NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Infringing Its GPU Patents

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y, Sep 4, 2014.

Tags:
  1. Malo

    Malo Yak Mechanicum
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,304
    Likes Received:
    4,742
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Great answer Dave :) I need XenForo and that Like button!
     
  2. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Samsung is building a GPU

    Looks like another reason Samsung was selected by Nvidia in its suit.

     
  3. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    957
    Maybe, but until Samsung actually starts manufacturing those hypothetical GPUs and selling them, it's not relevant to the suit.
     
  4. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    It is relevant in that if Nvidia got wind of Samsung developing GPUs which would more than likely infringe on Nvidia's patents along with all the other GPUs Samsung is using (which Nvidia claims infringe) then it sure would seem to put Samsung first in line to be sued.
     
  5. Exophase

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    430
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    Samsung has released an in-house developed OpenGL ES 2.0 GPU in their S5PC100 SoC from 2009 or so. Section 9.6 of the user manual describes it in pretty extensive detail:

    http://www.boardcon.com/download/S5PC100_UM_REV101.pdf

    But it wasn't named by nVidia either.

    I don't think any other reason needs to be found for why nVidia is targeting Samsung, they're simply the most obvious target who can net them the most revenue.
     
  6. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    17,835
    Likes Received:
    7,907
    That along with Qualcomm being targetted. A quite obvious attempt to not just generate revenue, but to either scare away companies from using Qualcomm SOCs in an attempt to make their Tegra solutions more appealing or scare other smaller companies into paying royalties that they may or may not have to pay.

    IE - pay us these claimed royalties now. Or we'll sue you next and those royalty payments will go up.

    Regards,
    SB
     
  7. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Investigation Into Samsung

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-international-trade-commission-opens-225037320.html
     
  8. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Actual ITC Release

    http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2014/er1006mm2.htm
     
  9. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,679
    Likes Received:
    541
    Location:
    West Coast
    When have they ever barred major products from being imported into the country?
     
  10. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    If a product gets a ITC judgment where a ban will happen that is the time where the company that faces a ban signs a license agreement and the claim is withdrawn.
     
  11. wco81

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    6,679
    Likes Received:
    541
    Location:
    West Coast
    But the point is that the ITC rarely makes such a judgement.

    They have a high bar on banning products with so much money at stake. If they banned imports of big products, it could blow up to trade disputes between countries.
     
  12. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland

    Specially on a situation like that.... And specailly ITC will need ban nearly every company who dont use Tegra chips or dont pay fees to Nvidia.

    This said, looking at the nature of the patents, it could even backfire to Nvidia by locking them with Frand agreement then with this... basically you can too ban every other graphics processor unit in the world.

    ( but we know the technic who consist to put the much possible patents in the case, offtly impossible to obtain as involved, but just for get at least the hope to get one who pass the ramp. ( something ITC judges tend to use as a consensus )
     
    #112 lanek, Oct 7, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2014
  13. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    FRAND requirements apply to cases where members of a consortium who develop a standard agree up front to license necessary patents.

    If DX and OpenGL don't have FRAND requirements (as I suspect is the case), then they are irrelevant here.
     
  14. pMax

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    out of the games
    ...just curious.
    Intel doesn't have to worry as they have cross license, but won't be this something a bit worrisome for ATI/AMD?

    Probably nothing will happen as both companies have much to lose from fighting each other, yet having a court order from NVIDIA might be a solid start point... or not?
     
  15. AlexV

    AlexV Heteroscedasticitate
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,533
    Likes Received:
    139
    Probably not. ATI and NV are likely to be in a Mutually Assured Destruction situation if they were to go thermonuclear via patents i.e. they're at a stalemate in what regards IP.
     
  16. TheAlSpark

    TheAlSpark Moderator
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    8,531
    Location:
    ಠ_ಠ
    This is madness!
     
  17. RecessionCone

    Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    187

    I think AMD and Nvidia already have a cross license agreement.
     
  18. A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    As expected Samsung counter sues.

    These seem to be related to the Shield Tablet, 6,282,938 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6282938) - Method for rolling a metal strip and 5,777,854 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5777854) - Integrate flexible contacts grounding system for a computer system chassis.

    Nvidia is fabless and and these 6,287,902 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6287902) - Methods of forming etch inhibiting structures on field isolation regions, 8,252,675 (http://www.google.com/patents/US8252675) - Methods of forming CMOS transistors with high conductivity gate electrodes seem to be fab related so isn't that TSMC's problem?

    These seem to be related to the Shield Tablet, 7,073,054 (http://www.google.com/patents/US7073054) - Computer system and method for booting up the same and 6,804,724 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6804724) - Analog/digital display adapter and a computer system having the same.

    That leaves these two 5,860,158 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5860158) - Cache control unit with a cache request transaction-oriented protocol and 6,819,602 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6819602) - Multimode data buffer and method for controlling propagation delay time.

    What is the take here on the validity and strength of these patents?

    Nvidia will fight any of these patents that they believe can be overturned and remember that Nvidia defeated the Rambus patents then negotiated an agreement with Rambus in Nvidia's favor when those patents were invalidated (no financial impact was ever seem in any earnings report). Rambus signed the agreement to save face.

    As usual the counter suit was expected. If some or all of these Samsung patents are validated (in court) and Nvidia's patent claims are also validated (in court) then a negotiated license agreement will happen. But with the volumes of products that Samsung sells vs what Nvidia sells that would seem to tip the balance to Nvidia.
     
    #118 A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
  19. ams

    ams
    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    0
    #119 ams, Nov 13, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  20. ams

    ams
    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    0
    Velocity's CEO responds ( http://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/message-ceo-velocity-micro-responds-samsungs-lawsuit/ ):

    "Velocity Micro has been served a lawsuit which was filed last week in Federal District Court here in Richmond, Virginia by Samsung Electronics Co., alleging that we violate eight of their patents. Additionally, Samsung also filed suit against Nvidia Corporation, apparently as a counter to lawsuits by Nvidia against Samsung and Qualcomm for patent infringement currently before the International Trade Commission and in Delaware District Court. We have never been contacted by Samsung about these claims, and are caught off guard by the lawsuit, which seems completely out of the blue. We know nothing about the previous issues between Samsung and Nvidia, and we don’t care.

    Velocity Micro is proud to be an independent American boutique builder of higher caliber computers systems based in Richmond, Virginia. Our customers appreciate the craftsmanship and tuning that goes into each system we individually build by hand. While we’re not the smallest company in Virginia, we are also not a large multinational technology powerhouse, and that’s somewhat on purpose. Samsung has decided to drag us in to its legal battle with Nvidia purely for the purpose of claiming that the Federal District Court for Virginia’s Eastern District here in Richmond, also informally known as “the rocket docket” by some, is a reasonable jurisdiction for their litigation. They tactically need Velocity, a Richmond company, to be part of this new suit so they can have a faster time to trial to counter their lawsuits with Nvidia that are pending in those other courts. They are trying to beat Nvidia to the punch on other fronts, but they are all too willing to throw a private company under the proverbial bus for their own strategic reasons. It’s simply wrong, and a shining example of what’s broken in big corporate America.

    We can and will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit. Regretfully, precious company resources and energy will be diverted from our core business and wasted to fight one of the world’s largest companies, just so they can play legal games with Nvidia and the court system. Comparatively, we are a small private business, and have absolutely nothing to do with the disputes between these business giants. This is not our fight, and it’s unconscionable that Samsung is willing to completely disregard the effects and financial fallout this legal tactic will have on the undeserving employees of Velocity Micro and our local community. We genuinely appreciate the outpouring of support from our customers and partners around the country, and we promise not to allow this lawsuit to alter our focus on serving them.

    If this is how Samsung operates, we want no part of it, and we hope others agree and consider this during this upcoming holiday shopping season."
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...