• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel charged of monopolistic practices: on account of both MPU and graphics

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
57
81
we get the government, and businesses, we deserve

the same is true of businesses...they get the government regulation, and consumers, they deserve

the fatal flaw in efficient market theory is the assumption that humans can actually operate in a manner that would lead to an efficient market

if that were true then the concept of marketing and advertising would be nothing more than a spec sheet with detailed full disclosure

but that's not who we are, we want to be lazy and apathetic, have sunshine blown up our asses while money is lifted out of our wallets
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,733
513
126
www.facebook.com
I've changed my mind. I now believe nvidia is attempting to, and will eventually come to market with, a competitor to Intel's Atom. Except that Nvidia's first CPU will have an integrated GPU on board with it.

I doubt there is a way Nvidia will initially be able to create a high end CPU that will be competitive in price/performance, but down the road who knows!
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Really depends on if Microsoft can be persuaded into building a version of their OS targeted for another processor. They have done it in the past for Itanium and the Alpha.

For now I think Nvidia will be in the realm of handhelds. Which isnt a bad place to be as more and more people are using them for everything they need.
Windows without any app support would be pretty worthless, they may as well just make a new OS from the ground up to replace windows mobile.

I've changed my mind. I now believe nvidia is attempting to, and will eventually come to market with, a competitor to Intel's Atom. Except that Nvidia's first CPU will have an integrated GPU on board with it.

I doubt there is a way Nvidia will initially be able to create a high end CPU that will be competitive in price/performance, but down the road who knows!
Seriously, have none of you ever heard of Tegra?
 

scooterlibby

Senior member
Feb 28, 2009
752
0
0
we get the government, and businesses, we deserve

the same is true of businesses...they get the government regulation, and consumers, they deserve

the fatal flaw in efficient market theory is the assumption that humans can actually operate in a manner that would lead to an efficient market

if that were true then the concept of marketing and advertising would be nothing more than a spec sheet with detailed full disclosure

but that's not who we are, we want to be lazy and apathetic, have sunshine blown up our asses while money is lifted out of our wallets
I try to drill the flaws of efficient market theorem into the heads of my students. I like the assumption of New Institutional Economists that humans are "intendedly rational, but limitedly so". Seems like it is hard to model that, though.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,733
513
126
www.facebook.com
Seriously, have none of you ever heard of Tegra?
LOL Yes of course. Tegra is great. The next Kindle-like product, the next nintendo DS, the new Zune HD, future cell phones, etc., but if Nvidia wants to stay in the PC computing space, in 3 years they'll need more than discrete GPU's.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
57
81
I try to drill the flaws of efficient market theorem into the heads of my students. I like the assumption of New Institutional Economists that humans are "intendedly rational, but limitedly so". Seems like it is hard to model that, though.
lol, I like how you think!

I'm going to tell my wife to think of my physique as being "intendedly chiseled and hunky, but limitedly so" :p

When she is done laughing at me I'll just resort to the old standby of bottomless margaritas to set the mood ;)
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
4,635
70
91
I've changed my mind. I now believe nvidia is attempting to, and will eventually come to market with, a competitor to Intel's Atom. Except that Nvidia's first CPU will have an integrated GPU on board with it.

I doubt there is a way Nvidia will initially be able to create a high end CPU that will be competitive in price/performance, but down the road who knows!
They already have a competitor to Atom. It's called Tesla. Seriously, Tesla is more than powerful enough in low end devices for general consumer use which would be basically web browsing, email, watching a movie, and document creation. While there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of love for Tesla on the video card forums I'm excited by what this product can do. The ARM processor used by nVidia may be somewhat standard but I believe it is nVidia's GPU prowess that will turn help turn ARM/Tesla into a true competitor to the x86 world. Along with the growing number of mobile devices that use ARM based chips of course.

