View Full Version : Intel to Pay Nvidia Technology Licensing Fees of $1.5 Billion
Periander
10-Jan-2011, 21:27
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Intel-to-Pay-NVIDIA-iw-285257919.html?x=0&.v=1
Under the new agreement, Intel will have continued access to NVIDIA's full range of patents. In return, NVIDIA will receive an aggregate of $1.5 billion in licensing fees, to be paid in annual installments, and retain use of Intel's patents, consistent with its existing six-year agreement with Intel. This excludes Intel's proprietary processors, flash memory and certain chipsets for the Intel platform.
No x86 licence for Nvidia. Not sure if Nvidia cares at this point.
The same "here's some cash now be quiet" deal that AMD fell for, then.
I guess refusing the payoff is just too large of a business risk and nearly impossible to explain to investors looking for short term gains.
Sadly, the end result is once again that Intel can continue with their questionable business tactics, which are hurting the industry and customers alike.
The only bright spot is that we can usually at least rely on the Euros to still sport a pair, although it isn't yet clear if the current commissioner will prove be as incorruptible as his predecessor Mrs Smit-Kroes was.
The same "here's some cash now be quiet" deal that AMD fell for, then.
I guess refusing the payoff is just too large of a business risk and nearly impossible to explain to investors looking for short term gains.
Sadly, the end result is once again that Intel can continue with their questionable business tactics, which are hurting the industry and customers alike.
The only bright spot is that we can usually at least rely on the Euros to still sport a pair, although it isn't yet clear if the current commissioner will prove be as incorruptible as his predecessor Mrs Smit-Kroes was.
I don't know what more NVIDIA could have hoped for, apart from even more money, of course. Settling seems wise to me.
The euros did not sport much of anything except in regards to microsoft, which coincidentally was after microsoft had been owned in the US already.
Silent_Buddha
10-Jan-2011, 22:39
The same "here's some cash now be quiet" deal that AMD fell for, then.
I guess refusing the payoff is just too large of a business risk and nearly impossible to explain to investors looking for short term gains.
Sadly, the end result is once again that Intel can continue with their questionable business tactics, which are hurting the industry and customers alike.
The only bright spot is that we can usually at least rely on the Euros to still sport a pair, although it isn't yet clear if the current commissioner will prove be as incorruptible as his predecessor Mrs Smit-Kroes was.
Yes, we can count on the EU to follow the US lead for an easy money grab as they did with MS. Need some cash? Sue a successful US company. So far the two most high profile actions of the EU with regards to MS which didn't consist of an outright money grab were both almost univerally rejected by all consumers in the EU. Windows without media player? Rejected. Internet browser choice? Almost no change. Yay for wasting consumer dollars and extorting money from successful companies in order to try to bolsters companies with bad business execution. Meanwhile allow less capable companies to continue to use business practices that are now forbidden to MS. Way to promote a level playing field and way to encourage success, er wait, I meant way to discourage success.
Anyway, that said. Looks like Intel came out of this pretty good. So they have access to ALL of Nvidia's patents? Interesting.
Regards,
SB
Looks bad for AMD, only getting $1.0 billion.
why do intel need access to nv patents ?
The euros did not sport much of anything except in regards to microsoft, which coincidentally was after microsoft had been owned in the US already.
Owned doesn't seem an appropriate word for the symbolic slap on the wrist that the Bush/Ashcroft-neutered DOJ eventually handed to Microsoft. In fact, it was so spineless that 9 states plus the DC started their own cases after it was revealed just how cheaply the DOJ sold out to the corporate lobby.
why do intel need access to nv patents ? I believe NVIDIA own the 3dfx patents on things like multi-texturing.
NVIDIA's stock jumped 29%.
Yes, we can count on the EU to follow the US lead for an easy money grab as they did with MS. Need some cash? Sue a successful US company.
Or rather, a company which partly owes it success to illegal business practices.
Meanwhile allow less capable companies to continue to use business practices that are now forbidden to MS. Way to promote a level playing field and way to encourage success, er wait, I meant way to discourage success.
You're so consistently present in these kind of topics with your ooh it is so unfair lament that I've come to believe that you just enjoy trolling. I hold you capable of understanding that there are rules that apply to companies that have a monopoly position and not to others. The need to level the playing field is the very reason that they need to be treated differently.
rendezvous
10-Jan-2011, 23:24
I believe NVIDIA own the 3dfx patents on things like multi-texturing.
