3dfx vs Nvidia Patent litigation...

[NOX]

<< SJ - Would those be the very same claims that the court dismissed? >>



I was thinking the same thing, good question though!

 

[BenSkywalker]

&quot;The Judge must have found something to find Nvidia liable of patent infringement.&quot;

That isn't what happened, they &quot;defined&quot; what the patenet covered. Certain portions of it are extremely broad based on the ruling, and could definately be argued that every 3D board that handles multitexturing is covered, or for that matter software render engines and even CPUs.

 

[PCResources]

3dfx had one thing going for them, glide.

Now glide is dead, so what can they do? They sue, like always in this sucky business, if your company is going down the drain because you made some bad decisions, just look around, there must be someone you can sue.

It's sad.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[NOX]

<< Certain portions of it are extremely broad based on the ruling, and could definately be argued that every 3D board that handles multitexturing is covered, or for that matter software render engines and even CPUs. >>



Yeah, and which went in 3dfx's favor.

 

[NOX]

<< Now glide is dead, so what can they do? They sue, like always in this sucky business, if your company is going down the drain because you made some bad decisions, just look around, there must be someone you can sue.

It's sad. >>


From what I understand this was something filed back in 97? Back in 97 3dfx was not in the situation which fronts them today, so how can anyone assume it?s because of that?

 

[PCResources]

<< From what I understand this was something filed back in 97? Back in 97 3dfx was not in the situation which fronts them today, so how can anyone assume it?s because of that? >>



Well NOX, it doesn't really matter, 3dfx had their glory days, yes HAD, but those days are over now, and 3dfx will soon be a dead company, or maybe a bought company, but then again who would be stupid enough to buy a company with 4 year old ideas??

3dfx has left the high-end gaming arena, and will surely stay gone, except for the few who will keep their old cards simply because &quot;3dfx is great&quot;.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[Midnight Rambler]

Let me get this straight, it's OK for nVidia to sue 3dfx, but not OK for 3dfx to sue nVidia?

As for 3dfx having left the high end gaming arena, I'd have to disagree. It depends very much upon what game you are playing. Driving sims, for instance, still have a very high percentage of 3dfx users.

 

[PCResources]

Actually, which company will not be sued? All of them use muli-texturing, so why not bring them all down?? that would leave us with one choice, 3DFX, what a nightmare!!!!


Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[Rectalfier]

All Nvidiots are Nvidia Zealots.
Not all Nvidia Zealots are Nvidiots.

 

[pen^2]

voodoo5 can finally hang with big boys with the last driver update..... and thats the best they could do with the double chip solution. from a consumers viewpoint it doesnt mean much but how much longer will they able to do the same with lacking technology? dont gimme rampage blah blah crap, paper launch and recall is not what i am looking in a new video card. why dont they just stop making worthless video cards? i hope ati and matrox could put nuff pressure on nvidia so 3dfx can concentrate making those fancy voodootv cards. those tv cards sound mighty tasty, no kidding

 

[NOX]

<< it doesn't really matter >>


You?re right is doesn?t but your remark or conspiracy theory was a bit fabricated! 3dfx?s lawsuit was filed some time near September 22, 1998 (Though I could be way off). Though 3dfx is not the only one who though Nvidia was stealing technology, S3, and Silicon Graphics both filed patent suits against Nvidia.


<< They sue, like always in this sucky business, if your company is going down the drain because you made some bad decisions, just look around, there must be someone you can sue. >>




<< NVidia, one of the leading suppliers of graphics chips used in PCs, has filed a patent infringement suit against rival graphics chip supplier 3dfx Interactive. >>


To bad the Judge though otherwise. :Q


<< Actually, which company will not be sued? All of them use muli-texturing, so why not bring them all down?? that would leave us with one choice, 3DFX, what a nightmare!!!! >>


It?s the process of which it was implemented and fashioned, according to reports Nvidia?s multitexturing technology is similar to 3dfx. The others companies according to reports developed their own method of multitexturing.

Leave it up to the courts to get to the bottom of this.

Link
Link

 

[BFG10K]

Hey Alf, I don't suppose you'd care to tell us why 3dfx have only just filed their lawsuit now, given nVidia have be using multi-texturing since the TNT2 days?

Did it take 3dfx that long to &quot;figure out&quot; that nVidia was using multi-texturing? Is 3dfx going to be sueing ATi as well? Matrox? S3? Or are you just going after the fatest chicken first (nVidia)?

3dfx = RAMBUS = monopolostic retards.

 

[NOX]

<< Hey Alf, I don't suppose you'd care to tell us why 3dfx have only just filed their lawsuit now, given nVidia have be using multi-texturing since the TNT2 days?

Did it take 3dfx that long to &quot;figure out&quot; that nVidia was using multi-texturing? Is 3dfx going to be sueing ATi as well? Matrox? S3? Or are you just going after the fatest chicken first (nVidia)?

