Tuesday, December 8th 2015

AMD Responds to Asetek's R9 Fury X Sales Cease-and-Desist

AMD issued a response to a recent report which states that liquid cooling components maker Asetek issued a cease-and-desist to the company, to stop sales of the Radeon R9 Fury X graphics card, which implements a closed-loop liquid-cooling solution made by Cooler Master. In its response, AMD argues that the jury in the Asetek vs. CMI (Cooler Master) case did not mention the cooling solution of the Radeon R9 Fury X specifically, as infringing Asetek-held patents. The statement reads:
"We are aware that Asetek has sued Cooler Master. While we defer to Cooler Master regarding the details of the litigation, we understand that the jury in that case did not find that the Cooler Master heat sink currently used with the Radeon Fury X infringed any of Asetek's patents."
While AMD is right in pointing out that the original judgement does not name the R9 Fury X, or its cooling solution as an infringing product; there's no word on whether AMD will stop sales of the card. From the looks of it, AMD has no plans to stop sales of its flagship graphics product, and appears to have convincing legal arguments up its sleeves to continue selling the card, in the near future.
Source: Gamers Nexus
Add your own comment

26 Comments on AMD Responds to Asetek's R9 Fury X Sales Cease-and-Desist

#26
Cybrnook2002
SihastruIt is very rare today to buy something as complex as a video card that would be 100% made by one company. AMD actually doesn't make anything on the Fury X. Or any other card for that matter. They are the card's designers, but everything is made by other companies.
And? I am not sure I ever commented on what AMD physically made on their GPU's?
SihastruIs this fanboy logic? Everything that goes into a product goes through a battery of rigorous tests. You can't say it's not your fault when you're the designer of the product. Trust me, patents are checked in the first stages of design.
You seem to be missing what I said. No, this is not "Fanboy" logic, but thanks for trying to stir the pot anyways.

My point was that CM was subcontracted to meet a requirement provided by AMD. CM provided this pump to satisfy the requirement. This is not AMD's fault, seems simple enough to understand what I am trying to say.

By your logic, you are saying AMD designed the pump, which is wrong. To even comment further and feed you, if their was a patent that was infringed in the "first stages", wouldn't this have been discovered when filing?

Anyways, I am tired of talking into black holes about GPU's. They are the most polarizing things in tech forums, and frankly I am tired of it.

Unsub'ing now
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 21st, 2024 23:16 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts