ITC: Nvidia did not invent the GPU

Lorien

Lorien

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
5,197
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/09/nvidia-samsung-elec-idUSL1N1291PF20151009

Anyone with half a brain saw right through their patent troll ways when Nvidia sued Samsung and Qualcomm but the U.S. International Trade Commission got the memo as well.
Samsung was sued for "infringing" on 3 of their patents. The ITC cleared Samsung on 2 and the third (the one claiming they invented the GPU) was declared null and void because previous art already existed.

Now we'll see what Samsung does to Nvidia as they countersued them.
 
So the headline is 100% false, the ITC simply said Samsung did not infringe on a patent. AMD sued Samsung awhile back as well. But that's OK because they are so awesome we don't care.
 
photo.jpg
 
PRIME1 said:
So the headline is 100% false, the ITC simply said Samsung did not infringe on a patent. AMD sued Samsung awhile back as well. But that's OK because they are so awesome we don't care.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if i understood it correctly but it said that although Samsung infringed the third patent (which I assume gives nvidia the gpu patent) that the patent was not valid since there was previous art that performed the same function.
 
Lmao... No idea WTF nvidia were thinking...
 
Nvidia invented the term "GPU", defined as "a single-chip processor with integrated transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping, and rendering engines that is capable of processing a minimum of 10 million polygons per second", but they did not invent the GPU any more than Kleenex invented the paper tissue meant for the face.
 
Damn wonder if this will affect future negotiations by Nvidia with other corporations? That's a big one to lose.

And who let them file that patent in the first place?
 
Nvidia...the way it was meant to be charged. Couldn't have happened to a nicer company.
 
Pathethic patent troll attempt. Almost bought the new Google Pixel C but scratching that plan now since it has Nvidia Tegra and I don't want to reward patent trolls.
 
Nvidia wins over all, they were able to tie up companies in a litigation and hold off products.
 
So nvidia is a patent troll after its first patent lawsuit in over 20 years and is a company that actually produces products?
 
Not to mention that they have thousands of GPU related patents and that it is very likely that Samsung, Qualcomm and others are infringing some of their patents. So there is still plenty of ammunition on their side. It is almost impossible to build modern GPUs without having cross license agreements with AMD and Nvidia. So it is absolutely understandable that they want a certain share of the profit that is generated in that area. I smell a long lasting law suit. Nvidia will continue until Samsung and Qualcomm sign something that's for sure. Btw. it is very interesting that Qualcomm is very quiet about this. I think they are talking to Nvidia apart from the law suit. Samsung probably not but Samsung is very well known as a copy / paste company and they are not a U.S. company.
 
All Samsung does is steal other companies tech, get sued, drag it out for years and then pay a small fee.
 
cageymaru said:
Damn wonder if this will affect future negotiations by Nvidia with other corporations? That's a big one to lose.

And who let them file that patent in the first place?
Click to expand...

isnt samsung is supposed to produce hbm2 to nvidia? LOL
 
wantapple said:
isnt samsung is supposed to produce hbm2 to nvidia? LOL
Click to expand...

Yep. But Samsung is very diversified. They have several independent business divisions acting on their own. Manufacturing/Foundry service is not tied with the mobile phone business. In fact they still produced Apple stuff even with the running patent suits.
 
Richthofen said:
Not to mention that they have thousands of GPU related patents and that it is very likely that Samsung, Qualcomm and others are infringing some of their patents. So there is still plenty of ammunition on their side. It is almost impossible to build modern GPUs without having cross license agreements with AMD and Nvidia. So it is absolutely understandable that they want a certain share of the profit that is generated in that area. I smell a long lasting law suit. Nvidia will continue until Samsung and Qualcomm sign something that's for sure. Btw. it is very interesting that Qualcomm is very quiet about this. I think they are talking to Nvidia apart from the law suit. Samsung probably not but Samsung is very well known as a copy / paste company and they are not a U.S. company.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Qualcomm have ati patents or at least access to them when they bought the mobile part years ago. Wouldn't that make going after Qualcomm extremely risky?

Another thought, if this ruling stands once it goes to the commission I wonder how many other companies would change their agreements with Nvidia. Intel and AMD for example
 
rumartinez89 said:
Doesn't Qualcomm have ati patents or at least access to them when they bought the mobile part years ago. Wouldn't that make going after Qualcomm extremely risky?

Another thought, if this ruling stands once it goes to the commission I wonder how many other companies would change their agreements with Nvidia. Intel and AMD for example
Click to expand...


Yup, AMD sold their ATI handset division to Qualcomm for a ridiculously low 65 million in one of their... Worst .. Deals .. Ever. Qualcomm is quiet because they are fully covered on the graphics front. In addition to their patents on integrated modems which nvidia does not want to pay the licence fees for.
 
PRIME1 said:
So the headline is 100% false, the ITC simply said Samsung did not infringe on a patent. AMD sued Samsung awhile back as well. But that's OK because they are so awesome we don't care.
Click to expand...

No, you're incorrect.

"Judge Thomas Pender said Samsung did not infringe two Nvidia patents, and while it did infringe a third, he ruled that patent is invalid because it was not a new invention compared with previously known patents."

It's the second paragraph not sure how you missed it.

Edit: Also hilarious attempt to make this Nvidia vs AMD somehow, pathetic.
 
Last edited:
rumartinez89 said:
Doesn't Qualcomm have ati patents or at least access to them when they bought the mobile part years ago. Wouldn't that make going after Qualcomm extremely risky?
Click to expand...

Well they bought the business division from AMD but whether they bought some of the patents together with that is unknown to me. I would assume that the patents still rely with AMD and that AMD granted access to them for Qualcomm when they sold that division. In that case i don't think that there would be a risk. AMD and Nvidia have a cross license agreement. However when for instance AMD sells something and grants patent access this does not automatically apply for Nvidia patents AMD has access to as the only one who can grant access is Nvidia themselves.

Another thought, if this ruling stands once it goes to the commission I wonder how many other companies would change their agreements with Nvidia. Intel and AMD for example
Click to expand...

AMD has a cross license agreement with Nvidia. I don't see any effect on this. The current ITC investigation was all in all about 7 patents so a very minor number out of the huge pool. AMD probably has a similar patent pool size regarding GPU tech due to the ATI acquisition. All others automatically will have way less. So it is highly likeley that anyone that wants to build GPU tech might have to get a deal with those two sooner or later or otherwise risks to get sued.
 
hummm so sgi was doing a lot of the work in processor based imaging... 3dfx made the chips that accelerated video and nivdia was the one that switched the term from a graphic's accelerator to doing most of the work on the video card... back with the riva tnt... or riva 128 I forget which was first, but umm doesn't that mean that even if the patent was not valid they actually told the truth? or was it just another graphic's accelerator with more functions on a daughter board? then in that case cirus logic was the first one to turn a math co-processor into a video encoding logic chip.
 
Riva 128 came before Riva TNT. It was the first 2D/3D graphics chip that didn't suck on 3D vs. Voodoo. I remembered discussing on forum with others on how this would obsolete 3dfx eventually if they don't make an integrated solution. Not many Nvidia believers back then. The rest is history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top