Nvidia Sued over alleged patent infringement

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,890
Busted!

"A statement made by Xperi chief executive Jon Kirchner during the company's first quarter earnings call, first spotted by Tom's Hardware, confirms the details of the case. 'Today we filed a lawsuit against Nvidia for patent infringement. We believe that Nvidia is using our patent semiconductor technology in certain of its CPUs and processors and we have been speaking with NVIDIA for several years about taking a patent licence,' claims Kirchner. 'We ultimately could not reach an agreement and we felt that we needed to take this action to defend our intellectual property rights. We filed the case in Delaware Federal Court asserting five patents. We think it’s broadly applicable to [Nvidia's] core GPU and processor offerings, and it's our preference to see a resolution to this, but after working diligently for an extended period of time we felt it was necessary to take this step to help try to close the gap essentially on our respective views.'

The patents in question include a method of forming an interconnect for planar semiconductors, a reference voltage circuit with claimed zero temperature coefficient, a packaging method for semiconductors, and 'a semiconductor apparatus that allows miniaturisation of a multichip module using an imposer substrate and a method of manufacturing the same'.

Nvidia has not yet responded to the company's accusations."

https://bit-tech.net/news/tech/graphics/nvidia-sued-over-alleged-patent-infringement/1/
 
gotta love these lawsuits.. lets sue some one for infringing on a patent for a product they don't even manufacture in house.. because there's no way in hell they could go after TSMC.
 
I used the word 'computer' today. I am now patenting it and suing everyone for everything for using it for years

Thats how these guys work. Dipshits
 
If it is true that Nvidia was negotiating with them (questionable) then the case may hold some weight. Why would Nvidia negotiate to license a product they don't own? Of course it could of been totally 1 sided "negotiating", as is blackmail.
 
bigdogchris said:
If it is true that Nvidia was negotiating with them (questionable) then the case may hold some weight. Why would Nvidia negotiate to license a product they don't own? Of course it could of been totally 1 sided "negotiating", as is blackmail.
Click to expand...
basically they were requesting nvidia to pay them, nvidia was ignoring them.. that was them negotiating..
 
NeoNemesis said:
Hope nVidia wins this. Despise patent trolls.
Click to expand...
Where do they keep getting the money to go up against the big dogs like Nvidia if they keep losing. You know Nvidia has some too dog lawyer on retainer to fight petty shit like this.
 
I guess the question for these patents are this: Are these original ideas that were patented before someone else attempted to use them, such as Nvidia, in this case? A literal idea that has been patented, despite whether you can create the physical product or not, is applicable. (We are speaking about things that they may not be able to develop on their own, because of the type of manufacturing involved.)

Just because someone does not have the capacity to produce these items does not mean they are patent trolls. Also, these functional ideas may have came from individuals that by themselves, could not afford to patent it on their own.
 
Unless you get someone who patented a circle and now wants to sue the Auto makers and whoever else for using it for their tires. (I figure someone will try it one day :wtf:)
 
ManofGod said:
I guess the question for these patents are this: Are these original ideas that were patented before someone else attempted to use them, such as Nvidia, in this case? A literal idea that has been patented, despite whether you can create the physical product or not, is applicable. (We are speaking about things that they may not be able to develop on their own, because of the type of manufacturing involved.)

Just because someone does not have the capacity to produce these items does not mean they are patent trolls. Also, these functional ideas may have came from individuals that by themselves, could not afford to patent it on their own.
Click to expand...

This is what makes the patent system entirely broken. If you can't manufacture at least a prototype of a new idea or at least produce verifiable ability to one day manufacture it , then a patent should never be granted or if it is, be granted provisionally for a very short time.

Otherwise the patent system just becomes a loose collection of ideas that may or may not ever come to fruition but allows patent troll companies like this to sue for large sums when someone else comes up with the same idea/methods except they can manufacture it.
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
This is what makes the patent system entirely broken. If you can't manufacture at least a prototype of a new idea or at least produce verifiable ability to one day manufacture it , then a patent should never be granted or if it is, be granted provisionally for a very short time.

Otherwise the patent system just becomes a loose collection of ideas that may or may not ever come to fruition but allows patent troll companies like this to sue for large sums when someone else comes up with the same idea/methods except they can manufacture it.
Click to expand...
Technically over the details of the suit TSMC is the one at fault but the patents aren’t enforceable in Taiwan. They tried this with Intel and Samsung and they both settled to make it go away for undisclosed amounts. nVidia just posted record numbers and their stocks are skyrocketing after their recent reveals, it’s not a coincidence that now is when the lawsuits are creeping out of the woodwork.
They are looking for a settlement, and they will settle for less than it costs to defend against it in court, which each settlement they get gives them credibility in the next target they go for. It’s no better than extortion.
 
