[OC3D] AMD R9 Fury X could be affected by Asetek lawsuit

[RampantAndroid]

If the designs are so close, I have to imagine a cooler from Asetek would suffice anyway, not?

They don't look 100% interchangeable (look at the round sections on the top pieces) but it looks so close that the cooler of the FuryX should be interchangeable.

 

[antihelten]

Isn't that, in itself, illegal? Look up FRAND licensing.

FRAND really only applies to standards patents. Aseteks patents are not part of any standard.

One may not like patents, but how about this:

And just to hammer it home, this is the pumps from the top, Cooler Master on the left, Asetek on the right (with the plastic cap removed):

Hm, probably was a patent of a very specific layout then.

Aseteks design covers a very specific layout indeed. Before (2003) their design, integrated pump/waterblocks looked something like this (this thing also integrates the radiator):

Several companies have tried to challenge the patent, and all of them have failed to find prior art so far, so it's probably safe to say that Asetek did indeed invent something unique and novel. And there's really nothing stopping companies from coming up with an alternative, problem is that Aseteks design is pretty much the optimal one when it comes to overall volume, so if you want to make a non-infringing AIO, it will either be significantly more bulky or you will have to "unintegrate" the pump and move it elsewhere (which is what Swiftech has done with their new designs, moving the pump over to the radiator)

 

[guskline]

For those crying about too many suits etc, I 'll put the link to the Asetek press release about the suit with CoolerMaster.
http://www.asetek.com/press-room/ne...ant-victory-in-intellectual-property-lawsuit/

I realize it's Asetek's press release but note that CMI (CoolerMaster) stipulated (agreed) it had infringed on Asetek's patent so the trial was really only on damages.

What is strange is that the AMD 295X2 used an Asetek cooling unit yet AMD went with CoolerMaster instead of Asetek for the new Fury X.

I wonder if AMD's legal beagles had assurance that the CM unit's were not the ones that infringed on Asetek's patent rights? I sure hope so. From what I'm reading so far, it sure doesn't look promising for the Fury X to continue with a CM cooling unit.

Is this a case of pennies wise and pounds foolish?

 

[guskline]

Unbelievable a patent like this holds up in court.

It's like mounting a fan to a heatsink. Mounting a pump to an engine block.

PLEASE. CMI Admitted to infringing on it.

 

[railven]

The lawsuit between Cooler Master and Asetek started back in 2013, so hopefully AMD would have seen this coming and made sure to buy a sufficient stock of the cooler. Of course this would assume that AMD displayed foresight and proper planning, arguably not their strongest side.

Except, I'm a newb, and I wanted an AIO cooler....
And it wasn't an additional cost for it either as it's the same flagship card.

As AMD tries to make a flagship CLC card this happens?
I'm not even surprised. This is just the typical thing that would happen in a situation involving AMD.

Did anyone predict this was the reason Fury X was low stock?

This is just one of those events that makes me wonder:
A) is AMD really that incompetent (seeing as the original lawsuit is dated 2013, and they still went with CM)
B) does AMD really have bad luck (assuming good faith from CM and AMD proceed thinking their design was safe from any issues with the lawsuits).

Either way, woof. This would definitely explain the lack of Fury X in the wild, probably even the pump whine issues (perhaps CM was trying to change something to avoid the lawsuit and they fubar'd a nice cloned design).

Count down to air cooled Fury X? GO!

 

[railven]

I don't have to wonder about how vague the patent they are getting sue happy about is.

Pump, some hoses, a liquid. Purpose: to cool the hot stuffs.

I hate our patent system and the trolls who get sue happy with it.



Additionally from the link in the OP

One may not like patents, but how about this:

Woof, dat post! I guess definition of vague is '99% similar.' Seeing that image, reading some of the links, CM screwed that pooch royally. AMD should have put a distant between them. As someone else said, 295X had Asetek, just gonna assume CM offered "similar performance at a fraction of the price." With AMD's financial hemorrhaging, the deal was too good to be true.