NVIDIA's stock jumped 29%.
I has jumped 29% since Thursday last week. Not today.
Today it opened at $ 19.51, closed at $ 20.63 and ranged between $ 19.36 and $ 20.67.
After hours has topped at $22.03 and is currently $21.44.
And here are the public portions of the agreement.
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/Intel_Nvidia_2011_Redacted.pdf
Yep you are right, it is since last Thursday.
What do you think it will do tomorrow?
cal_guy
11-Jan-2011, 00:04
Looks bad for AMD, only getting $1.0 billion.
AMD received $1.25 billion and they received it last year and they also receive on payment rather than over 6 years so AMD probably got more value-wise than nVidia.
AlphaWolf
11-Jan-2011, 00:18
Yep you are right, it is since last Thursday.
What do you think it will do tomorrow?
It'll probably settle down slightly, they usually do after a surge.
Or rather, a company which partly owes it success to illegal business practices.
You're so consistently present in these kind of topics with your ooh it is so unfair lament that I've come to believe that you just enjoy trolling. I hold you capable of understanding that there are rules that apply to companies that have a monopoly position and not to others. The need to level the playing field is the very reason that they need to be treated differently.
We already went over this. Apple has a monopoly but the EU doesn't care. Lets see what they do in regards to Intel. I think that Nvidia is screwed kinda. It makes short term sense from the stock holders perspective, but otherwise... Now it depends on how the deal works. Does intel lose access to those patents in 5 years and have to pay again? Or is it a one time payment for access in perpetuity? If so Nvidia will cease to exist in a bit.
Cal-guy is right though AMD got more when you do NPV probably. It is 1.14 billion at 10% which seems reasonable.
edit: Actually the PDF says the payments are over 6 periods and slightly front loaded, but come to 1.12 billion at 10%
function
11-Jan-2011, 13:57
Internet browser choice? Almost no change.
Not so sure about that, the Browser Choice Thing was introduced at the start of March 2010 ...
http://thenextweb.com/eu/2011/01/04/firefox-overtakes-internet-explorer-as-europes-dominant-browser/
Chrome is doing very well and probably would regardless, but are there any other regions in which FF has overtaken IE (serious question, I don't know)?
If you're given a forced browser choice, and one of them is from Google, and another Firefox, surely even some of the Johnny Averages out there would be more likely to switch. Long term I would expect the Google browser to benefit more from this than Firefox.
We already went over this. Apple has a monopoly but the EU doesn't care.
But once again, having a monopoly is not illegal, only abusing it is. An investigation into Apple was started at some point and yes I agree that they need to be watched very closely with regards to iTunes music store/iPod issues.
Lets see what they do in regards to Intel.
They already imposed a huge fine on Intel. Again, contrary to the US.
I think that Nvidia is screwed kinda.
Yes, I agree. Unless they become a much bigger player in ARM and mobile devices remain as strong of a growth segment. Big if.
Anyone remember this? :D
http://media.bestofmicro.com/V/8/233108/original/feature_image07.jpg
Anyone remember this? :D
http://media.bestofmicro.com/V/8/233108/original/feature_image07.jpg
Yeah, good find (http://www.intelsinsides.com/page/com_6.html) :lol:
They already imposed a huge fine on Intel. Again, contrary to the US.
Yes, I agree. Unless they become a much bigger player in ARM and mobile devices remain as strong of a growth segment. Big if.
To the first it is under appeal we will see.
To the second I hope they stick around. Otherwise it will stink. Maybe someone else could buy up the IP and carry on, but it will end up being intel by default unless the arm stuff takes off. I guess they could turn into patent trolls and not really produce anything just litigate as well. But maybe Denver will make a big difference we will see.
I'm horrified at the low quality of analysis on this (especially by the supposedly technical press) here. As I mentioned before, Intel already had access to all of NVIDIA's patents. Their IGPs already depend on access to those patents and NVIDIA would likely have a very very strong case to bar Intel from selling any IGPs (including CPUs with IGPs unless they're disabled) if Intel loses access to those patents. In neither case does the deals involve any kind of IP licensing beyond that.
