Nvidia Sues Qualcomm, Samsung Over GPU Patents

[Mopetar]

How is it that you seriously think that anyone else is using a T&L unit like the one in GeForce 256 in a modern mobile GPU? No one has been using fixed function T&L for several years to begin with. Your argument is self defeating.

I couldn't say as I'm not privy to the design details of products which nVidia alleges infringe on their patents. However, that's what they've claimed, so a refutation of that claim would have to necessarily include a comparison between the patent claims and the products that are alleged to infringe on those claims.

For all I know, the products don't actually infringe, it's just that nVidia thinks that they do but are incorrect in their own thinking. I'm not attempting to claim one way or another whether or not nVidia is correct or justified in their actions. The only thing I'm doing is pointing out faulty reasoning on the part of other posters who have some misunderstanding of how patent law works that are leading them to make those kind of claims that are based on their own opinions rather than a more objective assessment of the situation.

While it's probably unlikely that anyone is using decade old technology, they could very well be using some derivative of that technology that could still be considered to infringe on nVidia's patents.

 

[BrightCandle]

T&L is a required capability for game writing on modern openGL games and I know all the games must be using the hardware transform and many will still be using the lighting even if they then add more effects over the top. No doubt Nvidia invented this and that its a basic requirement for openGL support and hence almost certainly is implemented in the hardware.

 

[Exophase]

T&L is a required capability for game writing on modern openGL games and I know all the games must be using the hardware transform and many will still be using the lighting even if they then add more effects over the top. No doubt Nvidia invented this and that its a basic requirement for openGL support and hence almost certainly is implemented in the hardware.

No modern GPU uses anything that could in any sincere capacity be called transformation or lighting modules. No one is even using dedicated vertex processors anymore. They are using big SIMD processors that can run whatever the user software or drivers tell it to. They are no more T&L processors than a CPU is. nVidia would have to be targeting driver software (and even then, OpenGL ES 2.0 for example doesn't include T&L, it's up to the game software or middleware), which is problematic when asserting a hardware patent.

There's still a bunch of fixed function hardware, but none of it has to do with T&L, and most of it existed in prevalence in some obvious form long before these patents exist (or before nVidia released a product, even NV1 which wasn't a classical rasterizer at all). The few examples of newer fixed function hardware units like MSAA resolve (which isn't really used anywhere anymore either) and tessellation units (which most mobile hardware doesn't even have) are not remotely referenced by any of these patents.

I do think nVidia may have a legitimate case for their two patents regarding GPU vector engine multithreading, and will be looking more closely to how those pan out.

 

[Keysplayr]

No modern GPU uses anything that could in any sincere capacity be called transformation or lighting modules. No one is even using dedicated vertex processors anymore. They are using big SIMD processors that can run whatever the user software or drivers tell it to. They are no more T&L processors than a CPU is. nVidia would have to be targeting driver software (and even then, OpenGL ES 2.0 for example doesn't include T&L, it's up to the game software or middleware), which is problematic when asserting a hardware patent.

There's still a bunch of fixed function hardware, but none of it has to do with T&L, and most of it existed in prevalence in some obvious form long before these patents exist (or before nVidia released a product, even NV1 which wasn't a classical rasterizer at all). The few examples of newer fixed function hardware units like MSAA resolve (which isn't really used anywhere anymore either) and tessellation units (which most mobile hardware doesn't even have) are not remotely referenced by any of these patents.

I do think nVidia may have a legitimate case for their two patents regarding GPU vector engine multithreading, and will be looking more closely to how those pan out.

So take your professional insight to Qualcomm. Show them how Nvidia is hornswoggling them. You know exactly what you're talking about. You know all there is to know about Nvidia's IP and how Qualcomm isn't using any of it unlawfully. You are also a patent expert and should share that with Qualcomm's attorneys.

FYI you shouldn't be saying any of this because you do not know.

 

[Exophase]

So take your professional insight to Qualcomm. Show them how Nvidia is hornswoggling them. You know exactly what you're talking about. You know all there is to know about Nvidia's IP and how Qualcomm isn't using any of it unlawfully. You are also a patent expert and should share that with Qualcomm's attorneys.

FYI you shouldn't be saying any of this because you do not know.

Okay, we've heard your opinion, no one knows anything and any attempt to analyze the relevance or validity of the patents is going to be totally wrong and out of line. You're wasting your time repeating this over and over again.

 

[Keysplayr]

Okay, we've heard your opinion, no one knows anything and any attempt to analyze the relevance or validity of the patents is going to be totally wrong and out of line. You're wasting your time repeating this over and over again.