 

[KingFatty]

Does anyone know the patent number for the Asetek patent?

I wonder if the patent requires specific features of the middle item, the one that is substantially different between the two? For example, the above disc has very small semicircular holes with little posts staggered around it in the rectangular part, but the lower disc has gigantic holes with no staggered posts. If the Asetek patent requires the staggered posts and semicircular holes, perhaps the Coolermaster is a design-around to specifically avoid the patent?

 

[senseamp]

Can't AMD just source these from Asetek then?

 

[Sohaltang]

Why would AMD have to pay anything? They purchased a cooler from coolermaster. Coolermaster should be on the hook. If intel got sued for the same scenerio, would all PC manufacturers be held liable? If the Bose speakers in my friends car infringed on another copy rights would Ford/BMW/Whomever be liable?

 

[Attic]

Woof, dat post! I guess definition of vague is '99% similar.' Seeing that image, reading some of the links, CM screwed that pooch royally.

Yep, agreed. Can't wrap this into patent trolling issue after seeing that image.

 

[railven]

Why would AMD have to pay anything? They purchased a cooler from coolermaster. Coolermaster should be on the hook. If intel got sued for the same scenerio, would all PC manufacturers be held liable? If the Bose speakers in my friends car infringed on another copy rights would Ford/BMW/Whomever be liable?

I don't think anyone is saying AMD has to pay, directly, for this. AMD might "pay" for it when their products get recalled or their vendor can no longer provide the agreed upon cooler for "reasons."

I'm sure CM will be on the hook to make AMD whole, ie provide a different cooler, but me thinks that might take time, and might be the final nail in the Fury X coffin. That thing has been rare up to this point and we've all speculated why. Most of us crossed the cooler as the probable cause but this recent info would put a cooler shortage (not AMD's fault at all) as the number one suspect.

Asetek probably saw the Fury X final reveal and just reminded CM "yo WTF!!!"

 

[redzo]

AMD R9 Fury X could be affected by Asetek lawsuit

No, it won't.

In a very recent case against Cooler Master ...

AMD signed an agreement/contract with its supplier. The supplier will honor the contract. Lawsuits take a long time and fury X will probably not live that long anyways.
AMD doesn't care about the supplier and the other way around. It's business like usual.

 

[moonbogg]

Bah, AIOs are for newbs.

Custom loops are also for noobs. The best journey is when you are shrouded in noobness and build a loop. This is also the only cure for noobness.

 

[sm625]

So all these years I've been buying car parts that are obvious clones, all those companies could be held liable for patent violations?

 

[thilanliyan]

Custom loops are also for noobs. The best journey is when you are shrouded in noobness and build a loop. This is also the only cure for noobness.

I was a custom watercooling noob once...am no longer.

 

[Headfoot]

What's the risk to AMD? They didn't directly infringe right? The onus remains on Cooler Master.

Not true.

Patent infringement is to make, use, sell or offer for sale, import. Making and using are both infringements. 35 § 271(a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271). Whether Asetek sues AMD is a different issue, since AMD is a potential large customer.

 

[Headfoot]

So all these years I've been buying car parts that are obvious clones, all those companies could be held liable for patent violations?

Unless they had licenses, which they probably did. And only if there was a non-expired patent on the design which covered the design. In fact, you could have been liable for using an infringing device, technically. It rarely ever happens, and there is proposed legislation floating around which would change it so consumers can't be sued for using infringing devices until the manufacturer has been sued. Ideas on the subject range from staying cases against consumers until resolution of the manufacturer suit, to total immunity for consumers without a final judgment against manufactuer, to total immunity without reservation for consumers.

 

[Headfoot]

ITT: People who don't have even a vague understanding of patents still somehow believe the system is "broken." Please, if you don't understand a system you have no business saying whether it's broken or not. There are problems, like in any system, but if you can't articulate those problems and you don't even know what the system already has in place to mitigate those problems, you are talking 100% out of your rear end.

