NVidia's Dispute over Nehalem Licensing - SLI not involved

Jawed said:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/172/1051172/paul-otellini-talks-tough


Was he kidding about Microsoft enforcing such a restriction?

Jawed
Click to expand...

That comment is rather vague. I'm not sure whether he meant:

1. Microsoft is going to put in a limit to how many applications can run simultaneously on a netbook...

2. A netbook will have serious issues trying to run more than 3 applications simultaneous on a netbook equipped with Windows 7.

I'm more inclined to think he meant the latter depending on what applications you are running. For example, I'd think it'd struggle just running 1 application if it was a database heavy application.

Regards,
SB
 
no he meant the former - ive heard about that restriction before
how the would enforce it ive no idea and would stuff that runs in the background av/firewall/wifi manager be counted as applications
 
not to be confused with the amount of simultaneously accessed network resources in the windows home/professional/starter versions.
 
neliz said:
Wow, so nVidia's losses over the past quarter are actually intel's fault? I think they just installed some new coils, they're spinning harder than ever.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where you got that from? :) Their claim is clearly that they're losing *future market share* because of this, i.e. since Intel decided to formally sue NVIDIA. It's not hard to see how this would scare OEMs into not adopting Ion, for example, because if Intel is being aggressive on the chipset license why couldn't they be on other things too? To be clear... I'm not convinced that's worth much from a legal point of view, but I just don't think they were trying to claim any previous loss.
 
well...

In its counterclaim, filed on Thursday, Nvidia said Intel has attempted to steer customers away from Nvidia products for months by claiming there was a licensing dispute. By officially disavowing the licensing pact through its lawsuit, Intel has breached the contract, Nvidia said.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about future losses there. These disputes obviously wouldn't concern Ion or anything like that. It looks like intel is letting these be heard everywhere in the channel.
 
neliz said:
It doesn't say anything about future losses there. These disputes obviously wouldn't concern Ion or anything like that. It looks like intel is letting these be heard everywhere in the channel.
Click to expand...
Present design win losses result in FUTURE profit losses, not present profit losses! It takes more than 2-3 months to get a design win to market and generating revenue...
 
Me hopes, it's not un-new:
Intel accused of using gamesmanship to force Nvidia out of the market, Drew Henry discusses Nvidia counter suit
Meanwhile, Henry pointed out that Intel continues to benefit from its side of the cross-licensing agreement. Nvidia believes that Intel is using Nvidia IP in currently shipping IGP products and the company also believes that Intel would not be able to develop its Larrabee graphics chips without making use of Nvidia's IP portfolio, said Henry. Henry went on to say that, Nvidia may ask the courts to terminate Intel's rights to these IPs in the event that it is found that Intel is in beech of contract.
Click to expand...
 
Blaz, no. By "break" they mean hack around the Windows Activation requirement by spoofing itself as an OEM machine.
 
Arun said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would Intel grant a licence to NVidia for technology that doesn't exist at the time the contract was written?

That would be like Rambus granting a licence for its next iteration of XDR before it exists.

Also, how do you know that the patents NVidia licensed to Intel have any life in them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top