The original deal with NVIDIA combined the patent cross-license and the chipset license. There was an expiry date on this agreement anyway, which I assume would have ended within 2-3 years at the most. And NVIDIA's top priority with their lawsuit against Intel likely was to argue that it was within their rights to break the agreement (and therefore lose the rights to selling Socket 775 chips too but they wouldn't care anymore) given Intel's behaviour even if the contract theoretically couldn't be broken without both parties consenting. Even if Intel didn't think NVIDIA would have managed to convince the court of that, they'd still have been in a position where 2-3 years from now they couldn't sell anymore IGPs or risk a much more likely to succeed (and even more costly) lawsuit from NVIDIA.
This isn't just Intel paying to get rid of an annoyance. They really didn't have much of a choice, and it's good for both parties (and competition in the industry) that things settled out this way.
Under the new agreement, Intel will have continued access to NVIDIA's full range of patents...
The existing agreement [between Intel and NVIDIA for cross licensing patents] is to expire March 31, 2011.
Has the expiration been brought forward or was it meant to expire on that date? Does this mean NVIDIA had given Intel access to its FULL RANGE of patents before and are extending it again? Why would they have agreed to that? Intel certainly didn't give NVIDIA full license to produce chipsets in return.
Has the expiration been brought forward or was it meant to expire on that date? Does this mean NVIDIA had given Intel access to its FULL RANGE of patents before and are extending it again? Why would they have agreed to that? Intel certainly didn't give NVIDIA full license to produce chipsets in return.Wow, so it was March 31, 2011? Ouch. Then remove my "2-3 years" and replace it by "2-3 months" which makes it even a lot more dramatic. I'm surprised they didn't settle earlier.
And yes, they did give Intel access to all of their patents many years ago. And when they did so, they thought (assumed?) Intel had given them a license to all future sockets as well - it just turns out Intel disagreed afterwards when the situation actually arose. And of course NVIDIA's relations with Intel were much better back then than they have been in the last few years, so there was nothing wrong with the idea of a patent cross-license.
Silent_Buddha
11-Jan-2011, 20:49
You're so consistently present in these kind of topics with your ooh it is so unfair lament that I've come to believe that you just enjoy trolling. I hold you capable of understanding that there are rules that apply to companies that have a monopoly position and not to others. The need to level the playing field is the very reason that they need to be treated differently.
Actually no, your blatant hatred of any successful US company appears to blind you to the fact that all these suits that the EU brings against MS are frivolous and do absolutely nothing to help the consumer with whom they are proported to be helping. All they do is attempt to unfairly shackle successful companies and allow less capable companies to compete through unfair government mandated advantages.
To assume that rules by a governmental agency should give unfair advantages to less capable, less successful, less efficient, businesses is absolutely absurd, and it amazes me that there are people that actually believe a government MUST enforce an unfair playing field in order to encourage mediocrity.
I'm waiting for when the EU decides to sue MS for incorporating TCP/IP, or antivirus protection, or a firewall, or a paint program, or wordpad, or remote desktop while allowing competitors to continue to bundle whatever they wish.
If a company is good and has a good product people will use it. Firefox and Chrome are ample examples of that.
IMO, any company that requires government mandated advantages over its competition to stay in business is a failure... Making sure everyone has a level playing field, good. Government mandating advantages to unsuccessful companies, fail.
Regards,
SB
Actually no, your blatant hatred of any successful US company
Huh? :lol:
Where'd that come from?
To assume that rules by a governmental agency should give unfair advantages to less capable, less successful, less efficient, businesses is absolutely absurd, and it amazes me that there are people that actually believe a government MUST enforce an unfair playing field in order to encourage mediocrity.
Actually, it is 'enforce a fair playing field' and you claim you are amazed. Really, you needn't be. Anti-collusion and cartel law has been around for as long as anyone can remember, and in modern times has been one of the founding concepts which underly the creation of, among other things, the WTO. It is covered in the Treaty of Rome, which was the basis of the creation of the European Union, and it has been a core concept of US policy ever since the Sherman Act. I guess you're aware of the organisation called the FTC, but if not, there's plenty of resources out there if you're ready to become informed.
