NVIDIA shows signs ... [2008 - 2017]

Ouch!. That will hurt.

 

They should be used to it by now.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_31/b4189038912848.htm
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/19341

 

I don't recall an exclusion order being placed on nv prior to this.

 

Reuters

 

Looking at that graph Nvidia look very undervalued, definitely a decent investment for someone willing to take a medium risk. I think with the GTX460 released and loss making parts like the 465 out their margins will bounce back over the next couple of Qs and their share price will follow.

 

Doubtful, that case appears to have some serious implications on Nvidia's bottom line. I don't believe ITC judgements are suspended unless a Judge orders it to be, in other words just appealing the decision doesn't guarantee suspention of the ban on imports of certain products.

Nvidia and partners do have a 60 day window however while the judgement is reviewed. However...

I'm not sure whether that bond is forfeit after 60 days if the judgement stands or not.

That's going to make potential investor's wary of investing in Nvidia until the issue is cleared up, at least in the US.

Regards,
SB

 

By the way, what does "ban on imports" mean? Does it mean from Taiwan into the US? Or anywhere?

 

Anything that contains the disputed tech from anywhere. This could mean anything from a full PC, motherboard, mobile phone, etc if it's got an Nvidia chip with the disputed technology inside it.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-nvidia-in-u-s-agency-ruling-shares-jump.html

So, "We intend to take advantage of the mandatory European Commission License that is available", basically means nV paying Rambus.

EDIT: AMD up & nV down in pre market trade.

 

They still have to resolve the past transgressions. IIRC, the ITC ruling will stay in effect until everything is resolved. ie, the ec license only sets n upper bound on future fees but does not resolve the issue.

 

is rambus up to anything aside from suing ?

 

So why is JHH not frantically running around pulling his hair out and screaming in panic? What's the catch?

 

Even if he was inclined to do such things, he wouldn't do it in public because it would hurt the stock price even more. He probably thinks that Nvidia can either take it to appeal and win, or at the end of the day, just pay up.

Nvidia have pretty much hinted that they are willing to pay up in the future based on the EU licensing fee, so now it's just about the back-licensing for those past years, or trying to find what money Rambus will accept not to keep dragging Nvidia back to court.

 

Is this correct? :

http://www.techeye.net/business/itc-backs-rambus-against-nvidia

No sales in US of infringing products?

 

OK, but those things take time, and in meanwhile, NVIDIA can't sell anything. So is this as bad as it seems, or is there some kind of legal loophole somewhere?

Plus, if I understand correctly, RAMBUS has to agree to license its technology to NVIDIA in Europe at a specific fee, but that doesn't apply to the US, does it?

 

Taking the ruling at face value and that nothing else is being worked out, they can sell but at a cost:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/it...idia-products-2010-07-26?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Again, taken at face value, NVIDIA wouldn't need to pay that bond but all the AiB's / OEM's that import board or system level products into the US, but you would assume that NVIDIA would cover that for them.

 

It's pretty obvious - NV will continue to ship products and will settle with Rambus, thereby clearing up the issue. However, the settlement won't be cheap...good thing NV has cash.

David

 

It's pretty obvious - NV will continue to ship products and will settle with Rambus, thereby clearing up the issue. However, the settlement won't be cheap...good thing NV has cash.

David

 

Thanks, got it!

 

It's not an EU license. It's an European Commission negotiated license for Rambus' IP. It would give Nv the ability to sell its chips anywhere for a fee of 2% up to a $20 ASP. In other words, the royalty is capped at 40 cents a chip. Simply not a major factor going forward, and Nv's GPUs are not going to disappear anywhere. Winning this case does however help Rambus' case against Nv for back damages. That, however, is a matter of cash, not injunctions. Nv may well have to end up writing a large check to Rambus in addition to paying the rather piddling royalty going forward.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Nvidia-Loses-to-Rambus-in-Latest-Patent-Suit-431973/