.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2014)

Steevo said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/185891/nvidia-to-license-its-gpu-ip-la-arm-and-powervr.html
> 
> 
> Nvidia is going after end users, when Imagination Technologies is the company Apple, Samsung, and others are licensing the patents from, and if infringement is happening Imagination should be held up here, so again, Nvidia is butthurt over the lack of adoption of their mobile chips, and want to try and force their way into the market.



This is exactly my point if a SoC maker is infringing you go after them.

Remember when companies used to make something better to beat their competition instead of abusing the clueless draconian patent system.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Sep 5, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> Remember when companies used to make something better to beat their competition instead of abusing the clueless draconian patent system.



Right, because if someone copies your implementation of a technology thus eliminating your chance to recoup the money you invested in R&D, the best option is for you to go bankrupt attempting to develop an even better technology that will also be copied and thus never recoup its R&D costs.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Nvidia is going after end users, when Imagination Technologies is the company Apple, Samsung, and others are licensing the patents from, and if infringement is happening Imagination should be held up here, so again, Nvidia is butthurt over the lack of adoption of their mobile chips, and want to try and force their way into the market.


That almost makes sense in isolation, except if you'll  note that Mali is ARM not Imagination Tech. If this affects Imagination as the IP license originator, then the same must be true for ARM Holding's since Mali is their design. The actual case seems to be* semi-custom architectural licensing for modification* since ARM's other Mali's variants that aren't Samsung and licensed to the companies I noted (MediaTek, Rockchip, Allwinner etc.) aren't covered in the suit.


The Von Matrices said:


> Right, because if someone copies your implementation of a technology thus eliminating your chance to recoup the money you invested in R&D, the best option is for you to go bankrupt attempting to develop an even better technology that also be copied and thus never recoup its R&D costs.


The WHOLE Japanese electronics industry is based upon the Japanese Government's refusal to recognise U.S. and International patents and the whole protectionism racket that was JECC. Companies like T.I. and Motorola got reamed for years thanks to government sanctioned IP theft.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2014)

The Von Matrices said:


> Right, because if someone copies your implementation of a technology thus eliminating your chance to recoup the money you invested in R&D, the best option is for you to go bankrupt attempting to develop an even better technology that will also be copied and thus never recoup its R&D costs.



The problem isn't the idea of patents , Its the fact that the patent office has no understanding of the technology they are issuing patents for, so a lot of these tech patents should have never been issued in the first place.

Example, Slide to unlock.

I'm not saying that's the case here but it is all too common.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2014)

Maban said:


> "We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures." http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/04/nvidia-launches-patent-suits/



I'm not saying they aren't trying to block the sales until the suit is settled, that is standard practice.  My point was they aren't throwing multiple injunctions around, like a traditional patent troll.  Normally a patent troll files sales injunctions in a shotgun pattern, in hopes that at least one will get through.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 5, 2014)

Nv is green=envy/greed. Samsung will counter sue like they did with Apple


----------



## Sempron Guy (Sep 5, 2014)

how would this affect nvidia using samsung mem chips for their gpus?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Nv is green=envy/greed. Samsung will counter sue like they did with Apple


Pretty standard practice across the industry - Apple and Motorola have the same thing in play at the moment. Like injunctive relief it's a bargaining chip, since neither side want the case to go the distance just in case the verdict sets an uncomfortable precedent, and of course the posturing is basically setting the ante for the game.
Samsung's willingness to fight is pretty well known, and Qualcomm can just add Nvidia to the list that includes ParkerVision, Adaptix, and Bandspeed


Sempron Guy said:


> how would this affect nvidia using samsung mem chips for their gpus?


Probably wouldn't. The contract would be between Samsung and the reference board builder (Hon Hai (Foxconn)) and the individual AIB's.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 5, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> That almost makes sense in isolation, except if you'll  note that Mali is ARM not Imagination Tech. If this affects Imagination as the IP license originator, then the same must be true for ARM Holding's since Mali is their design. The actual case seems to be* semi-custom architectural licensing for modification* since ARM's other Mali's variants that aren't Samsung and licensed to the companies I noted (MediaTek, Rockchip, Allwinner etc.) aren't covered in the suit.
> 
> The WHOLE Japanese electronics industry is based upon the Japanese Government's refusal to recognise U.S. and International patents and the whole protectionism racket that was JECC. Companies like T.I. and Motorola got reamed for years thanks to government sanctioned IP theft.




It involves ALL of them since they are named in the injunction, my comment still stands, semi-custom architectural means nothing as Samsung only specify what baseband, memory, speeds, and specific add on's to a complete package they use. 


http://www.phonearena.com/phones/Samsung-Galaxy-S5_id8202


http://www.anandtech.com/show/7783/...01-msm8974ac-the-new-32bit-flagship-until-805

I show a Qualcomm MSM8973AC in mine, so perhaps Nvidia is just butthurt, and trying to get a foothold in the market by trying to force their chips on phone makers? Even though their last one was utter shit, and the new one is already slower than current chips? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(system_on_chip)

Looks like I have the high end variant, using essentially a AMD GPU, from assets acquired by Qualcomm from AMD, being from AMD and not from Nvidia, since its from AMD, and not Nvidia, and since they got it from AMD, and not from Nvidia, and they make the chip with the technology they got from AMD and not Nvidia, it looks like Nvidia is just useing the shotgun approach against the largest android phone maker to try and get in on some action, perhaps poor little Jim No Hung got his little pee pee hurt when they told him to screw off, since they are using AMD GPU tech and not Nvidia, being tech they legally got from AMD, being the company from which they purchased the legal designs, and not Nvidia.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Sep 5, 2014)

Sempron Guy said:


> how would this affect nvidia using samsung mem chips for their gpus?



Likely not very much.

In a market with only a few possible suppliers, it doesn't make business sense to alienate one of them, even if you are in a lawsuit.  The more suppliers you have, the more chance you have to negotiate for the lowest prices, which in the end saves more money than a judgment can provide.  It's the exact reason why when Apple added TSMC as a SoC manufaturer they still kept Samsung despite the numerous lawsuits.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

Steevo said:


> HumanSmoke said:
> 
> 
> > That almost makes sense in isolation, except if you'll  note that Mali is ARM not Imagination Tech. If this affects Imagination as the IP license originator, then the same must be true for ARM Holding's since Mali is their design. The actual case seems to be* semi-custom architectural licensing for modification* since ARM's other Mali's variants that aren't Samsung and licensed to the companies I noted (MediaTek, Rockchip, Allwinner etc.) aren't covered in the suit
> ...