3dfx = RAMBUS = monopolostic retards. >>


Did you bother to read? 3dfx suit against Nvidia was reported back in 98 (DOH)!

3dfx sues Nvidia

BFG10K = illiterate

BTW: It was Nvidia?s RIVA TNT, and not ?TNT2? which is alleged to have infringed on 3dfx?s patent!

 

[BFG10K]

Did you bother to read? 3dfx suit against Nvidia was reported back in 98 (DOH)!

I did bother to read. What I want to know is:

(1) Why has it resurfaced now?
(2) Why are they only sueing nVidia?

 

[Cpntrips]

BFG10K, are you being serious? Its taken 2 years for the hearings to reach its current state. 3dfx has nothing to do with this. Only Nvidia was sued because apparently only they violated the patent. Its not just multitexturing they are suing over but the method in which it was done, thats why the other companies aren't being sued.

 

[BFG10K]

Only Nvidia was sued because apparently only they violated the patent. Its not just multitexturing they are suing over but the method in which it was done,

Where does it say that in the article? All it says is that 3dfx is suing nVidia because they use multi-texturing.

3Dfx filed the suit against Nvidia in the U.S. District Court in Northern California, claiming that Nvidia is using 3Dfx's patented &quot;multitexturing&quot; technology in its newest graphics chip, the Riva TNT.

 

[NOX]

<< I did bother to read. What I want to know is:

(1) Why has it resurfaced now?
(2) Why are they only sueing nVidia? >>


Sometimes suits such as this one, takes years before they are actually tried in a court of law. From what I?ve read this is being tried in civil court. 3dfx is ?claiming that Nvidia is using 3Dfx's patented &quot;multitexturing&quot; technology? thus committing patent infringement.

If 3dfx wins this case they wont have to sue ATI, Matrox, S3 etc? If in fact ATI, Matrox, S3 etc?is using a similar method of implementing multitexturing they would probably have to pay some type of royalty, or licensing fee to 3dfx. Or they could develop their own style of multitexturing, and not pay anything to 3dfx or anyone else for that matter.


<< BFG10K, are you being serious? >>


I was wondering the same thing that?s why I responded the way I did the first time.

Go here for some good in depth discussion.

 

[BenSkywalker]

&quot;Or they could develop their own style of multitexturing, and not pay anything to 3dfx or anyone else for that matter.&quot;

Read the ruling. Combining two elements in a 3D world into one is covered if it uses math. All operations in a computer use math. The court seriously overstepped the bounds of the patent(which applied only to RGBA as specified by the patent in plain English). I do hope someone purchases and crushes them quickly. They patented something that was around well over a decade before they existed.

Some of the rulings do only deal with hardware implementation, but even those are extremely broad and would be akin to Transmetta patenting L2 cache and then having a court uphold the patent and encompass L1 cache along with it, just because they probably wanted to include it and just forgot.

Read the ruling, and read the patents in question. Filter out the legal BS(which was my problem at first) and leave the technical aspects and it is clear that the ruling far oversteps the bounds of what the patent covered, and even then parts of the patent include technology that was utilized long before 3dfx was thought of.

 

[rahvin]

<<Combining two elements in a 3D world into one is covered if it uses math. >>

Umm, I assume you are saying you can't patent something that uses math. May I point you to the example of RSA.

<<They patented something that was around well over a decade before they existed.>>

Single cycle HARDWARE multi-texturing has been around a decade? My gawd these graphics chips companies are slow at bringing stuff to the table!

 

[BenSkywalker]

&quot;Single cycle HARDWARE multi-texturing has been around a decade? My gawd these graphics chips companies are slow at bringing stuff to the table!&quot;

Read the ruling, under several points it in no way requires that it be a hardware implementation. With the ruling as broad as it is, it is possible that nV could get off because of the terminology that is used.

&quot;Umm, I assume you are saying you can't patent something that uses math. May I point you to the example of RSA.&quot;

No, the documents give no instance of any particular math, just if it uses math at all.

Anything based on binary can easily be proven to be based on mathematics. The only type of multitexturing(even though the courts ruling on the terminology is far beyond just that) that exists that could be deemed outside of 3dfx's patent, based on the ruling we are discussing, is if you were to run entirely in software utilizing SIMD.

EMBM is in violation of 3dfx's patent according to the court's ruling. Is anyone going to try and honestly say that that is what 3dfx was thinking of? The ruling is so incredibly vague that everyone involved in 3D, hardware and the majority of software companies, are included as &quot;violators&quot; of this patent.

The patent itself indicated RGBA, and nVidia tried to hold them to exactly what the patent specified(which is how it is supposed to work) and the court ruled that it goes beyond that.

The only way that anyone could &quot;get around&quot; this would be to single pass and then write to the frame buffer and then pull the data out of the frame buffer and multi texture, that is the only workaround given the court's ruling.

 

[Rellik]

Isn´t it curios that Nvidia is now looking good to win AFTER Brian Burke &quot;changed the employer&quot;. Makes you wonder how much PR People really know....