• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA Loses Patent Infringement Claim Lawsuit to Samsung

nVidia really did popularized that term though. I remember first GeForce 256 being marketed as GPU not 'Simply VGA'. IIRC their reasoning is because 'it has hardware T&L'. ATi back then responsed with calling their first Radeon as VPU (Visual Processing Unit). VPU term didn't survive.
Indeed but that same concept was challenged in court between "application" and "app." Courts ruled Apple couldn't claim ownership of "app." "Graphics processing units" existed before NVIDIA patented "GPU" just as "applications" existed before Apple patented "app."

Transform and lighting was handled by the CPU via software prior to the GeForce 256 (Direct3D 6 and down). S3 Savage 2000 was independently developed and released the same year and it supports hardware T&L as well (just not via Direct3D 7). DirectX 7 shipped with Windows 2000. It was the natural progression of hardware graphics acceleration.
 
Last edited:
Transform and lighting was handled by the CPU via software prior to the GeForce 256 (Direct3D 6 and down). S3 Savage 2000 was independently developed and released the same year and it supports hardware T&L as well (just not via Direct3D 7). DirectX 7 shipped with Windows 2000. It was the natural progression of hardware graphics acceleration.
Pretty much everyone was working on integrating T&L via programmable pixel shaders. The NV10 (GeForce 256) just happened to be first out of the gate as a commercial product. IIRC, ATI was working on their Charisma engine (which saw commercial production) in addition to S3, while BitBoys (Pyramid3D), Rendition (Vérité V4400E - which was also to feature eDRAM), and of course the elusive 3Dfx Rampage. Not to mention the weird hybrid solutions like the dual chip (Rendition Vérité 2200 + Fujitsu FXG-1) Hercules Thriller Conspiracy card.
 
I think Radeon (R100) was the first ATI card to support hardware T&L via DirectX 7. I never realized Radeon 7000 was R100 too. I have/had both cards (PCI for the former; AGP for the latter).
 
Last edited:
I think Radeon (R100) was the first ATI card to support hardware T&L via DirectX 7. I never realized Radeon 7000 was R100 too. I have/had both cards (PCI for the former; AGP for the latter).
Yep. R100 (or Rage 6) arrived in early 2000 with the Radeon SDR and DDR ( later rebadged as the 7200).
 
Pretty much everyone was working on integrating T&L via programmable pixel shaders. The NV10 (GeForce 256) just happened to be first out of the gate as a commercial product. IIRC, ATI was working on their Charisma engine (which saw commercial production) in addition to S3, while BitBoys (Pyramid3D), Rendition (Vérité V4400E - which was also to feature eDRAM), and of course the elusive 3Dfx Rampage. Not to mention the weird hybrid solutions like the dual chip (Rendition Vérité 2200 + Fujitsu FXG-1) Hercules Thriller Conspiracy card.

"Hercules Thriller Conspiracy" Neat naming scheme xD
 
I think Radeon (R100) was the first ATI card to support hardware T&L via DirectX 7. I never realized Radeon 7000 was R100 too. I have/had both cards (PCI for the former; AGP for the latter).
Radeon 7000 (RV100) is budget version of first Radeon (R100 - also known as Radeon DDR and then Radeon 7200). RV100 has no T&L.

R100 is later die-shrinked as Radeon 7500 (RV200).
 
R100 is later die-shrinked as Radeon 7500 (RV200).
Ahh, the days. I have a 9200 (RV200) in the attic. I remember upgrading my PC just to get hardware T&L just so I could play Command and Conquer: Generals back in the day. Never had I ever gotten so angry and integrated Intel graphics prior to the 9200. :p

I'm glad this one was shot down. I suspect Samsung will come out of this swing hard.
 
imo the US patent system needs a reform. the way it operates hinders progress. allowing for vague patent claims and patent something more than a decade after do not look very rational.

Agreed.

Also patents for something that are natural progressions of a particular technology should never be granted. Imagine if AMD filed a patent infringment claim against Intel after releasing Athlon 64 X2 for using the same idea of dual core on Core 2, it would seriously hinder the desktop CPU advancement.

If NV have solid evidence that Samsung use an exact clone of their GPU parallel processing architecture in their Exynos, they should sue them for tech theft/business espionage instead.
 