Well, no, they aren't all named in the injunction. Only Samsung and Qualcomm are named...it couldn't have escaped your notice if you'd even browsed through it, since it's featured on Pages 1 and 2.
Anandtech has a more substantial article;


> Ultimately this suit is focused around Samsung, as Samsung is both a device integrator and the manufacturer of the Exynos line of SoCs. Meanwhile because Samsung also uses Qualcomm’s Snapdragon SoCs in a number of products (including the North American editions of many phones), Qualcomm is being collared in to the suit on the basis that they are supplying some of the infringing GPUs.





Steevo said:


> my comment still stands, semi-custom architectural means nothing as Samsung only specify what baseband, memory, speeds, and specific add on's to a complete package they use.
> http://www.phonearena.com/phones/Samsung-Galaxy-S5_id8202
> 
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/7783/...01-msm8974ac-the-new-32bit-flagship-until-805


Not sure what you're driving at. The litigation centres around the GPU of the SoC, and the GPU in the links you provided clearly point to the Adreno 330. The Samsung models using the Mali GPU chip SPECIFICALLY AVOID those Samsung models using ARM's standard 400-MP. All the Samsung products on the injunction use what appears to be a Samsung-specific Mali T628MP6 (and T760 for the Galaxy Tab 2 although that is also specced for Qualcomm's Adreno 420).

EDIT: After reading through the suit, the actual GPUs involved (see sections 95-98 in the pdf link that Maban posted) affects Qualcomm's Adreno and Imagination's SGX540/544 and *ONLY* the one *Samsung-specific semi-custom T628* - NOT any of ARM's off the shelf designs.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 5, 2014)

I hope S3 trolls em all....lol

Or should I say HTC


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Sep 5, 2014)

If you can't beat 'em, sue the fvck out of 'em.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

jmcslob said:


> I hope S3 trolls em all....lol
> Or should I say HTC


Surely that's ViRGEing on insanity!


----------



## mroofie (Sep 5, 2014)

Samesung<  fanboys butthurt


----------



## Frick (Sep 5, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> The problem isn't the idea of patents , Its the fact that the patent office has no understanding of the technology they are issuing patents for, so a lot of these tech patents should have never been issued in the first place.
> 
> Example, Slide to unlock.
> 
> *I'm not saying that's the case here but it is all too common.*



Then Why The Flying Fudge are you relating it to that? It's just stupid. I know dumb americans, so all americans are dumb? I know of a finnish murderer, are all finnish people murderers? I actually know a guy who was in prison, is all people in prisons?

The worst fallout from the Apple v Samsung thing is retarded stuff like this. Some patents are stupid, therefore I will crap all over the internet every single time patents are mentioned, no matter what I know of the subject!


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

Fluffmeister said:


> That's all just swell, but none of it changes the fact the girls I responded too keep backing the wrong horse.



I am wondering how exactly to insult you since almost every word will be too little....


----------



## lZKoce (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I am wondering how exactly to insult you since almost every word will be too little....



Why? The guy's tongue slipped a bit. Your comment above his brings as much to the discussion. If you want to make a difference don't fight fire with fire, in my opinion. "Everyone should and will be happy once nvidia goes bankrupt.  " - and now that you have a responce to that, you feel butthurt. I am sorry, I can't empathize here.

That's why I am just reading. So far HumanSmoke and Maban has proved to be most useful with Steevo being the catalyst in the discussion (by throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks  - too much Suits watching). 

As a result of their conversation I am now convinced the nVidia lawsuit is rightful and hope they can win something out of it.


----------



## Recus (Sep 5, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> Our products aren't selling well
> Quick lets sue the competition



Like AMD sue Intel more than 30 years already?

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/



Sony Xperia S said:


> Everyone should and will be happy once nvidia goes bankrupt.



Not in this solar system, troll.



Steevo said:


> In this one case Nvidia is sucking hind teat on mobile, their last chips were flops, and the new one is barely becoming available and already outclassed by competition, so yeah I see this as a BS move to try and hold up the competition and gain market foothold, not sure it will work, since Nvidia is like #1589 in companies VS Samsung at a meager #22.



http://www.androidcentral.com/50000-units-xiaomis-mipad-sold-just-under-four-minutes
http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/0...6-million-cars-now-running-nvidia-processors/



eidairaman1 said:


> Nv is green=envy/greed. Samsung will counter sue like they did with Apple



AMD is red=rage how they want $700 for free FreeSync.



hardcore_gamer said:


> If you can't beat 'em, sue the fvck out of 'em.



Nvidia must learned this from industry leader AMD?

http://www.cnet.com/news/intel-to-pay-amd-1-25-billion-in-antitrust-settlement/


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

lZKoce said:


> Why?



Because I didn't turn to him in particular and haven't said that he is a monkey, a worm or a bacteria when he deserves it.

About why nvidia should go bankrupt. 

Well, simply because I don't see their value in the market whatsoever and without them there will be the better situation. I believe they will bankrupt in the future.


----------



## xBruce88x (Sep 5, 2014)

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/

come to think of it dell computers still mostly only come with Intel CPUs. would explain why AMD failed so hard in sales. they've always had issue with R&D budget, had this not happened in the first place AMD quite possibly could have had more for R&D by now.

and of course nvidia is "butthurt". Someone has blatantly ripped off their ideas and used them in their own products (which happen to be better) and with Samsung's capability to make stuff in-house its no wonder their stuff is more popular, even if they more or less copy-paste from someone elses ideas. nVidia has to pay someone else to make their Tegra chips, whereas Samsung can just make theirs themselves, which cuts their costs and increases their profits. In fact... nVidia actually had to go to Samsung to make their Tegra chips in the first place!

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/201...-at-samsung-fab2c-ibm2c-globalfoundries-next/

would explain how Samsung got their hands on the tech.

oh... and before i'm labeled as a fanboy... look at my system specs.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Because I didn't turn to him in particular and haven't said that he is a monkey, a worm or a bacteria when he deserves it.
> 
> About why nvidia should go bankrupt.
> 
> Well, simply because I don't see their value in the market whatsoever and without them there will be the better situation. I believe they will bankrupt in the future.



The problem is you talk a load of tosh, as this post once again confirms.

And I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for them to go bankrupt... actually scratch that, I hope you are.


