Larrabee's future in doubt as Nvidia looks to pull their cross-license IP

[SickBeast]

I was under the impression that Larabee actually emulates graphics using x86 cores. Isn't emulation a fully legal workaround when it comes to patents? Apparently NV is using this loophole to make an emulated x86 CPU.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I was under the impression that Larabee actually emulates graphics using x86 cores. Isn't emulation a fully legal workaround when it comes to patents?

That was the original plan, but they had to backpedal hard when they realized they would have been the laughingstock of the entire industry if they shipped four years ago, let alone today.

They have added raster functionality to Larrabbee, that is where AMD/nV have a rather tight lock down on IP. This is where between the two of them they can likely shut it down before it gets out the door. If Intel is forced to rely on stripped down x86 cores they better start making mobos with 10 x16 PCI-E slots

Isn't emulation a fully legal workaround when it comes to patents?

That is a rather gray legal area, don't think it has been tested on a platform that can run the native hardware made by the company which owns the IP, although I'm not entirely sure on that.

Apparently NV is using this loophole to make an emulated x86 CPU.

x86 gets a bit tricky as anti trust factors come into play, not to mention that any reasonably powerful big endian processor can emulate it, particularly if you move x87 off onto something better suited for those ops.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If you guys want a few details on larrabee Skywalker is last person to listen to . Read this than read what he has said . Someone is spreading misinformation ' I because of post problems will link . Than you can attack article. I wishI could use own words but thats not possiable now. Read the only hardware render part being used . There is NO IP infringement by INTEL .

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=602

 

[Nemesis 1]

I would also like ya to look at what it says about ringbus. After AMD bought ATI ringbus disappears from ati . But shows up at intel now . If anyone has IP questions it ATI . But I know that whole story . I know guy worked on it really really well. LOL.


THis is the backtracking Ben speaks of . He would have to of course proof intelbacktraced . But I guess he doesn't have to prove false statement. I of course have linkd ready and waiting.

Texturing is a very intensive operation which is most definitely not suited to pure X86 computing. The texture unit on Larrabee is one of the few fixed function units located on the chip

NV isn't going anywere with the IP enfringement BS.

 

[Phynaz]

Here is what Micheal Abrash has to say about Larrabee.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Someone else posted that today . First I read it . Good stuff.

 

[BenSkywalker]

NV isn't going anywere with the IP enfringement BS.

Bubble, meet burst-

nVidia has a patent on real time ray tracing.

 

[TidusZ]

Hopefully this works out well for the consumers. us.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Hopefully this works out well for the consumers. us.

IP lawsuits almost never benefit the consumer, they almost always hurt us. The best case scenario is Intel realizes what they stand to lose and backs down allowing things to continue as they are currently. At least, that is the best result for consumers. If AMD/nV force Intel out of the graphics market that would benefit them enormously, if Intel forces AMD out of the x86 market that would benefit them enormously- Intel removing nVidia from the chipset business would be a marginal blip for Intel(nV is far from a major force in chipsets).

 

[Nemesis 1]

Your reaching for straws . Intels APi is called IntelRt. It all software only Texture unit is the only thing used . TO Render . Everthing Else is Software Intel Rt. Heres a little about it . Now that we have see the power of DP Xeon Nehalem 2x4= 24 Dunn.(i Believe thats as I read it . So when Larrabbee is released I doubt it will have much problems considering Larrabee wasn't used in the early stuff we know about . Infact it was all software render with cpus. Intel didn't even need a GPU . SO what is it NV has that Intel in infringing on .

http://software.intel.com/site...archive/quake-wars.php

 

[Aberforth]

nv should be sued for implementing PhysX and CPU architecture in their GPU's as it's a clear violation of Anti-trust policies, they also qualify for price gouging.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I just can't see were software render is anyones IP. Many companies have Raytracing IP.

Intels is IntelRT

Heres A good paper from Intel . Note its SOFTWARE RENDER. This Is Offcial Intel Info. Now anymore talk of Fixed pipeline for rendering . Should STop right now!! Other than the Texture Unit. Which is INTELS IP.

http://softwarecommunity.intel.../larrabee_manycore.pdf

 

[BenSkywalker]

SO what is it NV has that Intel in infringing on

Real time ray tracing. Depending on their texturing units, they may also infringe on both nV and AMD patents too. Do not underestimate the things the US will hand out patents on.

I just can't see were software render is anyones IP.

In addition to the computer system 10 shown in the drawings, methods, devices or software products in accordance with the present invention can operate on any of a wide range of conventional computing devices and systems, such as those depicted by way of example in FIGS. 2A and 2B (e.g., network system 100), whether standalone, networked, portable or fixed, including conventional PCs 102, laptops 104, handheld or mobile computers 106, or across the Internet or other networks 108, which may in turn include servers 110 and storage 112.