 

[Headfoot]

Yep, agreed. Can't wrap this into patent trolling issue after seeing that image.

This is unambiguously, 100% NOT patent trolling. Patent trolling by every definition is always by a non-practicing entity -- a company that DOES NOT MAKE OR DO ANYTHING related to the patent's subject matter. That's what makes it trolling, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by filing hail mary lawsuits in ED Texas.

Asetek vs Coolermaster is competitors, both who make actual products, based on a patent on the actual product. This is just regular old patent litigation.

 

[guskline]

AMD is not liable to Asetek, if in fact, the infringement includes this cooler. However, the Judge could enjoin (stop) Coolermaster from supplying anymore of these type of coolers to third parties (that includes AMD) if the Judge is convinced that the Fury X cooler falls into that category. Sounds like a wait and see process.

 

[Headfoot]

AMD is not liable to Asetek, if in fact, the infringement includes this cooler

If they are using it, then yes, they would be if asetek brought action against amd. See 35 usc 271(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271.

What normally protects downstream users from getting sued is the doctrine of patent exhaustion. But that requires that the original seller is a validly licensed for what they're doing, which is what asetek won as being not true @ district court level.

That, and any decent buy side contract will include intellectual property infringement indemnification provisions so that if asetek brought a claim against AMD as they are entitled to under the law, CoolerMaster would still foot the bill. Unless they have a crappy (seller favorable) contract, which is possible.

 

[guskline]

Here is a link to the docket entries for the Federal lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, ASETEK DANMARK A/S., Plaintiff v. CMI USA, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2013cv00457/262970

I'm reading Judge Jon S. Tigar's September 22, 2015 41 page Order and Opinion denying CMI's Motions for entry of judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, and granting Asetek's request for permanent injunction and other relief. It is docket entry #322 dated Sept 22, 2015.

Fascinating read.

 

[Headfoot]

If you're still interested, the trial judge's decision is filing 249 there (april 21). It's very interesting. These days you can't get a software patent or business method patent to stick for the life of you, but it seems mechanical and apparatus patents are chugging along quite happily.

 

[guskline]

Headfoot, I finished reading the Judge's 41 page order/Opinion. First, I agree with you that AMD "might" be indirectly liable but at the very least I sure hope their legal team reads the decision AND get's clarification from Asetek's legal team whether or not the CM cooler in the Fury X is one affected by Judge Tigar's decision.

If the cooler is of the infringing nature, YIKES!

 

[Headfoot]

Yeah the question remains as to whether the Fury X cooler is using the infringing design or not, but if it is an infringing unit, its pretty cut and dry patent infringement. Like I say though, AMD likely has in the contract with CM that in the case of patent infringement the seller must provide a non infringing alternative or buy a license on the buyer's (AMD's) behalf. This is a standard clause in big contracts for things like that. I do this for a living.

The word "direct infringement" is a term of art and has a specific meaning in that context, which is 36 usc 271(a). "Literal infringement" means the alleged infringer's device literally does the things as claimed by the patent without having to combine references under 35 usc 103 (obviousness). Since CM just lost their infringement case on various models of their AIO coolers, if one of those AIO coolers is on the Fury X then using the infringing device is also infringement. 35 usc 271(a). "Indirect infringement" is another term of art which refers to 35 usc 271 (b) and (c) also known as induced infringement and contributory infringement. If AMD is using one of the covered devices they are using, selling, offering for sale, and importing a device (Fury X) which incorporates the infringing device. That is direct infringement because it practices every element of every claim since it uses a device which was adjudicated as such.

An interesting side note since you are reading along, is check on the actual judgment (filing 249), page 5-6 about the experts chosen by both sides to testify. Then check page 16-17. Looks like Asetek picked a really good expert and CM picked an okay one. The judge and jury both gave asetek nearly everything they asked for because their expert seems like he was a lot better. Indicative of how it can all come down to that guy's resume versus the other guy's resume