I'm waiting for when the EU decides to sue MS for incorporating TCP/IP, or antivirus protection, or a firewall, or a paint program, or wordpad, or remote desktop while allowing competitors to continue to bundle whatever they wish.
I'm sorry, reductio ad absurbum is still considered a logical fallacy.
If a company is good and has a good product people will use it. Firefox and Chrome are ample examples of that.
Oh stop being silly will you? In no way is the success of these 2 application programs (which, coincidentally, are given away freely - think that helps?) in any way relevant to the question of whether or not Intel or others have engaged in illegal behaviour.
In a great number of instances, courts all over the world have ruled that they did. And that is even when you take into account that offenders will usually much prefer to settle rather than risk a verdict, like in this case.
Keep repeating to yourself that all of this really just boils down to the EU bullying succesful US companies. You will find yourself amazed again and again in the future as this subject inevitably gets revisited.
It is a stupid policy to let Apple bundle whatever they want on their computers but not Microsoft. It is unfair and hurts consumers. If Microsoft is a monopoly then so is Apple and they should be treated the same since Apple has a higher marketshare among macs than windows does among PCs.
It is a stupid policy to let Apple bundle whatever they want on their computers but not Microsoft. It is unfair and hurts consumers. If Microsoft is a monopoly then so is Apple and they should be treated the same since Apple has a higher marketshare among macs than windows does among PCs.
Yes but to most people Mac IS a PC and therefore Apple is just a minor player. I just don't believe this argument is ever going to fly as far as antitrust law is concerned.
Now, using the iTunes near monopoly as a selling point for iPhones and iPods however.. that's got teeth.
Anti-collusion and cartel law has been around for as long as anyone can remember,
why has no one gone after opec and de beers
why has no one gone after opec and de beers
Actually, they did. De Beers offered a settlement, the case is going through appeal. A decision on action against OPEC action passed the US Congress but has not progressed further yet (Bush announced he would veto it).
aaronspink
12-Jan-2011, 00:46
Wow, so it was March 31, 2011? Ouch. Then remove my "2-3 years" and replace it by "2-3 months" which makes it even a lot more dramatic. I'm surprised they didn't settle earlier.
That's not the way these things work. The way they generally work is that in a x-license agreement you license all the patents filed/granted before the expiration date. The license for the patents doesn't end at the expiration date, it is merely the data after will new filed/granted patents don't fall under the deal.
That's not the way these things work. The way they generally work is that in a x-license agreement you license all the patents filed/granted before the expiration date. The license for the patents doesn't end at the expiration date, it is merely the data after will new filed/granted patents don't fall under the deal.Ah, okay - I remembered having read something more specific in this case, but I'm probably just confusing things :) So presumably the risk was that NVIDIA would convince the court to void the agreement completely. No matter whether that was very unlikely or very likely to succeed (don't know), the consequences would be bad enough that settling makes perfect sense (and obviously I'm not pretending that's the only reason, just probably the main one).
As I said, good for everyone.
Actually, they did. De Beers offered a settlement, the case is going through appeal. A decision on action against OPEC action passed the US Congress but has not progressed further yet (Bush announced he would veto it).
The question is also does it have any teeth? What can be done about OPEC? Nothing. So rhetoric doesn't matter.
Ars Technica thinks this is a really big story: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/01/intelnvidia-bombshell-look-for-nvidia-gpu-on-intel-processor-die.ars
If this sounds like a big deal for both companies and for the PC industry as a whole, that's because it is.
Well, now reading it, I think the article has been edited at least twice. It has been toned down a great deal.
The question is does intel want to destroy nvidia or is it in their best interest to let them live a bit like intel/amd
rpg.314
12-Jan-2011, 14:11
Ars Technica thinks this is a really big story: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/01/intelnvidia-bombshell-look-for-nvidia-gpu-on-intel-processor-die.ars
Well, now reading it, I think the article has been edited at least twice. It has been toned down a great deal.
Apart from the bag of money nv is receiving, I don't see the big deal.
Apart from the bag of money nv is receiving, I don't see the big deal.
Apparently, Jon Stokes originally interpreted the deal as meaning that Intel could make CPUs with NVIDIA GPUs in them, and NVIDIA could make x86 stuff. That would have been a big freaking deal indeed.
But you're right, the actual settlement just means everything stays the same and NVIDIA gets some money.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.