----------



## silentbogo (Sep 5, 2014)

NVidia said:
			
		

> We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures.



I'm only wondering, why Samsung? What about my Patent-Infringed Cubietruck with Mali-400 MP or thousands of other brands of devices utilizing either one of those graphical cores?



Sony Xperia S said:


> About why nvidia should go bankrupt.
> 
> Well, simply because I don't see their value in the market whatsoever and without them there will be the better situation. I believe they will bankrupt in the future.



Dunno about that. They might still suck in mobile segment, but without NVidia we wouldn't have CUDA, Programmable Shaders, upcoming GPU Virtualization or cheapest supercomputing platform ever. PhysX was originally build by Ageia around GeForce 7800GT GPU. Now we get Tegra K1, which has twice as many cuda cores as my laptop.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

xBruce88x said:


> come to think of it dell computers still mostly only come with Intel CPUs. would explain why AMD failed so hard in sales. they've always had issue with R&D budget, had this not happened in the first place AMD quite possibly could have had more for R&D by now.


OT but I'll endeavour to add some quick facts and backround before this turns into a flamefest

Decreased R&D? Quite possible - Intel gave Dell about a billion dollars to remain Intel exclusive, but you'd need to factor in a few other things, such as
1. While Dell wasn't an AMD customer, Hewlett-Packard was and AMD couldn't keep them or their other OEMs supplied with chips (at least not the better binned ones) - for example 1998.....2004....2005
2. When Dell signed on to sell AMD procs in 2006 - initially Opteron servers and a couple of months later desktop, AMD basically diverted H-P's chips to Dell...Dell then went into their famous nosedive and H-P became the number one supplier of computer systems. Oops!
3. AMD's cash supply and fortunes were directly related to the cash they borrowed to buy ATI. Write downs of over half the amount AMD paid out and debt servicing directly led to selling off the cable TV business to Broadcom, the mobile IP business to Qualcomm (which is what is being discussed here), their foundry business to ATIC/Mubadala, and also led directly to AMD narrowing its R&D focus to a modular CPU architecture at the expense of jettisoning the mobile and smartphone processor development in 2008


silentbogo said:


> Dunno about that. They might still suck in mobile segment, but without NVidia we wouldn't have CUDA, Programmable Shaders, upcoming GPU Virtualization or cheapest supercomputing platform ever.


Without Nvidia, we'd have a single discrete graphics maker. Some people might find this attractive, but I'm guessing that prices wouldn't remain at present levels. Some people it seems put fanboyism ahead of monetary consideration - an odd stance since the same people tend to level the same criticism at people that buy Nvidia products.


----------



## Solidstate89 (Sep 5, 2014)

Prima.Vera said:


> Another patent troll


Do you even know what a Patent Troll is? Patent Trolls are non practicing entities. They're companies that purchase patents from bankrupt or defunct companies, and then do nothing with them except sue other, legitimate companies as their only form of income.

Last I checked, nVidia actually does R&D. Last I checked, they actually sell physical hardware, in stores.

I really wish people would understand exactly what a patent trolls is. Even Apple, as much as most people disagree with their litigious nature (myself included), are not patent trolls. They actually produce real products.

You want to see what a real patent troll looks like, look up Intellectual Ventures.



Sony Xperia S said:


> About why nvidia should go bankrupt.
> 
> Well, simply because I don't see their value in the market whatsoever and without them there will be the better situation. I believe they will bankrupt in the future.


You people never seem to cease to amaze me just how fricken' short-sighted you all are. You really think we'd be better off with a GPU landscape of just AMD? There's only two companies that make dedicated GPUs for system builders and OEMs, and that's AMD and nVidia. Only two that make professional graphics cards for CAD work in the form of FirePros and Quadros. And that's AMD and nVidia.

But you, in your infinite wisdom believe that in such a hotly contested field with only two competitors to keep prices in check....would be better off with one of them going bankrupt?

Jesus H. Christ....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 5, 2014)

Frick said:


> Then Why The Flying Fudge are you relating it to that? It's just stupid. I know dumb americans, so all americans are dumb? I know of a finnish murderer, are all finnish people murderers? I actually know a guy who was in prison, is all people in prisons?
> 
> The worst fallout from the Apple v Samsung thing is retarded stuff like this. Some patents are stupid, therefore I will crap all over the internet every single time patents are mentioned, no matter what I know of the subject!


Did someone say *America*?


----------



## silentbogo (Sep 5, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> Without Nvidia, we'd have a single discrete graphics maker. Some people might find this attractive, but I'm guessing that prices wouldn't remain at present levels. Some people it seems put fanboyism ahead of monetary consideration - an odd stance since the same people tend to level the same criticism at people that buy Nvidia products.


That too (except Intel, maybe). Competition is a good thing, when it exists


----------



## v12dock (Sep 5, 2014)

People in the Tegra department just want a bigger bonus


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

Solidstate89 said:


> You people never seem to cease to amaze me just how fricken' short-sighted you all are. You really think we'd be better off with a GPU landscape of just AMD?



As far as I know, Nature never leaves empty space. 

AMD and Intel would be perfectly fine as a remaining companies, and of course, nvidia can be replaced by someone better than them.

Should I list you the reasons why I am so unhappy with nvidia and their practices?


----------



## Frick (Sep 5, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Did someone say *America*?



That is EXACTLY how I imagine you, but fat.


----------



## Solidstate89 (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> As far as I know, Nature never leaves empty space.
> 
> AMD and Intel would be perfectly fine as a remaining companies, and of course, nvidia can be replaced by someone better than them.
> 
> Should I list you the reasons why I am so unhappy with nvidia and their practices?


Then I guess you've never heard of monopolies, huh? Oh, and what dedicated GPUs you can buy from Intel? Knight's Landing isn't a GPU, it's a a compute accelerator meant to compete with Tesla devices, it doesn't run a monitor.

What competitor does AMD have besides nVidia in selling to OEMs and system builders? If you're still wondering, the answer is none. No one cares why you don't like nVidia. We're better off with two competitors than one that rules the entire market. Competition helps keep prices down and forces innovation, it's as simple as that. If you disagree, you're wrong. This has nothing to do with opinions, these are facts and it doesn't matter if you disagree; you're just wrong.