No, you're wasting my time me having to tell you over and over again.
Yes, any attempt to analyze the relevance or validity of the patents is going to be totally wrong and out of line because nobody here is knowledgeable enough to do that. At least in that field. I'm not. You're not. And just guessing at it like you're doing is utterly counterproductive to any meaningful discussion about it. Which by the way is almost non-existent anyway.

 

[f1sherman]

No, you're wasting my time me having to tell you over and over again.
Yes, any attempt to analyze the relevance or validity of the patents is going to be totally wrong and out of line because nobody here is knowledgeable enough to do that. At least in that field. I'm not. You're not. And just guessing at it like you're doing is utterly counterproductive to any meaningful discussion about it. Which by the way is almost non-existent anyway.

NVDA is hitting 24 months high.

My guess is that Nvidia - a patent troll with a whooping ONE patent infringement lawsuit in their entire history (after unsuccessful few years of negotiation)

- is bringing this home esy ^_^

 

[Yarn]

No, you're wasting my time me having to tell you over and over again.
Yes, any attempt to analyze the relevance or validity of the patents is going to be totally wrong and out of line because nobody here is knowledgeable enough to do that. At least in that field. I'm not. You're not. And just guessing at it like you're doing is utterly counterproductive to any meaningful discussion about it. Which by the way is almost non-existent anyway.

You should speak for yourself.

 

[Keysplayr]

n/m

 

[rgallant]

NVDA is hitting 24 months high.

My guess is that Nvidia - a patent troll with a whooping ONE patent infringement lawsuit in their entire history (after unsuccessful few years of negotiation)

- is bringing this home esy ^_^

just a what if
after so many peeps on many forums saying nv has nothing to loose in this.

-HEHE what if SAMSUNG were to UP THE STAKES BY COMPILING TO THE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
say stopping all these imports say sept. 30 as not to added to the volume of phones.

but then turn around and counter sue for loss income , rewriting parts contracts for lower volumes ,lay offs ,other damages etc.etc.
pending the outcome of the court case in 3yrs.

-could cost what 5-20 million a day over 3 yrs if nv does not get a total win - what would that do to nv stock today?

also does nv pay samsung ip fee's on the samsung memory chips [maybe not paying for ip] on their gpu's? or to any other of the component makers ?

 

[3DVagabond]

just a what if
after so many peeps on many forums saying nv has nothing to loose in this.

-HEHE what if SAMSUNG were to UP THE STAKES BY COMPILING TO THE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
say stopping all these imports say sept. 30 as not to added to the volume of phones.

but then turn around and counter sue for loss income , rewriting parts contracts for lower volumes ,lay offs ,other damages etc.etc.
pending the outcome of the court case in 3yrs.

-could cost what 5-20 million a day over 3 yrs if nv does not get a total win - what would that do to nv stock today?

also does nv pay samsung ip fee's on the samsung memory chips [maybe not paying for ip] on their gpu's? or to any other of the component makers ?

They would have to prove malice on nVidia's part.

 

[Obsoleet]

Tegra can't compete with Qualcomm so they try and make some money citing illegitimate patents. Nvidia really is an integrity free company.

I wouldn't disagree there (integrity free), but they do make decent product even if it's probably overpriced. I'd buy it again if they ever took the price/performance crown again. Which hasn't in my view, been since the GF8000 era.

But none of this means their initial patent grants, or claims here are invalid.
You won't usually find me defending Nvidia... but fair is fair here. The anti-Apple crowd who tries so hard to bag on them for lawsuits, and see the sheep getting riled up everytime someone tries to wage a lawsuit for patent infringement.
I see similar parallels. Android is a laggy ripoff of iOS, Schmidt did this with zero integrity and if Qualcomm/Samsung are ripping off Nvidia- I'd use every tool I had to bring hell too.

Reality could be that Nvidia busts their ass to make quality product, only to have ripoff artists steal their work. That IS a possibility here to not be ruled out, until it is.

 

[Sable]

Okay, we've heard your opinion, no one knows anything and any attempt to analyze the relevance or validity of the patents is going to be totally wrong and out of line. You're wasting your time repeating this over and over again.

Not really, that's what he's paid to do.

 

[Keysplayr]

Not really, that's what he's paid to do.