Last edited:
vegeta535 said:
Where do they keep getting the money to go up against the big dogs like Nvidia if they keep losing. You know Nvidia has some too dog lawyer on retainer to fight petty shit like this.
Click to expand...

The thing is, I doubt they lose all that often. Companies with deep pockets like Nvidia probably just settle with them to avoid a long contracted legal battle.
 
vegeta535 said:
Where do they keep getting the money to go up against the big dogs like Nvidia if they keep losing. You know Nvidia has some too dog lawyer on retainer to fight petty shit like this.
Click to expand...
They “win” more than not, they know how much it will likely cost to defend in court, and will settle for less than that. Even if they win they need to sue for damages in which they will win only for the other side to declare bankruptcy and have nothing to show for their decade of efforts. This is legalized extortion at best.
 
5150Joker said:
This is what makes the patent system entirely broken. If you can't manufacture at least a prototype of a new idea or at least produce verifiable ability to one day manufacture it , then a patent should never be granted or if it is, be granted provisionally for a very short time.

Otherwise the patent system just becomes a loose collection of ideas that may or may not ever come to fruition but allows patent troll companies like this to sue for large sums when someone else comes up with the same idea/methods except they can manufacture it.
Click to expand...

Patents are never about producing the product by the patent owner. One can come up with a better way to do something or process improvement to already existing tech with the goal of selling this improvement to other manufacturers. You do have to prove that your continuing to market said improvement or product but that is all you need to do. Plenty of people have been ripped off by big companies passing on a idea and then later patenting said tech by stealing what was presented to them, just because the inventor didn't get a patent first.
 
Lakados said:
They “win” more than not, they know how much it will likely cost to defend in court, and will settle for less than that. Even if they win they need to sue for damages in which they will win only for the other side to declare bankruptcy and have nothing to show for their decade of efforts. This is legalized extortion at best.
Click to expand...

Ya, and the best part of this tactic is that as soon as Patent Troll Company ABC files for bankruptcy, magically, Patent Troll Company DEF appears in its place...
 
5150Joker said:
This is what makes the patent system entirely broken. If you can't manufacture at least a prototype of a new idea or at least produce verifiable ability to one day manufacture it , then a patent should never be granted or if it is, be granted provisionally for a very short time.

Otherwise the patent system just becomes a loose collection of ideas that may or may not ever come to fruition but allows patent troll companies like this to sue for large sums when someone else comes up with the same idea/methods except they can manufacture it.
Click to expand...
two parts definitely need to change. 1. there needs to be a limit on how long a patent lasts similar to how medication works were after X years(can't remember what it is) the patent expires and anyone can produce the medication. 2. remove the ability to sell/trade patents between companies.

hell if i remember correctly wasn't it google or microsoft that bought up a shit ton of patents a while back and made them royalty free just so patent trolls couldn't get their hands on them and disrupt the markets. why does that even need to be a thing?
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
two parts definitely need to change. 1. there needs to be a limit on how long a patent lasts similar to how medication works were after X years(can't remember what it is) the patent expires and anyone can produce the medication. 2. remove the ability to sell/trade patents between companies.

hell if i remember correctly wasn't it google or microsoft that bought up a shit ton of patents a while back and made them royalty free just so patent trolls couldn't get their hands on them and disrupt the markets. why does that even need to be a thing?
Click to expand...

Patents do expire. Medication uses the same patent system. The problem with tech patents is that patents are often given out by technologically illiterate and ignorant people, who have no idea whether or not a patent is truly a new or unique idea. Thus a patent can be given out years after something was brought to market, and the companies that brought said product to market will have to prove in a court of law that the patent is invalid due to prior art. Once again though, the judges are also often technologically illiterate, which can make the trials go on for months and years when it should have been tossed at the outset.

Selling and trading patents isn't inherently bad, especially if a startup company doesn't have the capital to get their innovation off the ground. It was the trading of patents that allowed AMD access to x86 and Intel to 64-bit.

One of two things need to happen: a separate patent department full of technologically competent people, divided into software and hardware, or technologically competent judges that will make quick work of these cases. The former won't happen as the government really wants to spend as little on the patent process as possible, so the people hired are just glorified paper pushers. Therefore technologically competent judges need to be hired to oversee these kinds of trials in order to make them short and cheap.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
two parts definitely need to change. 1. there needs to be a limit on how long a patent lasts similar to how medication works were after X years(can't remember what it is) the patent expires and anyone can produce the medication.
Click to expand...

Patents do expire as the above poster mentioned. The problem with it however, which is why you might think they don't expire, is the time length is 20 years which for the tech industry/products (due to it's nature) effectively makes anything to do with waiting it out not practical/realistic.

Using your example generic medication 20 years (and even longer) is still very relevant to the public. A GPU, using this topic, 20 years later not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top