----------



## wiak (Sep 5, 2014)

Batou1986 said:


> The problem isn't the idea of patents , Its the fact that the patent office has no understanding of the technology they are issuing patents for, so a lot of these tech patents should have never been issued in the first place.
> 
> Example, Slide to unlock.
> 
> I'm not saying that's the case here but it is all too common.


i always like to do "Tetris to unlock"


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

Solidstate89 said:


> Then I guess you've never heard of monopolies, huh? Oh, and what dedicated GPUs you can buy from Intel? Knight's Landing isn't a GPU, it's a a compute accelerator meant to compete with Tesla devices, it doesn't run a monitor.
> 
> What competitor does AMD have besides nVidia in selling to OEMs and system builders? If you're still wondering, the answer is none. No one cares why you don't like nVidia. We're better off with two competitors than one that rules the entire market. Competition helps keep prices down and forces innovation, it's as simple as that. If you disagree, you're wrong. This has nothing to do with opinions, these are facts and it doesn't matter if you disagree; you're just wrong.



F@&$ it!

Just look at this small town in Spain and how people can live if they are good and do want it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Everyone should and will be happy once nvidia goes bankrupt.


Beacuse you want AMD/ATI prices to sky rocket and have GPU technology limited. That's a good thing right? Fanboy's man...


----------



## Solidstate89 (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> F@&$ it!
> 
> Just look at this small town in Spain and how people can live if they are good and do want it:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain


That has literally less than nothing to do with the current discussion about you having this insane belief that a monopoly is good for consumers.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Beacuse you want AMD/ATI prices to sky rocket and have GPU technology limited. That's a good thing right? Fanboy's man...



Actually I don't wanna such a thing but I am sure that once it happens one day, AMD will have plenty of resources to improve their product stack and related services to the level that indeed everybody will be happy. 



Solidstate89 said:


> That has literally less than nothing to do with the current discussion about you having this insane belief that a monopoly is good for consumers.



Neither is capitalism, my friend. 

And I haven't said that monopoly is good but I have already read how some companies complain because of too much competition which limits their ability to invest.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Actually I don't wanna such a thing but I am sure that once it happens one day, AMD will have plenty of resources to improve their product stack and related services to the level that indeed everybody will be happy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Capitalism isn't good for the consumer? BWAHAHAHAHAHA

However your troll skills are above par then most I've seen lately. You managed to drag in quiet a few people in your troll net. Ill have to keep an eye on you. I may have to take you in as an apprentice.


----------



## Eagleye (Sep 5, 2014)

Nvidia isn't just any Troll! Its a Super Troll.  https://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Sep 5, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Capitalism isn't good for the consumer? BWAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> However your troll skills are above par then most I've seen lately. You managed to drag in quiet a few people in your troll net. Ill have to keep an eye on you. I may have to take you in as an apprentice.



I think you are taking too seriously and deeply in your imagination that trolling bullshit. You, guys, are making "troll" the most used and popular word lately.

Just forget it and be a better person without this nonsense.

Agree?


----------



## Solidstate89 (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Actually I don't wanna such a thing but I am sure that once it happens one day, AMD will have plenty of resources to improve their product stack and related services to the level that indeed everybody will be happy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's bullshit. If any company has said competition is bad for them, that just means they can't raise their prices as high as they wish they could. Capitalism absolutely has to do with this because if you take a market that has only two competitors, and remove one of them, you're left with only one company controlling 100% of the market and having an insurmountable monopoly and the ability to charge whatever they damn well wish without pushing the tech or market forward at all because there's no motivation to do.

History is literally littered with examples of this, yet you just flat out refuse to accept this fact. This alone astounds me.

Your posts are also totally and completely nonsensical. They either have literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (what does some town in Spain have to do with anything?), or show such incredible levels of cognitive dissonance that it just frankly stupifies me.

I'm done with you. You are clearly intentionally ignorant on the topic due to some misplaced and unnecessary hatred of a company, or you're just a damn troll. Either way, there's no point discussing any of this with you any further.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I think you are taking too seriously and deeply in your imagination that trolling bullshit. You, guys, are making "troll" the most used and popular word lately.
> 
> Just forget it and be a better person without this nonsense.
> 
> Agree?


You have no clue who you are talking to do you?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 5, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> AMD and Intel would be perfectly fine as a remaining companies, and of course, nvidia can be replaced by someone better than them.


The actual prime candidate given Nvidia's IP portfolio would be Samsung - for your sake, I hope this ends up with Samsung paying way over the odds for Nvidia to settle this suit, ploughing money into ARM 64-bit servers SoC's. Should give AMD something to think about...having to carve out a future against Nvidia's IP + Samsung in the same HSA environment.


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 5, 2014)

Recus said:


> Like AMD sue Intel more than 30 years already?
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/



Did you even read that ?
All patent litigation ended in 1997 the rest is literally Intel using back room deals and stacks of cash to persuade companies not to use AMD products.
Also AMD never sued Intel they only filed antitrust complaints.


----------



## 1d10t (Sep 6, 2014)

> programmable shading, unified shaders and multithreaded parallel processing.



This is hilarious,the next thing they will sue all android GPU's for using hardware overlays and graphics core as general purpose computing.


----------



## john_ (Sep 6, 2014)

Well, someone had and posted a very good and funny photo about that *"a thousand engineering-years"* in Nvidia's PR. I am just borrowing his picture 









Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rvalencia (Sep 6, 2014)

Recus said:


> Like AMD sue Intel more than 30 years already?
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/
> 
> ...


I haven't paid $700 USD for my R9-290.


----------



## Cheeseball (Sep 6, 2014)

Kaotik said:


> Adreno is nothing like Radeon HD -series.
> First Adreno, Adreno 200, was also known as AMD Z430. Most similar AMD/ATI GPU to that was Xenos in XB360, but even that isn't that close. Sure, it's unified shaders etc, but that's about it.
> Since Adreno 200, all Adrenos have been developed in-house by Qualcomm (by ex-AMD/ATI/BitBoys people who they aquired with the Imageon tech etc) and every iteration has pushed them further and further away from Z430 roots



The latest Adreno GPUs are VILW5-based, therefore, like the Radeon HD 5000 series. They may now be built differently, but they have the same microarchitecture.


----------



## rvalencia (Sep 6, 2014)

Cheeseball said:


> The latest Adreno GPUs are VILW5-based, therefore, like the Radeon HD 5000 series. They may now be built differently, but they have the same microarchitecture.


Well, AMD Radeon HD's VLIW5 based design spans from Radeon HD 2900 to 6870.