Apple has shown that one can have a computing device that doesn't run Windows and be successful. WebOS and Android are turning out to be decent competition as the OS of choice in the mobile device market and I'm sure their UI's can be adapted and expanded upon to be more like a traditional GUI for use in nettops or low end laptops.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,842
325
126
@Akugami: You mean Tegra, not Tesla. Tesla is a 200W part and powerful enough to burn your pocket (and more) if you were to carry around. ;)
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
we get the government, and businesses, we deserve

the same is true of businesses...they get the government regulation, and consumers, they deserve

the fatal flaw in efficient market theory is the assumption that humans can actually operate in a manner that would lead to an efficient market

if that were true then the concept of marketing and advertising would be nothing more than a spec sheet with detailed full disclosure

but that's not who we are, we want to be lazy and apathetic, have sunshine blown up our asses while money is lifted out of our wallets
I don't doubt any of that, but remember.. I said this is about what should be, not about what already is.

Many basic things in the past, both good and bad, were believed to be beyond the scope of human capability.. but ultimately were shown to be well within it.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
On a philosophical level I find it wholly unjust to force a company to alter how it chooses to license its products; it is interfering in the right of free association; to enter into business agreements on their own terms.
Intel entered into a cross licensing agreement with nVidia and then pulled out their end while refusing to stop using nVidia's IP. I see this as a fairly cut and dry issue as far as nVidia is concerned, the government getting involved simply reduces some legal overhead for nV. Intel was free to enter into said agreement as was nV, monopoly or not Intel backed out of their half of the agreement which in essence means that they are now stealing, a lot, from nVidia on a daily basis. On a moral basis, I have no issue considering that wrong.

@Akugami: You mean Tegra, not Tesla.
While he does, the possibility for a next generation Tesla product paired an ARM could make for an interesting computing platform.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Intel entered into a cross licensing agreement with nVidia and then pulled out their end while refusing to stop using nVidia's IP. I see this as a fairly cut and dry issue as far as nVidia is concerned, the government getting involved simply reduces some legal overhead for nV. Intel was free to enter into said agreement as was nV, monopoly or not Intel backed out of their half of the agreement which in essence means that they are now stealing, a lot, from nVidia on a daily basis. On a moral basis, I have no issue considering that wrong.
That's not exactly what they're talking about. They're saying that Intel has to license its IP to Nvidia. Intel stealing would be wrong, of course, but the proposed remedy of the government forcing Intel to license its IP is also wrong.

An agreement can be cancelled at any time for any reason by either party. That doesn't mean its the government's proper role to force the continuation of such an agreement. In this case, if Intel was stealing IP from Nvidia the punishment should be for stealing, with an appropriate dollar amount assigned in damages.. not to force a new IP licensing agreement.
 
Last edited:

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
In this case, if Intel was stealing IP from Nvidia the punishment should be for stealing, with an appropriate dollar amount assigned in damages.. not to force a new IP licensing agreement.
An appropriate action in a moral sense would be to make Intel return all of the IP they have stolen. Between recalls, replacements, and revenue generated for nV it would have a negative financial impact of around $10Billion for Intel and a positive financial impact for nV of around $1.8Billion(looking at volument shipment of IGPs, Intel having to replace ~100Million motherboards plus associated costs for the logistics of such and then replacement via either nV or ATi which based on market trends atm would have nV selling ~60Million parts at $30 each)- AMD would benefit roughly $1.2Billion from this also. I think that nV and ATi would both agree to such a settlement- of course this also means that Intel would have to cease all graphics shipments until such time as they could create a solution that did not violate nV's IP(which Larrabee still would have).

I think that would be a reasonable moral solution, but I have a feeling even the most radical regulator would be a bit loathe to push things that far. Paying a fine a staggering amount less then what the stolen IP was worth in net isn't a reasonable solution. The options left are either cross licensing, or Intel paying the realistic financial consequences for their actions.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I would very much like to see the IP that intel stole from NV. Does ATI have same agreement with NV? Or what about Imagination tech . Are all using NVs IP? If so a link so I can absorb said info.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Intel entered into a cross licensing agreement with nVidia and then pulled out their end while refusing to stop using nVidia's IP. I see this as a fairly cut and dry issue as far as nVidia is concerned, the government getting involved simply reduces some legal overhead for nV. Intel was free to enter into said agreement as was nV, monopoly or not Intel backed out of their half of the agreement which in essence means that they are now stealing, a lot, from nVidia on a daily basis. On a moral basis, I have no issue considering that wrong.



