I see, sorry for the confusion.
- Status
I see, sorry for the confusion.
This is hardly Nvidia's fault. Intel unilaterally breached the cross-licensing agreement with Nvidia when they released Nehalem, specifically to destroy Nvidia's MCP business by preventing them from making chipsets which interface with Nehalem derivatives. Nvidia would have made chipsets which interface with newer Intel processors, if not for Intel's perfidy.
Apple is not going to use Intel's current integrated graphics, which are just not good enough for Apple. So Intel has forced Apple and Nvidia into this corner, and Intel deserves all the blame for Apple using old processors in Apple's new products.
No, Intel sued Nvidia, claiming that their existing cross-licensing agreement only covered processors without integrated memory controllers.
http://news.cnet.com/intel-takes-chipset-dispute-with-nvidia-to-court/
It's ridiculous. There are clear anti-trust problems with Intel's stance here: it's like Microsoft not only setting Internet Explorer as the default web browser, but suing Mozilla to prevent Firefox from being installed at all on Windows 7. Intel clearly doesn't have a case here, and will lose in court.
But of course, the court case means nothing: the important thing was to disrupt Nvidia's MCP business for long enough that Intel could integrate a better GPU into Sandy Bridge. At that point, Nvidia's chipset business would be pretty much dead anyway, and the dispute would be moot. And Intel has succeeded here, since Sandy Bridge is imminent. But let's not forget what Intel has done here, it's really despicable.
Most cross-licensing agreements include limitations. I could understand if Intel had excluded future technology from that agreement.
Is it really ridiculous? If it was so ridiculous, it would have been thrown out of the courts by now. The fact that it hasn't in the 20 months since then means it's not as ridiculous as you claim it to be.
Is it really ridiculous? If it was so ridiculous, it would have been thrown out of the courts by now. The fact that it hasn't in the 20 months since then means it's not as ridiculous as you claim it to be.
aaronspink
Veteran
Um, no. Its like a company licensing WinXP from MS to ship with their systems and then later announcing they are going to ship them with Vista/Win7 but not license Vista/Win7 from MS because they are claiming that their WinXP license covers all MS OSes!
In your completely uninformed and likely incorrect opinion.
And exactly how do you know that this claim isn't valid, since the contract is confidential?
Jawed
Legend
I made a thread for this topic:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=48307
In my view Intel has never sought to withhold a licence from NVidia, merely sought payment for a technically different licence that was never in the scope of the original licence.
On the other hand, NVidia has set out to withhold licences for SLI capability, with zero technical merit for doing so. There is nothing in an SLI chipset's functionality that is not part of the PCI Express functionality (PCI Express explicitly provides for data sharing between PCI Express-connected devices).
Aren't/weren't you in the NV fellowship program and might have a bit skewed view on this? (correct me if you're not Bryan)
I think everyone can agree that NVIDIA is missing the necessary licenses to the interconnects on 2009, 2010 and 2011 CPU's
The simple fact is that NV would never have agreed to a cross-licensing deal where they got a chipset license and Intel got access to their patents if they realised the latter would last longer than the chipset license's useful lifetime. So either Intel is misrepresenting the agreement, or NV misunderstood it from the start, or the most sensible way to read it is NV's but Intel got a genuine legal point on a technicality NV missed.
At the very start of the dispute, JHH said he'd love to break the deal completely then so that Intel's IGPs and Larrabee would presumably infringe their patents. I assume however that the contract could not be made void without both sides' agreement.
It is not credible that NV would sign such a deal if they understood it to be FSB-only, but I obviously agree that does not at all mean they're right from a legal perspective. We'll know eventually, I suppose.
At the very start of the dispute, JHH said he'd love to break the deal completely then so that Intel's IGPs and Larrabee would presumably infringe their patents. I assume however that the contract could not be made void without both sides' agreement.
It is not credible that NV would sign such a deal if they understood it to be FSB-only, but I obviously agree that does not at all mean they're right from a legal perspective. We'll know eventually, I suppose.
Where did you see that? I haven't seen anything suggesting an Intel offer to sell Nehalem licenses to anyone.
Jawed
Legend
See the thread I linked above. I even quoted the relevant part where Intel says a licence is available should NVidia want it.
For only $1 sextillion you too can now have a license! Step right up and buy the opportunity to make a chipset everyone!
Sorry for continuing the OT but I don't blame Intel for that move at all. They are adding the most value on the platform. What nVidia brings to the table is better integrated graphics and given that AMD is so far unable to compete even with better graphics on their chipsets Intel has no incentive to let nVidia into their world. It's the lack of competition from AMD that sealed nVidia's fate. Fusion probably won't change that either.
Not as much as the heady Athlon did itself, really. Back in those days, the Athlons were better value than their Intel equivalents for quite a few reasons which were nothing to do with the Nforce4 (& 2) chips, good though they were.
This is Intel turning the screws on NV, and little more. AMD's IGPs are a competitive advantage right now for myriad reasons, and AMD are leveraging that advantage (admittedly not that well), and have been since this whole thing reared its head.
Why aren't Intel letting NV onto the platform to squash that, because there are sales going to AMD right now because they have better IGPs, even though the CPU doesn't stack up. So I rather think it's because Intel don't want NV to sell any chips myself.
Why aren't Intel letting NV onto the platform to squash that, because there are sales going to AMD right now because they have better IGPs, even though the CPU doesn't stack up. So I rather think it's because Intel don't want NV to sell any chips myself.
Complimentary doesn't mean that one sucks and the other one is awesome. It means together they are more attractive to consumers than they are on their own.
Because an Nvidia chipset is currently a greater threat than an AMD CPU. That's my point and you seem to be agreeing with it, unless I'm not following you.
- Status
Similar threads