In line with conventional computer software and hardware practice, a software application configured in accordance with the invention can operate within, e.g. a PC 102 like that shown in FIGS. 1 and 2A-B, in which program instructions can be read from ROM or CD ROM 116 (FIG. 2B), magnetic disk or other storage 120 and loaded into RAM 114 for execution by CPU 118. Data can be input into the system via any known device or means, including a conventional keyboard, scanner, mouse, digitizing tablet, or other elements 103. As shown in FIG. 2B, the depicted storage 120 includes removable storage. As further shown in FIG. 2B, applications and data 122 can be located on some or all of fixed or removable storage or ROM, or downloaded.

I already linked it for you, what questions do you still have? The methods of pushing real time ray tracing have been patented. In all honesty, I think it is absurd that anyone could be granted a patent for such a thing- but it is reality. These things happen all the time in the technology realm, it is one of the reasons I personally like MS holding the cards and letting everyone use the technology.

Your reaching for straws .

This isn't me reaching for anything, it is a matter of law. It was never an issue before as Intel had a cross licensing agreement with nVidia. They decided to try and use the courts to help them out, that changed things considerably. If they had left everything going as it was there wouldn't have been an issue.

nv should be sued for implementing PhysX and CPU architecture in their GPU's as it's a clear violation of Anti-trust policies

You may want to study up on what anti trust laws cover and what they don't. As of right now, nVidia doesn't have a plurality in any market, anti trust laws do not apply to them at all. Intel is in a very different position holding a commanding majority of a major industry. This isn't anyone on these forums choice, this is an issue of law and is decided by in a court room.

they also qualify for price gouging.

The only way they could be tried for that is if AMD or Intel was in it with them(which would be an issue of collusion). Price gouging has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to do with margins. MS's margins utterly dwarf those of nV's, they already are subject to anti trust laws and they haven't approached price gouging issues. Intel is charging over $1K for a processor with a fraction of the complexity of a GTX285, they are subject to anti trust laws and they haven't been hit with gouging charges(nor should they be for anyone that thinks capitalism works for the tech sector).

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

nv should be sued for implementing PhysX and CPU architecture in their GPU's as it's a clear violation of Anti-trust policies

You may want to study up on what anti trust laws cover and what they don't. As of right now, nVidia doesn't have a plurality in any market, anti trust laws do not apply to them at all. Intel is in a very different position holding a commanding majority of a major industry. This isn't anyone on these forums choice, this is an issue of law and is decided by in a court room.

they also qualify for price gouging.

The only way they could be tried for that is if AMD or Intel was in it with them(which would be an issue of collusion). Price gouging has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to do with margins. MS's margins utterly dwarf those of nV's, they already are subject to anti trust laws and they haven't approached price gouging issues. Intel is charging over $1K for a processor with a fraction of the complexity of a GTX285, they are subject to anti trust laws and they haven't been hit with gouging charges(nor should they be for anyone that thinks capitalism works for the tech sector).

You just wait for a few years and see what becomes of them, you think these anti-trust laws are fair? Price fixing- :roll: Stealth marketing :roll: and spreading misinformation about competitive products.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You just wait for a few years and see what becomes of them, you think these anti-trust laws are fair?

Are you talking about Intel? The are the only company directly involved in this conversation that the law could be remotely applied to. Do I think it is fair that they are the only ones that can be underseen by anti trust laws? Absolutely. They are the only one with a decisive market dominance.

Price fixing

Unless a company has a clearly defined monopoly prices are set by the market. Supply and demand. You don't want to spend a certain amount of money on something- this gets a bit complicated for some but try to follow along everyone- don't buy it. Nothing we are talking about is crucial to survival here, if any company wants to sell 30 year old useless technology for a thousand dollars feel free to have at it. It won't work, but go ahead and try.

Stealth marketing and spreading misinformation about competitive products.

This is called advertising, and anyone who is convinced to buy because of it gets what they deserve

 

[Nemesis 1]

You never read . The paper yet you reply . Without what god knows.

The Big part your missing. IS that Larrabee's NATIVE LANGUAGE is c++ Compiler.

Now I know what that means . I have discussed it for years. So you can debate yourself. Ignor that which is right infront of yourself. Not good reasoning tho . I don't know If What Intel is doing is Better or not . But I HOPE its Better. Why because it advances tech. I don't care what company does it . IF its better . I for it . You seem not to share that opinion. Than you WANT to BELIEVE that intel Infringed on NV IP. When NV has stated they intend to infringe on Intels IP .

When that news was known . Many said NV should beable to infringe on x86. Now that this news came out story goes to Intel can't infringe on NV IP. The Paper linked above was published befor this . Read it. Intel is smooth here really smooth.

You guys don't get it yet . I think AMD does . But NV doesn't seem to grasp the reality of what has happened right under its nose. NV is claimering to get x86 . Guys at AMD / INTEL have to be busting a gut. Larrabbe is intels first processor moving away from X86. Thats why its native language is C++ compiler. So again were recompiling x86 for larrabbee to run. Latter in 2010 we see Sandy with ist ATV It to has Large Vertex unit on sandy x86 code must be recompiled or I should Say SSE code has to be ported.