I wish. And thanks for taking the inevitable low road.
:thumbsup:

 

[NTMBK]

I wish. And thanks for taking the inevitable low road.
:thumbsup:

I'm not agreeing with what he said or anything, but... you have the NVidia logo as your avatar, representing you on the forum, and you receive unspecified gifts from NVidia. Surely you can understand why people are skeptical of anything you say regarding Nvidia or their competitors? Is that kind of response really so unexpected?

 

[stahlhart]

Get this thread back on topic also.
-- stahlhart

 

[DeathReborn]

just a what if
after so many peeps on many forums saying nv has nothing to loose in this.

-HEHE what if SAMSUNG were to UP THE STAKES BY COMPILING TO THE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
say stopping all these imports say sept. 30 as not to added to the volume of phones.

but then turn around and counter sue for loss income , rewriting parts contracts for lower volumes ,lay offs ,other damages etc.etc.
pending the outcome of the court case in 3yrs.

-could cost what 5-20 million a day over 3 yrs if nv does not get a total win - what would that do to nv stock today?

also does nv pay samsung ip fee's on the samsung memory chips [maybe not paying for ip] on their gpu's? or to any other of the component makers ?

If Samsung voluntarily do such a thing it would be considered an admission of guilt and play into Nvidias court case. The only way Samsung could sue for loss of revenues is if they lose, stop imports then win on appeal. Samsung also have to be careful they don't open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits against themselves for voluntarily destroying their smartphone business. The best Samsung/Qualcomm etc can hope for is either winning the case of getting the case thrown out (invalidating the patents via USPTO).

Nvidia buys the memory chips just like any other large customer but they might pay some licensing fees for memory controller IP possibly. There may be IP fees that Samsung have to pay tied into the price of the chips.

 

[SoulWager]

I think if we see a settlement, it will be pretty significant, especially considering the companies Nvidia is suing. It's not like they're incapable of defending themselves.

 

[Mopetar]

I think if we see a settlement, it will be pretty significant, especially considering the companies Nvidia is suing. It's not like they're incapable of defending themselves.

It won't really matter how it shakes out. If the Apple/Samsung trial proved anything it's that by the time its over, the products in question won't be relevant any longer so any sales ban is pointless and that any monetary award isn't going to come near the amount of profit that can be made from doing whatever is necessary to reach a dominant market position.

If Qualcomm has to end up kicking a few dollars to nVidia they won't care. Even if they raise the price, most companies will continue to buy them as long as they're better than nVidia and it's the Snapdragon's custom CPU cores that are the bigger deal than its graphical prowess. Perhaps if Denver pans out it might be a different ballgame, but who can say how Denver will turn out at this point.

 

[Obsoleet]

It won't really matter how it shakes out. If the Apple/Samsung trial proved anything it's that by the time its over, the products in question won't be relevant any longer so any sales ban is pointless and that any monetary award isn't going to come near the amount of profit that can be made from doing whatever is necessary to reach a dominant market position.

If Qualcomm has to end up kicking a few dollars to nVidia they won't care. Even if they raise the price, most companies will continue to buy them as long as they're better than nVidia and it's the Snapdragon's custom CPU cores that are the bigger deal than its graphical prowess. Perhaps if Denver pans out it might be a different ballgame, but who can say how Denver will turn out at this point.

Yup. And the bad thing here is that these types of lawsuits are usually very damaging to a company's image. NV's forte is it's marketing perception, to get people to pay more because it says Nvidia. My guess is their claims are valid if they're willing to go down this road, even if it doesn't end up panning out being worthwhile.

 

[Silverforce11]

It won't really matter how it shakes out. If the Apple/Samsung trial proved anything it's that by the time its over, the products in question won't be relevant any longer so any sales ban is pointless and that any monetary award isn't going to come near the amount of profit that can be made from doing whatever is necessary to reach a dominant market position.

If Qualcomm has to end up kicking a few dollars to nVidia they won't care. Even if they raise the price, most companies will continue to buy them as long as they're better than nVidia and it's the Snapdragon's custom CPU cores that are the bigger deal than its graphical prowess. Perhaps if Denver pans out it might be a different ballgame, but who can say how Denver will turn out at this point.

Not only the delays would mean the offending product aren't relevant, but the pay out can be contested and appealed.

Recall how Samsung was to pay $1B to Apple, so the news claimed Samsung were planning on sending them $1B in dimes in a truck.. but eventually that decision was appealed and they didn't pay.

Because Samsung sued Apple in Japan, Korea and other markets, forcing an Apple back down or "settle outside of court".

It becomes a game of who can throw more money at lawyers. It's not a game Samsung will lose.