The first multi-thread unified shader GPU is AMD's Xenos i.e. 64 threads over 48 unified shader pipelines(1). Xenos' unified shader pipeline setup is 1 scalar + 1 SIMD4 instead of VLIW5.

1. From http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=381592
ATI Xenos: XBOX 360 Graphics Demystified

"XENOS is capable of processing 64 threads simultaneously, this is to make sure that all elements are being utilized and so there is minimal or no stalling of the graphics architecture"

AMD's Xenos (Xbox 360) was released before NVIDIA's GeForce 8800.

From http://news.priorsmart.com/advanced-micro-devices-v-lg-electronics-la2U/
AMD sues LG on GPU patents and LG uses ARM based SoC chipsets.
Filed on March 5, 2014.

From http://www.law360.com/articles/515848/amd-picks-patent-fight-with-lg-over-graphics-technology
AMD is using it's multithreaded shader GPU patents to sue LG.

"The allegedly infringing products include LG televisions, smartphones, tablets, Blu-ray players, projectors and appliances that embody or practice the patented inventions"

LG should follow Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo in licensing AMD's IP blocks. NVIDIA should aim a little higher and sues all of Samsung's products that uses unified GPUs

AMD's multithreaded shader GPU patents

Multi-thread graphics processing system
http://www.law360.com/patents/7742053

Graphics processing architecture employing a unified shader
http://www.law360.com/patents/7327369

Graphics processing architecture employing a unified shader
http://www.law360.com/patents/6889332


----------



## SIGSEGV (Sep 6, 2014)

1d10t said:


> This is beyond hilarious,the next thing they will sue all android GPU's for using hardware overlays and graphics core as general purpose computing.



Fixed.

Get some popcorn and watch this drama. It's very exciting on how this drama will end. Pity nvidia.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 6, 2014)

SIGSEGV said:


> Get some popcorn and watch this drama. It's very exciting on how this drama will end


Exciting?
It will end up with a sterile PR release about licencing that won't mean anything to the average consumer OR a judgement voiding the complaint or awarding Nvidia a settlement - which unless you're an Nvidia shareholder won't affect the average consumer either


SIGSEGV said:


> Pity nvidia.


I wouldn't worry, I doubt Nvidia entered into this is they thought they couldn't shoulder the legal bills. Worst case scenario: The jury find no case to answer - not as if the case will be primetime viewing - and they're out legal costs. Best case scenario for company shareholders: Qualcomm or Samsung shell out some bucks and buy Nvidia to make the problem go away and the graphics landscape looks a whole lot more interesting. Median case scenario: Nvidia gets some royalties - hardly a reason to pity them.

You want to pity anyone, then I'd suggest the twelve average Joe's on the jury who are about to spend possibly years becoming more acquainted with the 3D graphics pipeline and logic than they ever thought possible


----------



## Steevo (Sep 6, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You have no clue who you are talking to do you?


These younguns have no idea man, better to have a beer and let it go. Or go on a ramapage.


----------



## Naito (Sep 6, 2014)

Sony Xperia S said:


> About why nvidia should go bankrupt.
> 
> Well, simply because I don't see their value in the market whatsoever and without them there will be the better situation. I believe they will bankrupt in the future.



Yeah, so Nvidia will lose the ability to further R&D (due to possible restructure in the unlikely event bankruptcy occurs) and AMD will have free reign to charge whatever exorbitant prices for their products they went. And you're someone who probably thinks Nvidia's GPU pricing is already bad enough (mainly due to AMDs inability to be as competitive).... imagine AMD on the flip side...



Eagleye said:


> Nvidia isn't just any Troll! Its a Super Troll.  https://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/



Semiaccurate. End of story. They're just as much trolls as Nvidia supposedly is with this latest case. Besides, it's their *FIRST** patent lawsuit*. Hardly a reason to be a patent troll. Every company is within their rights to chase damages regardless of whether or not they have a leg to stand on. If anything, it helps push innovation as research is often initiate to find ways around patents.

Here is Nvidia's own blog topic regarding the case. As it is often said; there are always two sides to a story. I'm not saying Nvidia is in the right or wrong. I don't have a law degree and many of you here probably don't either. Lets just leave it to the courts.

EDIT: It seems something similar happened in the past between Intel and Nvidia. Intel agreed to pay $1.5 billion in exchange for access to Nvidia's patent portfolio. Seems Nvidia _may_ have a leg to stand on afterall, even it is slightly different in circumstance. It may explain why Intels IGPs are getting better very quickly.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 6, 2014)

Naito said:


> Semiaccurate. End of story. Their just as much trolls as Nvidia supposedly is with this latest case.


Oh lord, Semiaccurate - the place where idiocy goes to wave its deformed genitals in the face of logic
Ol' Charlie predicted that Nvidia wouldn't get a cent out of their last lawsuit - he was only out by 1.5 billion dollars. He is good for a laugh though. Did you know that the GPU market will be dead in a year?, and that the high end desktop graphics market actually_* died*_ in 2012 ? If you didn't then you need to sign up for Charlie's special _anal_ysis - it's only a $1000, and you can get great insights like this:






Naito said:


> EDIT: It seems something similar happened into the past between Intel and Nvidia. Intel agreed to pay $1.5 billion in exchange for access to Nvidia's patent portfolio. Seems Nvidia _may_ have a leg to stand on afterall. It may explain why Intels IGPs are getting better very quickly.


Might also have something to do with the EU resurrecting Icera's antitrust complaint against Qualcomm - they were an independent company when the complaint was made- they are now owned by Nvidia.


----------



## rvalencia (Sep 6, 2014)

silentbogo said:


> I'm only wondering, why Samsung? What about my Patent-Infringed Cubietruck with Mali-400 MP or thousands of other brands of devices utilizing either one of those graphical cores?
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno about that. They might still suck in mobile segment, but without NVidia we wouldn't have CUDA, Programmable Shaders, upcoming GPU Virtualization or cheapest supercomputing platform ever. PhysX was originally build by Ageia around GeForce 7800GT GPU. Now we get Tegra K1, which has twice as many cuda cores as my laptop.


Ageia PhysX wasn't designed around NVIDIA's Geforce 7800 GT GPU i.e. Ageia PhysX accelerator board was based on PPU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit

"It consists of a general purpose RISC core controlling an array of custom SIMD floating point VLIW processors working in local banked memories".