While he does, the possibility for a next generation Tesla product paired an ARM could make for an interesting computing platform.

Intel didn't pull out of anything! NV doesn't have an agreement for intels present tech. only the FSB tech. NV is saying its same tech . But we all know its not the same and NV doesn't have a licenes for Intels NEW Tech . It is NV that is breaking the agreement by trying to wiggle out of the crosslinces agreement with inyel on NV IP usage which Intel has a right to use . Let the courts sort this out . But you cheerleaders for NV keep it up your doing a fine job .
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
4,635
70
91
@Akugami: You mean Tegra, not Tesla. Tesla is a 200W part and powerful enough to burn your pocket (and more) if you were to carry around. ;)
LOL. Yeah, Tegra. That's one on me though I'm sure most would know what I meant from the content.

technologies used and pioneered in products like Tesla/Fermi will eventually trickle down to the mobile sector and that is that makes Tegra so interesting. Not the ARM chips that nVidia uses but the GPU cores that nVidia couples it with.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I think that would be a reasonable moral solution,
No, it wouldn't. Morality/ethics don't command an-eye-for-an-eye in every situation.

Paying a fine a staggering amount less then what the stolen IP was worth in net isn't a reasonable solution.
That's not for us to decide.

The options left are either cross licensing, or Intel paying the realistic financial consequences for their actions.
Not true at all. There are always other morally/ethically sound options.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
No, it wouldn't. Morality/ethics don't command an-eye-for-an-eye in every situation.
So in your perspective people should be able to go out and steal a new BMW and pay a $500 fine and keep the BMW? What I was talking about wasn't including any fine, just covering what it would cost to return the stolen IP. From either a legal or moral standpoint, returning the goods stolen is the utter bare minimum.

That's not for us to decide.
No, the decission will likely be forced IP sharing which you had an issue with. A moral consequence would start with returning of the stolen IP, again, my numbers did not include any fine.

Not true at all. There are always other morally/ethically sound options.
Name them. You don't think Intel being forced into cross licensing is OK, and you think it is fine for them to profit on an illegal basis from IP they no longer had rights to use, so what do you think is a moral solution? It sounds like you are leaning towards putting nV and AMD out of business to punish Intel. Perhaps that isn't where your line of discussion is going, but it seems that any realistic consequence for their actions isn't OK in your eyes.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
57
81
So in your perspective people should be able to go out and steal a new BMW and pay a $500 fine and keep the BMW? What I was talking about wasn't including any fine, just covering what it would cost to return the stolen IP. From either a legal or moral standpoint, returning the goods stolen is the utter bare minimum.
The recent Microsoft/Word injuction lawsuit is an example of your point.

Microsoft paying the $200million+ fine does not mean they don't have to return (or in this case discontinue selling products containing) the infringed IP.

The injunction was the bare minimum (their products should have never shipped with this IP contained within), the $200m+ fine is the penalty for having blatantly misappropriated the IP.

The recent TSMC/SMIC lawsuit is another example.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
So were is the proof or a link saying Intel used NV IP . Were IS proof Intel STOLE anything . YOU talk much and well but it has zero proof of asllegations . We All KNOW INTEL stopped NV from doing Chipsets onpresent generation . Can You find the date of the Intel NV agreement for The Intel FSB agreement . OK I sure you can. What year was that again . When was intels new tech released. AFTER that agreement . So Intels new tech isn't covered in that agreement .

Now you could debate that it doesn't matter if its new /old tech / Well been many debates here about intels FSB Vs. AMDS HT. All would agree AMDS HT is better and differant than Intels FSB . All will agree intels FSB is very differant from what intel uses now .... What NV is entitled to Intels IP ? WHY / They never tried to make a deal for intels new point to point connections did they / If so show proof . Its not in the contract. So its in your head only .

No it is NV thats tring to steal here tring to get something for nothing .

Myself I hope they break intel Up . You will see them shift the corporation over to China so fast your head will spin . Its a good message to send China . Steal what you need because none will stop you because the crooked people have the power.


No NV is the thief here Almost all knows this story and almost all agree AMDHT does not equal intel FSB So intels FSB does not equal intels new point to point.

Man if NV wins anything here . It will be a free for all with everyone stealing everyones IP . Ya know how this ends . Intel looses Hugh losses. AMD /NV out of businesss. Because everyone will want NVIP than AMDs IP than IBMs IP . You break intel you break the game and make new rules . Intel only needs its Fabs to control everthing than . No research for hardware . Let others spend . But everyone will pay dearly for fabed parts. Intels FABS is wmat Makes Intel Strong and your not breaking those up . They stay as one unit . Intels IP if thats opened up look for Intel to slowly move out of USA . Than we will have NV the big the Bag The UGLY duckling and AMD left . I like your thinking tho . With your help America will be reduced to 3rd world nation in 5 years . GO American Greed you deserve what you get!

Can AMD exist with another powerhouse x86 maker. Not a chance in hell. Intels Smart move RIGHT NOW INTEL . Announce a New super Fab to be built in China for 22NM . That will get everyones attention . Dam fast.

If Intel is forced to give X86 IP out . The first company Intel should give it to is Chinas dragon cpu maker . That will spawn what all want . Competion . Give it out to everyone except NV. Intels is moving away from X86 . But if you really read the report . What everyone really wants and its talked about alot in the report . Intels COMPILERS. Thats what the beef is about . Intels compilers . Because intel can do it all . Thats got IBM nervious and pulling strings to do what they did to DEC. Intel will not play the game by remade rules they will simply move out of USA.
 
Last edited:

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
So were is the proof or a link saying Intel used NV IP
US patent office, it's online, look it up for yourself. I've dug up all the links and posted them all previously- you can search the forums or the patents.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
So in your perspective people should be able to go out and steal a new BMW and pay a $500 fine and keep the BMW? What I was talking about wasn't including any fine, just covering what it would cost to return the stolen IP. From either a legal or moral standpoint, returning the goods stolen is the utter bare minimum.
You never really mentioned what it is that Intel actually "stole". Without that we cannot come to a conclusion about what can be "returned" and at what cost.

Name them. You don't think Intel being forced into cross licensing is OK, and you think it is fine for them to profit on an illegal basis from IP they no longer had rights to use, so what do you think is a moral solution? It sounds like you are leaning towards putting nV and AMD out of business to punish Intel. Perhaps that isn't where your line of discussion is going, but it seems that any realistic consequence for their actions isn't OK in your eyes.
You haven't outlined a realistic consequence, moral or otherwise.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
You never really mentioned what it is that Intel actually "stole".
My apologies, we have covered this topic extensively but I can see by your post count you aren't that frequent of a poster here. nVidia owns the IP on texture sample hardware as a general example, every IGP chipset and motherboard Intel has ever produced required this IP. They had a cross licensing agreement to share chipset license technology with nVidia in exchange for the rights to utilize nV's graphics IP(which is staggering, there is no way you can realisticly make a graphics chip without using their IP).

You haven't outlined a realistic consequence, moral or otherwise.
Forced cross licensing is the most realistic outcome of this, although how much nV will demand is likely far more then Intel is willing to give. Right now Intel has 50% of the graphics shipments world wide, that means the majority of the systems they ship right now rely on nV IP- without the rights to that license Intel must cease shipping those systems, motherboards and chipsets until such time as they have removed all graphics functionality from them.

You can say serving life in jail isn't realistic for going on a murderous rampage, but implying that Intel be held to the standard that they need to pay for that which they have gained illegally isn't moral is flat out absurd.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
If there are indeed NV patents in Intel IGPs that are affected by this an injunction against selling additional items made with NV IP would seem the most realistic consequence (plus a fine, perhaps). The burden on both end users and any of the companies involved would make returns/replacements undesirable to everyone, even Nvidia.

If Intel wants to choose to re-enter their cross licensing agreement with Nvidia (or anyone else), so be it, but they should not be forced by the government to do so, or be told by the government what any of the specifics of such an agreement will need to be.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
If there are indeed NV patents in Intel IGPs that are affected by this an injunction against selling additional items made with NV IP would seem the most realistic consequence (plus a fine, perhaps).
So your stance is Intel should be allowed to illegally profit off of other's IP with no consequences to them whatsoever outside of being told not to do it anymore? Seriously?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY