PeanutButterOnPickles
Newcomer
Poor Nvidia : S
NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Infringing Its GPU Patents
- Thread starter A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nvidia
Samsung just might trump that "donating money to American's of influence" strategy. Deeper pockets than Nvidia, and I'm sure they've learned some things in the intervening years.
Well the thing with civil cases, unlike criminal cases, the actual structure of the case, the evidence pretty much everything is not as strict, so there can be many different outcomes with civil cases, unlike a criminal case where each side has to pick what they are going for and stick with it.
And this is the danger of civil cases, you may go for one thing, but as evidence starts mounting, things can change fast and move to an entirely new direction, just like this case.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yup that's basically business as usual in pretty much all of the Asian countries, some are worse than others. What stands out about that is the Air Force supply manager actually doing it. The military has a very low tolerance for things like that.
A bit different from the very obvious call in of a favor to the president of a country, however.
Regards,
SB
Samsung cancelled Apple's license to standards-essential patents, immediately sued for a sales injunction in the ITC before making any offers or negotiations, and then demanded exorbitant fees completely out of line with FRAND practices. This abuse of SEPs for sales bans has been rebuked and rejected in nearly every other court in the world where Samsung has tried it, to the point where Samsung has been investigated for antitrust violations and forced to withdraw or settle its SEP claims in other jurisdictions.
The original ITC decision was a bad ruling through and through: it was out of step with global industry standards, it enabled SEP abuse and empowered SEP abusers, and it set horrible precedent for future patent disputes. Overturning it was the absolutely correct thing to do, and hardly the currying of presidential favor you are painting it as.
No, if you are looking for "obvious call-ins of presidential favors", look to Samsung. In 2008, the head of Samsung was raided for embezzlement, tax evasion, and bribery of politicians, judges, and other officials. He was tried, convicted, and resigned in disgrace...until the notoriously corrupt then-President of Korea immediately pardoned him and he returned directly to the Chairman position, where he remains to this day.
Last edited:
I will be curious on where you get the informations you are citing in the fist line, because it is not really what think specialist of Patent war or said in a better way, you take some nice shortcut for a way more long and complicate story about the SEP patents of Samsung..
Samsung have end the contract, because Apple was not paid them and Apple was contest the initial price contract... ( its not because they are SEP and under FRAND licence that they are free ).. The story in Europe and SEP patents have absolutely nothing to do with the case in USA .
http://www.fosspatents.com/#uds-search-results
Here''s the EU commission report dated from april 2014 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39939
Last edited:
As i said, you mainly cite the dissent Pinkters commission ... here the second complete ruling that it is needed to read.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/itc-ruling-on-samsung-complaint-puts-up.html
And the commission Pinkert one. http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/one-itc-chief-found-samsung-to-fail-to.html
I really think there's clearly interessant point given too on this one.
Maybe i have not been clear, personally i dont take side on one or the other, but i like to have the complete pictures. Im somewhat in the middle.
The point of view of Muller on this case ( or on a more global aspect ), is, it could have become an important problem for Frand licence ( from SEP patent ), and it was too a big questionnement for the EU commission at this point.
This said Apple have got a so wrong strategy of defense since the start ( and really arrogant with the ITC, who have not help ).
Last edited:
I am having difficulty following you. The filing I linked to predated the commission decision and Pinkert's dissent. It is also unclear why, in your first response, you pointed to the later EU commission report directly after saying that the European venue had nothing to do with the US.
Both of the posts that you linked to excoriate the ITC ruling on multiple grounds. Do you agree with Mueller, and therefore with me, that it was an industry-damaging decision that needed to be overturned? Are we simply talking past each other?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The ITC can't really help as Obama will attempt to overrule any injunction against Apple. At least prior presidents tended to be more circumspect about their abuse of power. It pays to have Obama in your back pocket. Perhaps the next administration will be less willing to bend over for the parties that contribute to their campaigns, but probably not.
Regards,
SB
http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-cleared-of-samsungs-patent-infringement-suit-08426117/
Original link
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...al-brought-by-samsung-over-memory-chip-patent
Looks like both sides lose lol
Original link
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...al-brought-by-samsung-over-memory-chip-patent
Looks like both sides lose lol
Actually that's different one from the ITC ruling in Samsungs favour, if i'm not mistaken? So currently it seems both have lost once and Samsung won once
Samsung filed with both the ITC and U.S. Federal courts in November 2014. Samsung Electronics America in addition to loading up the docket with the patents concerning Nvidia's Shield apparently also took exception to Nvidia teaching GPGPU workshops that included material supposedly relevant to Samsung patents. If nothing else, it clears Velocity Micro from Samsung's legal threats.
Velocity Micro was dismissed from the proceedings last month, by Samsung's request.
http://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/samsung-drops-all-claims-obviously/
Three cheers for Samsung then...pity they couldn't have acted sooner and spare the company the expense of preparing for the case. Judging by the Velocity Micro statement and the judge dismissing Samsung Electronics America's patent claims due to the not insignificant matter of SEA not actually holding the patents in question, it makes me wonder whether Samsung are more adept at bribing their way out of a situation than litigating their way out.
Nice post in retrospect. Any chance the recent shortage vs. patent expiration dates leading to meaningful events? Is something (not) completely-like G80 far off (because let's say I really like shadow maps) ?