If NV have solid evidence that Samsung ARM Holdings use an exact clone of their GPU parallel processing architecture in their Exynos Mali, they should sue them for tech theft/business espionage instead.

Fixed that for you.

That was the grunt of the lawsuit. They didn't go after ARM itself rather Samsung which license it from ARM.
 
Exactly, samsung don't even make mobile GPUs, they use Mali, Adreno, PowerVR IP.

Such a ridiculous lawsuit, deservedly shot down.
 
It was a last ditch effort into the mobile market.

Qualcomm took almost all the business Nvidia Tegra had.

Icera only passed certification by 1 major carrier.

No one was interested in Kepler IP.

In an effort to scare people into buying into them they might have just solidified ARM Mali, Adreno & Power VR IP even more.
 
Last edited:
It was a last ditch effort into the mobile market.

Qualcomm took almost all the business Nvidia Tegra had.

Icera only passed certification by 1 major carrier.

No one was interested in Kepler IP.

In an effort to scare people into buying into them they might have just solidified ARM Mali, Adreno & Power VR IP even more.

hadn't thought of it in this context. very interesting..
 
What about eyes? Are those not GPU's also? Could they sue the frontal cortex of my brain?

If you want to relate eyes to a product, then a better comparison would be any type of hand-held, video recording device. GoPro Hero line, Sony 4k Action Cam and other video recording devices/camera are good examples. I would think that your brain would function as both your CPU and GPU. People have delusions, imaginations, images from memory, and day-dreams that they visualize in their heads. In a sense, you can view this as image processing by an "organic GPU." If you're one of the types who believe that people have different forms of perception (a way in which data is inputted into your brain through 1 of 5 senses), there are visual learners who have to use their organic GPU to learn and manipulate information. Example of these feats would be simplifying mathematical equations in their head by imagining it, or communicating with other and one of the conversing parties would visually imagine each word being said in their mind. These are known as left and/or right hemisphere visual learners.

Can people patented their eyes, and the answer to this question is a big no. To patent something is to imply that you created a product in a special way, and you want ownership over the intellectual rights to that creation. If other parties decide to use your intellectual rights, they have to pay royalties if they make a profit over it. In a state of equality, it is believed that everyone is equal. So body functions act equal to one another. This is the assumption. The only difference between person A and person B is the "self," their soul, background, conditioning, etc...

Since this line of thought already goes severely off topic, I am going to elaborate even further, and say that out of all humans under the 12 signs (if you follow zodicology), the only people that could actually have a natural patent on their eyes, are Scorpios. Scorpios are the Children of the Serpents. A mis-conception of a "Serpent" is anything related to the snake family, but the truth is, a Serpent is any living creature that's possess Serpent's Eyes, or eyes of the killer. These creatures or animals would have special "ocular" abilities that augment them to see things, or hunt things better over other animals. Snakes have them, eagles have them (eagle's eye), certain families of cats have them, scorpions have them, etc... If we talk about mythical creatures, dragons would have them, the phoenix would have them, Medusa (a gorgon) would have them. One could also make a claim that "gawd" has them too...

An example of this train of thought, used in the media, on steroids, would be the Naurto and Naurto Shippuden Franchise. One point to consider. The owner of the franchise is a Scorpio. Second point would be that Naurto Shippuden Series goes in depth about 3 ocular "Dojutsu" known as the Rinnegan, Byakugan, and Sharingan. These are different, fictional versions of Serpent's Eyes. Last point I want to make is that the main Character in the series, Naruto, is a Libra who acts like a Scorpio. Two major characters in the video, Orochimaru and Hashirama Senju, with Naruto Uzumaki, represent 3 aspects of Scorpio (Scorpion, Snake, and the Eagle).

The only way, realistically, that you can start to patent body parts, is only if AMD, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, NVidia, Samsung, or some other Techy-Company starts going into prosthetics to an extent that humans become partially or completely cyber-nized. This eventually leads to the action of creating patents for artificial body-parts. In addition to that, the creation of a demand-supply mechanic for these prosthetics that will eventually be heavily regulated by the government--a reality close to Ghost in the Machine or the Matrix.
 
Back
Top