So while NV is scambling to get X86 Intel is moveing to a Vector unit using compiler c++ for native language. At the same time Intels is working on these new processors . Their patenting there IP on this tech . Effectively locking others out. While others battle for old long lived x86 instruction sets. That intel is killing off right infront of everybody yet still say they have X86 processors. When they are infact X86 capable processors. C++ is native on COMPILER.

 

[Nemesis 1]

By intel doing it this way . Programmers can code native C++ for there programs or open CL Intel has every resonable avenue covered . While still mantaining X86 compatability with there Older tech. But as programs move away from those old instructions intel will not miss a step.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The Big part your missing. IS that Larrabee's NATIVE LANGUAGE is c++ Compiler.

So how does that work around the fact that that patent explicitly, in detail, covers software RTRT? In fact, it only has a footnote on coverage of dedicated hardware.

I don't know If What Intel is doing is Better or not . But I HOPE its Better. Why because it advances tech. I don't care what company does it . IF its better . I for it . You seem not to share that opinion.

I am all about advancing technology, what you have repeatedly ignored is that I have explained in great detail over and over again- Real Time Ray Tracing sucks, badly. It is a dumb idea. I have explained why, in detail. If that is over your head and you can't comprehend it then I suggest you read up enough to be able to counter the points I have made. Even Intel realizes their original goal was at best utterly moronic(they had to add dedicated texture hardware) they will come around to realizing the rest in due time.

Many said NV should beable to infringe on x86.

Intel doesn't have a patent on the instruction set, they have a patent on the ISA. If Intel patented the instruction set itself, noone would be able to make code that worked on their processors without licensing agreements. Kind of like is someone owned the rights to handling RTRT in software- noone would be able to do without a license, hmmmm.

Guys at AMD / INTEL have to be busting a gut.

Intel is trying to sue AMD out of the x86 market. You act like noble Intel is trying to save the world, fact is they wouldn't be dealing with any potential IP issues if they hadn't gone on a binge trying to sue everyone that can compete with them. They opened this round of law suits, nVidia filed a counter suit. Intel is used to pushing people around, they should have thought of the fact that they are the 95lb weakling in the graphics market before they acted this time.

So while NV is scambling to get X86 Intel is moveing to a Vector unit using compiler c++ for native language.

C++ isn't machine level code, and it won't be in our lifetime. Do you even know what a bit is?

Other than the Texture Unit. Which is INTELS IP.

That is a flat out, no way around it lie. No matter how many times you say it, Intel does not hold the patent for TMUs, and they never have.

Edit I went and looked it up, there are 3 patents involving texture management units held currently, Toshiba holds one of them and nVidia the other two.

Link.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
You just wait for a few years and see what becomes of them, you think these anti-trust laws are fair? Price fixing- :roll: Stealth marketing :roll: and spreading misinformation about competitive products.

Oh jeeze, not this nonsense again. You do realize the price fixing accusations you're making also involve the only other major GPU maker as well, ATI right? In fact ATI was found more culpable than Nvidia, as they directly sold retail parts to consumers while Nvidia did not.

As for stealth marketing and misinformation about competitive products, I'd say their products speak well enough for themselves in the market based on actual performance.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yep and recent share price reflects that,

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
By intel doing it this way . Programmers can code native C++ for there programs or open CL Intel has every resonable avenue covered . While still mantaining X86 compatability with there Older tech. But as programs move away from those old instructions intel will not miss a step.

To add to Ben's point and approach it from a different angle. If Larrabee and x86 CPUs were "native C++" (they're not), then why would Nvidia need an x86 license? Why does Intel guard their x86 IP so tightly? Why does Intel charge so much for their x86 compiler? Answer: Intel CPUs aren't native C++.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Yep and recent share price reflects that,

What's that? Nvidia dominating the discrete GPU market, same as the last 3 years (look up the latest Peddie figures, Nvidia regained market share in Q4).

 

[Nemesis 1]

Here 1 patent Intel has Ican get more .

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7280114/claims.html

This one here says how ATI/NV infringed on real3D the IP that Intels owns .


http://findarticles.com/p/arti...99_Oct_22/ai_56752315/

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yep and recent share price reflects that

You jump from legal issues revolving around IP, to technology to market value? If you want to start an Intel love in thread why don't you do that, this thread was supposed to be about the IP issues concerning Intel and nVidia that may result from the on going law suits.

BTW- nV is at 11 and change, Intel under 16, not like there is a staggering difference in stock price(with nV being up close to 100% since 11/20- not that any of that matters in any way whatsoever).

Here 1 patent Intel has Ican get more .

That in particular is the one that sucked so badly they had to add a TMU, good example there

 

[Nemesis 1]

Fine well stay with topic at hand . I have many links.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...99_Oct_22/ai_56752315/