AMD Files Patent Infringement Complaint Against LG, Vizio, Others

[cdawall]

A patent violation claim does not become legitimate because someone else is paying for it. Most companies chooses to pay a fee over a lengthy legal process. Unfortunately patent applications and legal disputes are determined by legal experts, not technical experts. For this reason there are a number of patents that are "legally valid", yet any person with minor technical knowledge and a brain knows they either to be bullshit or preexisting technology.

There are a number of companies owning such patents, including companies like Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft has a number of patents which affect any operating system, incl. mouse input patents, and Apple own patents for "multitasking", none of which were invented by either companies. Even though every sane person know these patterns to be nonsense, most makers of Android devices pay Microsoft a fee per device.

Your opinion doesn't make the situation anymore legitimate. AMD holds this patent, according to AMD these companies are infringing on it. We will see what happens from here. You aren't a patent lawyer or the courts.

 

[efikkan]

Your opinion doesn't make the situation anymore legitimate. AMD holds this patent, according to AMD these companies are infringing on it. We will see what happens from here. You aren't a patent lawyer or the courts.

I think you know what patent troll is, if not you should certainly read up on it.

Patents were intended to protect the "little guy" who invents something from the competitors which just want to steal all the hard work, under the assumption that it's an actual new invention requiring research, not just derivative work or prior art. Unfortunately software patents are completely stupid, and hardware patents are usually so vague that they affect prior art. This is not how patents were supposed to work at all, they should describe a precise invention, like a new form of combustion, a new medicine, a new type of transistor, a new type of solar panel, a new alloy, a specific type of circuitry, etc. The patents in question from AMD are good examples of patents of prior art or derivative works. Many companies have mastered the skill to apply for such patents, such vague patents are never to protect any real invention, but rather to "suddenly" start a legal dispute to get money from other companies. A legal dispute is very costly for many companies, for some it would cause ruins, which is why many opt to pay licenses rather than fight idiotic patterns. So in most cases it's considered futile to get a patent revoked, even if everyone knows it's total bullshit. This is why many companies have made a living as patent trolls, including companies like Rambus which was once a great technology company, but then gave up and started suing companies for technology they had used for many years…

 

[cdawall]

I think you know what patent troll is, if not you should certainly read up on it.

Patents were intended to protect the "little guy" who invents something from the competitors which just want to steal all the hard work, under the assumption that it's an actual new invention requiring research, not just derivative work or prior art. Unfortunately software patents are completely stupid, and hardware patents are usually so vague that they affect prior art. This is not how patents were supposed to work at all, they should describe a precise invention, like a new form of combustion, a new medicine, a new type of transistor, a new type of solar panel, a new alloy, a specific type of circuitry, etc. The patents in question from AMD are good examples of patents of prior art or derivative works. Many companies have mastered the skill to apply for such patents, such vague patents are never to protect any real invention, but rather to "suddenly" start a legal dispute to get money from other companies. A legal dispute is very costly for many companies, for some it would cause ruins, which is why many opt to pay licenses rather than fight idiotic patterns. So in most cases it's considered futile to get a patent revoked, even if everyone knows it's total bullshit. This is why many companies have made a living as patent trolls, including companies like Rambus which was once a great technology company, but then gave up and started suing companies for technology they had used for many years…

Vizio isn't exactly a little company, neither are the others in this lawsuit. Again if this is something Intel, Samsung and other market leaders are doing then it makes the patent legit in my eyes. We aren't talking about third party backwoods here. Intel has also used these patents from Nvidia and AMD for longer than I have been alive. If this was a patent troll issue then why would two of the largest users of the patent not fight it...They certainly have the time and money.

 

[efikkan]

Vizio isn't exactly a little company, neither are the others in this lawsuit. Again if this is something Intel, Samsung and other market leaders are doing then it makes the patent legit in my eyes. We aren't talking about third party backwoods here. Intel has also used these patents from Nvidia and AMD for longer than I have been alive. If this was a patent troll issue then why would two of the largest users of the patent not fight it...They certainly have the time and money.

Other companies paying a fee does not make a patent claim legit. Companies might have motivations for agreeing to pay a fee they believe is unwarranted, like risk losing other deals which might be worth more, or a deal to mutually license patents.

 

[revin]

There are always legal expenses to take into account. If money leaves the company to pay for the lawsuit, and no money enters the coffers from winning it, then AMD basically bleeds money

Ok where's my caffeine been hiding !!
Welp my mind was in simple mode this a.m., thinking that just a filing with the court, and then the lawyers on staff would have something to do, but indeed it get's complex very fast !
Make's sense as cdawall pointed out Samy was paying, so maybe they will get some revenue from this if it can hold up but it just seems so complex that if no one can make any product that has a visual effect without infringement on something that should have been addressed in the design phase of a product.

 

[cdawall]

Other companies paying a fee does not make a patent claim legit. Companies might have motivations for agreeing to pay a fee they believe is unwarranted, like risk losing other deals which might be worth more, or a deal to mutually license patents.

And we could be sitting on an issue where AMD was threatened with the loss of a client (samsung) if this was not fixed. People instantly believing AMD is patent trolling with literally zero facts...Awesome.

 

[revin]

I agree I don't think they're trolling, if anything trying to make sure that the IP they hold is just not infringed upon'd.
I was thinking it was more of a clear cut case that would be easy for them to pursue, but if indeed it turns into lengthy litigation then it's a harsh time to have to spend money they have that could be used to keep improving their products.
Any company that has those protections in place have every right to peruse an recoup from the investment they have.
Amd has made a mistake years ago with the Gainward fiasco, and it cost them the Palit Group, which turns out is/was[-thru 2015] the largest GPU manufacture for many years. That kind of mistake could have been dealt with better than what they tried, but believe AMD learned a lesson that they need to keep all their partners happy even if they may piss off some that could be future clients.