Naito said:


> Yeah, so Nvidia will lose the ability to further R&D (due to possible restructure in the unlikely event bankruptcy occurs) and AMD will have free reign to charge whatever exorbitant prices for their products they went. And you're someone who probably thinks Nvidia's GPU pricing is already bad enough (mainly due to AMDs inability to be as competitive).... imagine AMD on the flip side...
> Semiaccurate. End of story. They're just as much trolls as Nvidia supposedly is with this latest case. Besides, it's their *FIRST** patent lawsuit*. Hardly a reason to be a patent troll. Every company is within their rights to chase damages regardless of whether or not they have a leg to stand on. If anything, it helps push innovation as research is often initiate to find ways around patents.
> Here is Nvidia's own blog topic regarding the case. As it is often said; there are always two sides to a story. I'm not saying Nvidia is in the right or wrong. I don't have a law degree and many of you here probably don't either. Lets just leave it to the courts.
> EDIT: It seems something similar happened in the past between Intel and Nvidia. Intel agreed to pay $1.5 billion in exchange for access to Nvidia's patent portfolio. Seems Nvidia _may_ have a leg to stand on afterall, even it is slightly different in circumstance. It may explain why Intels IGPs are getting better very quickly.


It depends on the relationship between Qualcomm and AMD i.e. Qualcomm may have to show any agreements with AMD. AMD is suing LG with AMD's multithreading unified shader  GPU patents i.e. ARM loves to license it's IP to 3rd parties, but it doesn't readily do the reverse.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/79472-amd-licenses-graphics-tech-to-QUALCOMM
Advanced Micro Devices said Tuesday that it had agreed to license certain graphics technologies
	
 to Qualcomm, which will use the in forthcoming handheld products.

“This agreement will bring AMD’s patented Unified Shader Architecture – first introduced in the Microsoft Xbox 360 gaming system – to QUALCOMM’s advanced Mobile Station Modem (MSM) chipsets, potentially reaching many millions of mobile phone users,” AMD said in a statement.


----------



## 1d10t (Sep 8, 2014)

SIGSEGV said:


> Fixed.
> Get some popcorn and watch this drama. It's very exciting on how this drama will end. Pity nvidia.



Thanks pal 



HumanSmoke said:


> Exciting?
> It will end up with a sterile PR release about licencing that won't mean anything to the average consumer OR a judgement voiding the complaint or awarding Nvidia a settlement - which unless you're an Nvidia shareholder won't affect the average consumer either
> 
> I wouldn't worry, I doubt Nvidia entered into this is they thought they couldn't shoulder the legal bills. Worst case scenario: The jury find no case to answer - not as if the case will be primetime viewing - and they're out legal costs. Best case scenario for company shareholders: Qualcomm or Samsung shell out some bucks and buy Nvidia to make the problem go away and the graphics landscape looks a whole lot more interesting. Median case scenario: Nvidia gets some royalties - hardly a reason to pity them.
> ...



Nah..nVidia will doing fine about their patents.But let me tell you something,nVidia is pointing gun to wrong men.Why do you think this is all about hardware?please take a look at this snipped android GPU library...




> GPUConfig *customFilter = [[GPUImageFilter alloc] initWithFragmentShaderFromFile"CustomShader"];
> EGLConfig chooseConfig() {
> int[] attribList = new int[] {
> EGL_DEPTH_SIZE, 0,
> ...



Got my point?Even crap Mali and slowpoke Broadcomm Video Core can be forced to do specific shading instruction and parallel processing.Now what...sue all of community,take a shot to Google's Android or tickle Samsung for not using their Tegra?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 8, 2014)

^^^^^Not sure why you even quoted me - if you want to make a point that is only tangentially related to what I was talking about why bother quoting what I wrote about Nvidia's patent litigation strategy?


----------



## Relayer (Sep 8, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Nv is green=envy/greed. Samsung will counter sue like they did with Apple


They'd best hope not. The amt' of damages Samsung could sue for could crush nVidia. No, I think that there is something of substance for nVidia to go after a giant like Samsung.


----------



## Relayer (Sep 8, 2014)

Recus said:


> Like AMD sue Intel more than 30 years already?
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/
> 
> ...


What does any of this have to do with AMD?

"nVidia is suing Samsung and people are hating on them"

"What? Quick, say something bad about AMD."


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 8, 2014)

Relayer said:


> They'd best hope not. The amt' of damages Samsung could sue for could crush nVidia.


I haven't looked at Nvidia's entire product line, but I wouldn't think there would be too much, if anything, Samsung bring suit against Nvidia for. Qualcomm might be a different case given their modem/3G/4G portfolio, but I'm guessing Nvidia did their homework before entering into this.
Any loss of revenue from Samsung's point of view would be through court order, not direct action from the complainant - I'm guessing that unless there is overwhelming evidence, the court wouldn't embargo Samsung's product line.


Relayer said:


> No, I think that there is something of substance for nVidia to go after a giant like Samsung.


Seems likely even if it's a power play to bring Samsung and QC to the table. You don't slap a gorilla if you expect it to pound you into the ground. This is one step up from the Intel lawsuit (which Intel initiated) which ended up with Nvidia picking up a sizeable wad of cash and torpedoing Larrabee's development - oddly enough, people then didn't think Nvidia had much of a chance either.


----------



## 1d10t (Sep 8, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> ^^^^^Not sure why you even quoted me - if you want to make a point that is only tangentially related to what I was talking about why bother quoting what I wrote about Nvidia's patent litigation strategy?



I just pointed out nVidia maneuver to stretched their patent on "Open Community" is gonna kickback in their balls hard.Samsung open their library to the community,then take cooked library and embedding them to their own chips.Getting better with zero R&D.
How about nVidia?You need a miracle to get their library even the old-screwed Tegra 3.They never support open community,so why even bother to jump to Google's Android?nVidia should join Apple then...


----------



## D007 (Sep 8, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't see nVidia being a patent troll here at all.  They aren't throwing around injunctions to stop Samsung/Qualcomm from selling their products.  They aren't asking for insane amounts of money.  What they are doing is asking the courts to decide if the patents are being infringed and if so having the courts decide proper licencing fees.  This is exactly how patents should work and how patent disputes should be handled.



Yep.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 8, 2014)

1d10t said:


> I just pointed out nVidia maneuver to stretched their patent on "Open Community" is gonna kickback in their balls hard.Samsung open their library to the community,then take cooked library and embedding them to their own chips.Getting better with zero R&D.
> How about nVidia?You need a miracle to get their library even the old-screwed Tegra 3.They never support open community,so why even bother to jump to Google's Android?nVidia should join Apple then...



