Raevenlord
News Editor
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- Messages
- 3,755 (1.23/day)
- Location
- Portugal
| System Name | The Ryzening |
|---|---|
| Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X |
| Motherboard | MSI X570 MAG TOMAHAWK |
| Cooling | Lian Li Galahad 360mm AIO |
| Memory | 32 GB G.Skill Trident Z F4-3733 (4x 8 GB) |
| Video Card(s) | Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti |
| Storage | Boot: Transcend MTE220S 2TB, Kintson A2000 1TB, Seagate Firewolf Pro 14 TB |
| Display(s) | Acer Nitro VG270UP (1440p 144 Hz IPS) |
| Case | Lian Li O11DX Dynamic White |
| Audio Device(s) | iFi Audio Zen DAC |
| Power Supply | Seasonic Focus+ 750 W |
| Mouse | Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L |
| Keyboard | Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L |
| Software | Windows 10 x64 |
On January 24, 2017, AMD filed a complaint against several prominent tech companies, requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The basis for the complaint: some of these companies (namely, LG, MediaTek, VIZIO, and Sigma) unlawfully import into or sell inside the U.S. products which infringe on AMD's graphics intelectual property - namely, on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,633,506 (the '506 patent), 7,796,133 (the '133 patent) and 8,760,454 (the '454 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents".
According to the complaint, these patents generally relate to architectures for graphics processing unit (GPU) circuitry. The '506 patent relates to "a graphics processing architecture that enables a large amount of graphics data to be rendered to a frame buffer". The '133 patent relates to specialized "texture" processing circuitry that is employed by GPUs. Lastly, the '454 patent relates to a "unified shader" hardware architecture for GPUs. The complaint specifically refers to various televisions and smartphones, specifically, towards the graphics processing systems within those televisions and smartphones - as infringing products.
AMD asserts its vested interest in the mentioned patents, referring to the substantial investment it has done on developing products based on them, as well as its partner foundry GlobalFoundries on manufacturing products based on these patents. AMD also goes on to claim that the patent infringement damages its legitimate partners who have acquired the right to use them - namely, Samsung.
As a means of achieving justice on what AMD sees as gross violations on its intelectual property, the company only requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the infringing companies - so, basically, that the products referenced in the complaint be prohibited of being imported to and sold on U.S. territory. No claims on have yet been filed, but considering how that is a common occurrence in this kind of practices, it's likely that AMD will still claim the payment of an indemnity and/or royalties that would have otherwise been paid by the infringing companies, if they are ever found of the malpractice that AMD filed against. All in all, this will probably go in one of three ways: the companies are found guilty and AMD stands to make money; the companies are found not to have been infringing on patents, in which AMD loses money; or the companies enter an agreement for cross patent licensing and maybe some monetary value changing hands between them. It's still too soon to look into any of these outcomes, though. For now, just know that AMD too sets lawsuits against other companies.
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
According to the complaint, these patents generally relate to architectures for graphics processing unit (GPU) circuitry. The '506 patent relates to "a graphics processing architecture that enables a large amount of graphics data to be rendered to a frame buffer". The '133 patent relates to specialized "texture" processing circuitry that is employed by GPUs. Lastly, the '454 patent relates to a "unified shader" hardware architecture for GPUs. The complaint specifically refers to various televisions and smartphones, specifically, towards the graphics processing systems within those televisions and smartphones - as infringing products.
AMD asserts its vested interest in the mentioned patents, referring to the substantial investment it has done on developing products based on them, as well as its partner foundry GlobalFoundries on manufacturing products based on these patents. AMD also goes on to claim that the patent infringement damages its legitimate partners who have acquired the right to use them - namely, Samsung.
As a means of achieving justice on what AMD sees as gross violations on its intelectual property, the company only requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the infringing companies - so, basically, that the products referenced in the complaint be prohibited of being imported to and sold on U.S. territory. No claims on have yet been filed, but considering how that is a common occurrence in this kind of practices, it's likely that AMD will still claim the payment of an indemnity and/or royalties that would have otherwise been paid by the infringing companies, if they are ever found of the malpractice that AMD filed against. All in all, this will probably go in one of three ways: the companies are found guilty and AMD stands to make money; the companies are found not to have been infringing on patents, in which AMD loses money; or the companies enter an agreement for cross patent licensing and maybe some monetary value changing hands between them. It's still too soon to look into any of these outcomes, though. For now, just know that AMD too sets lawsuits against other companies.
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