Conglomerates don't usually conduct business like 5 year-olds having schoolyard tantrums. Samsung and Apple have been at each others throats for quite a while yet it doesn't stop them from signing and extending component contracts.


----------



## bencrutz (Sep 9, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> Samsung and Apple have been at each others throats for quite a while yet it doesn't stop them from signing and extending component contracts.



yeah, like apple have better options after got screwed by tsmc


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2014)

bencrutz said:


> yeah, like apple have better options after got screwed by tsmc


Yeah, so screwed Apple looks to increase it's wafer starts with TSMC    Yet quite happily also signs Samsung contracts. You do realize that supply and price trump sentiment in the semiconductor business, right? By your reckoning Apple should dump Qualcomm as a partner because Qualcomm has sided with Motorola/Google in their case against Apple.
By all account's, what's happening in the Electronics division doesn't matter a flying f**k to other arms of the company - divisional rivalry puts outside competition to shame. This is the *simplified* company structure


----------



## bencrutz (Sep 9, 2014)

HumanSmoke said:


> Yeah, so screwed Apple looks to increase it's wafer starts with TSMC    Yet quite happily also signs Samsung contracts. You do realize that supply and price trump sentiment in the semiconductor business, right? By your reckoning Apple should dump Qualcomm as a partner because Qualcomm has sided with Motorola/Google in their case against Apple.


apple was trying to get away from samsung, well, we know how that ends up 



> By all account's, what's happening in the Electronics division doesn't matter a flying f**k to other arms of the company - divisional rivalry puts outside competition to shame.


don't care bout that
i just giggle reading what nv is trying to do here
nv should sue qualcomm and arm for their gpu instead of pursuing the biggest phone manufacturer, unless nv want to cut a deal and make samsung by their tegra


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 9, 2014)

bencrutz said:


> apple was trying to get away from samsung, well, we know how that ends up


Well, considering you're saying Apple was screwed over by TSMC (but Apple still increase chip orders with them), and you saying Apple are only with Samsung out of what? desperation? (but they still get the A9 contract) - like GloFo and UMC don't exist, I'm not sure you know how it ends up. It's almost like Apple alternate suppliers based on who gives the best deal and schedule - seems hardly credible except for the fact that Apple do the same thing with AMD and Nvidia graphics and every other component supplier as well.


bencrutz said:


> i just giggle reading what nv is trying to do here


Well that's fair enough, who am I to deny someone their giggling. I must admit it is actually a source of vicarious humour to revisit these threads to see how the armchair legal experts fared in retrospect - and since Nvidia is the _course derision de jour_ here, here's the Intel suit against Nvidia thread and the Nvidia countersuit against Intel thread  ****SPOILER ALERT*** Nvidia won 1500000000 to nil


bencrutz said:


> nv should sue qualcomm and arm for their gpu instead of pursuing the biggest phone manufacturer, unless nv want to cut a deal and make samsung by their tegra


Nvidia seem pretty stupid. Spending large sums of cash on legal counsel specializing in intellectual property when you could clearly have solved the entire litigation argument in the time it took to type a sentence - How dumb must they be to spend two years in licensing talks and spending 6-7 figures on lodging a filing!


----------



## Eagleye (Sep 13, 2014)

Some cases here on AMD, not sure if they won the one against Samsung or others listed

https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/candce-275108#simple4
https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/candce-200541-advanced-micro-devices-v-samsung-electronics


----------



## rvalencia (Sep 13, 2014)

Eagleye said:


> Some cases here on AMD, not sure if they won the one against Samsung or others listed
> 
> https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/candce-275108#simple4
> https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/candce-200541-advanced-micro-devices-v-samsung-electronics


From http://www.law360.com/articles/515848/amd-picks-patent-fight-with-lg-over-graphics-technology

AMD suing LG with following patents

6,784,879 - Method and apparatus for providing control of background video
6,889,332 - Variable maximum die temperature based on performance state
6,895,520 - Performance and power optimization via block oriented performance measurement and control
6,897,871 - Graphics processing architecture employing a unified shader
7,327,369 - Graphics processing architecture employing a unified shader
7,742,053 - Multi-thread graphics processing system
5,898,849 - Microprocessor employing local caches for functional units to store memory operands used by the functional units
6,266,715 - Universal serial bus controller with a direct memory access mode
7,095,945 - System for digital time shifting and method thereof


Both AMD and NVIDIA has products that uses it's patents and ARM centric GPU vendors should not escape from licensing. ARM expects companies licenses it's IP while it doesn't do the reverse for it's GPU.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 14, 2014)

Some of those patents from both AMD and Nvidia need to disappear, like unified shaders, multi-threaded, USB DMA? We need to shorten the time any tech Patent can exist. 


I wonder how many patents AMD and Nvidia share, I know both are in bed with Intel, for many and different reasons.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 14, 2014)

And nobody messes with Qualcomm atheros and lives.. I won't let them they make great WiFi SoCs and stuff. You piss them off they will rape every single one of the enemy and put baloney on the cars and fart on the enemys and make em suffer..


But that was hard to type be cause I like nvidia and I like Qualcomm atheros !!!!!! God damb it!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 14, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> And nobody messes with Qualcomm atheros and lives.. I won't let them they make great WiFi SoCs and stuff. You piss them off they will rape every single one of the enemy and put baloney on the cars and fart on the enemys and make em suffer..


It's all a part of the game. Qualcomm uses it's position to gain market share, and if at some time the little guys fight back, Qualcomm pays out the fines and damages. These payments are generally worth the infringements because the complainants can get some monetary recompense, but they can't gain back the market share and make headway against the current position of Qualcomm. It is basically the same company strategy that enabled Intel to keep AMD at heel and basically destroy Cyrix, Chips and Technologies, and Intergraph.
Anyhow, Nvidia are only one of a number of Qualcomm's legal problems this year:
Chinese antitrust investigation
European Union antitrust investigation
ParkerVision (who won their previous case against QC)
Bandspeed
Adaptix


----------



## rvalencia (Sep 15, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Some of those patents from both AMD and Nvidia need to disappear, like unified shaders, multi-threaded, USB DMA? We need to shorten the time any tech Patent can exist.
> 
> 
> I wonder how many patents AMD and Nvidia share, I know both are in bed with Intel, for many and different reasons.


That's a bias view since you haven't applied the standard for Qualcomm's cell phone patents.




remixedcat said:


> And nobody messes with Qualcomm atheros and lives.. I won't let them they make great WiFi SoCs and stuff. You piss them off they will rape every single one of the enemy and put baloney on the cars and fart on the enemys and make em suffer..
> 
> 
> But that was hard to type be cause I like nvidia and I like Qualcomm atheros !!!!!! God damb it!!!!!!!!!!


If that's the case, Qualcomm would have "copied" AMD GPU and not paid for it.


----------



## remixedcat (Sep 15, 2014)

rvalencia said:


> That's a bias view since you haven't applied the standard for Qualcomm's cell phone patents.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case, Qualcomm would have "copied" AMD GPU and not paid for it.



It's too general. Those kinda "patents" need thrown out and what Nvidia did is wrong.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 15, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> It's too general. Those kinda "patents" need thrown out and what Nvidia did is wrong.


Well that's the nature of the USPTO. Another front page story here has all kinds for PR for Asetek's cooling for the 390X - the "thermal interposer" design they patented is really no more than a heatpipe base from an air cooler mated with a GPU full cover waterblock. Hardly revolutionary, and certainly combines two or more designs already patented by others.


----------



## rvalencia (Sep 15, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> It's too general. Those kinda "patents" need thrown out and what Nvidia did is wrong.


If Nvidia or AMD designed a multi-threaded unified shader GPU, then they should earn money from their IP investments.

The problem with NVIDIA's battle against Qualcomm is that AMD also has multi-threaded unified shader GPU patents and AMD using these patents to sue LG.
I don't know the licensing extent with Qualcomm's AMD IP.

In Apple vs VIA/S3 battle, AMD got involved with S3 texture compression IP issue i.e. AMD counters VIA/S3 (on behalf of Apple) that AMD owns  S3 texture compression IP/patents i.e. AMD fought another PC GPU vendor (i.e. VIA S3) in the patent/IP area.

Both AMD and NVIDIA has large GPU patent landmines.

From https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/candce-275108#simple2
One of LG's products being targeted by AMD is LG's G2 which has Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 SoC.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Apr 6, 2015)

Update:

http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/06/nvidia-wins-a-round-in-patent-case-against-samsung-and-qualcomm/

From the horses mouth:

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/06/itc-favorable-ruling/


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 10, 2015)

Fluffmeister said:


> Update:
> 
> http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/06/nvidia-wins-a-round-in-patent-case-against-samsung-and-qualcomm/
> 
> ...



*
NOTICE OF INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337*
Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender

*C-NET Nvidia dealt blow in bid to block Samsung shipments into US*



			
				CNet said:
			
		

> Thomas B. Pender, an administrative law judge for the US International Trade Commission, wrote that *Samsung didn't infringe on Nvidia's graphics patents. He also determined one of Nvidia's three patents is invalid because the technology had already been covered in previously known patents.*


----------



## Relayer (Oct 20, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> *NOTICE OF INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337*
> Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender
> 
> *C-NET Nvidia dealt blow in bid to block Samsung shipments into US*


So, let me see if I understand. What they are saying is that the claim is written correctly?


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 20, 2015)

That link was to the document before the judge signed it.  Its since been moved (Link below)



Relayer said:


> So, let me see if I understand. What they are saying is that the claim is written correctly?



*The judge determined there were no violations.
*


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 22, 2015)

Its over now
*
Law360 - Samsung, Qualcomm Triumph At ITC In Nvidia Patent Fight*


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 22, 2015)

Glad it's over as it's not really Nvidia's style. And with Samsung being ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages to Apple and Qualcomm getting done by the EU Antitrust commission we can finally return to normality.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 22, 2015)

If by normal you mean a clearer path for both Samsung and Qualcomm then yes.

This all started because no-one was interested in Nvidia tegra or its IP offering into the mobile market.  It was Nvidias way of lashing out

It also could come back to haunt Nvidia since Samsung had already taken servers from Tegra  and Qualcomm entering ARM server space too.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 22, 2015)

Maybe, maybe not. But last time I checked Nvidia were doing pretty well all things considered.

But if what you say is true, that isn't going to do AMD any favours either.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 22, 2015)

Fluffmeister said:


> Maybe, maybe not. But last time I checked Nvidia were doing pretty well all things considered.
> But if what you say is true, that isn't going to do AMD any favours either.


You would probably expect Qualcomm to follow the lead of the other ARM server companies in offering a GPGPU option, but I suspect that would require some heavy lifting by both QC and AMD. QC being an HSA member you would think would tend to lean heavily toward AMD if the toolchain is in place - and it might just have to since Qualcomm's main ARM server competition - Applied Micro and Cavium already have Nvidia GPU hardware qualified, and have been selling the GPGPU systems since Cavium added Tesla support back in March. Somehow I don't think Qualcomm will want to sit around twiddling its thumbs, especially with Avago/Broadcom about to get involved with Vulcan. Applied Micro and Cavium are pretty small fish, but Avago/Broadcom has the finances and the IP to make a bigger dent in the industry.


----------



## john_ (Dec 22, 2015)

Now we only have to see if Samsung's lawsuit will have the same luck, or if Nvidia in the end will have managed to score an own goal with this.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 22, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You have no clue who you are talking to do you?



Don't be eating the newbs  MM, you know what w1zzard told you about that.


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 23, 2015)

john_ said:


> Now we only have to see if Samsung's lawsuit will have the same luck, or if Nvidia in the end will have managed to score an own goal with this.




*Bloomberg Business - Samsung Wins First Round in Graphics Patent Case Nvidia*



> *A U.S. trade judge said Nvidia Corp. infringed Samsung Electronics Co. patents, offering another win for the Korean gear-maker in a running legal battle between the electronics companies.*


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 24, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> *Bloomberg Business - Samsung Wins First Round in Graphics Patent Case Nvidia*


What a coincidence, Nvidia won their first round also. 
*Nvidia Wins Round One in Lawsuit Against Samsung and Qualcomm*


----------



## Xzibit (Dec 24, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> What a coincidence, Nvidia won their first round also.
> *Nvidia Wins Round One in Lawsuit Against Samsung and Qualcomm*





*I pointed out the outcome to that trial on post #97**.  *Judge rulling not a motion to proceed from a pretrial which you are referring to. Which was upheld and as noted. One of Nvidias patents was invalidated.


----------

