Intel files lawsuit against Nvidia

[Cookie Monster]

I kind of skimmed the thread, so basically intel thinks that the current license only covers one type of "bus", and that for nVIDIA to design chipsets for intel's future products, they need to license some new bus technology inorder to do so? On the other hand nVIDIA thinks that its license allows them to design/build future chipsets using intel's new buses.

Looks like this is related with DMI more so than the quickpath interconnect.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
I kind of skimmed the thread, so basically intel thinks that the current license only covers one type of "bus", and that for nVIDIA to design chipsets for intel's future products, they need to license some new bus technology inorder to do so? On the other hand nVIDIA thinks that its license allows them to design/build future chipsets using intel's new buses.

Looks like this is related with DMI more so than the quickpath interconnect.

no, intel thinks that nvidia's claims that they can make an i7 chipset breached the contract allowing nvidia to make 775 chipsets, and thus nvidia should LOSE the license to sell ANY chipsets for intel CPUs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

What I don't understand is, how can making statements, equate to developing products?
If NV developed a product that infringed on Intel's IP, without a license, that one thing, and it leads to breach of contract and damages.

but how can a public statement equate to the same thing? There's no infringement of IP rights with just a public statement, that I can see. Intel must have some very clever lawyers to attempt to make this argument that they are making. If I were the court, I would throw out the case for lack of standing. There's apparently no alleged or actual IP infringement at all.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Could someone pass the popcorn? No, the caramel, thank you

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
What I don't understand is, how can making statements, equate to developing products?
If NV developed a product that infringed on Intel's IP, without a license, that one thing, and it leads to breach of contract and damages.

but how can a public statement equate to the same thing? There's no infringement of IP rights with just a public statement, that I can see. Intel must have some very clever lawyers to attempt to make this argument that they are making. If I were the court, I would throw out the case for lack of standing. There's apparently no alleged or actual IP infringement at all.

I think we are mixing up terms here. Intel isn't saying NV is infringing on their IP, they are claiming NV's statements represent a breach of contract.

Meaning the implication here is that within the wording of the contract there are some terms that stipulate that breach of the contract can include doing something as simple as publicly declaring that the contract allows for NV to do something which the contract actually does not.

Now yes if NV developed and attempted to sell an x58 chipset then Intel would create a new lawsuit that claimed NV was producing products that infringe on Intel's unlicensed IP.

(meaning its not necessarily a violation of an existing contract, but rather it is simply a violation of patent law...now there may be contract wording that says if you violate patent law then you also forfeit the rights of existing contracts, thats up to the specifics of Intel's and NV's contracts)

 

[aka1nas]

Yep, their contract could have an entry under a "Termination for Cause" section that lets them nullify the contract should one party publicly misrepresent the terms of the agreement or something similar.

I have to review contracts a lot at work, and some of ours have similar clauses.

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
What I don't understand is, how can making statements, equate to developing products?
If NV developed a product that infringed on Intel's IP, without a license, that one thing, and it leads to breach of contract and damages.

but how can a public statement equate to the same thing? There's no infringement of IP rights with just a public statement, that I can see. Intel must have some very clever lawyers to attempt to make this argument that they are making. If I were the court, I would throw out the case for lack of standing. There's apparently no alleged or actual IP infringement at all.

I think we are mixing up terms here. Intel isn't saying NV is infringing on their IP, they are claiming NV's statements represent a breach of contract.

Meaning the implication here is that within the wording of the contract there are some terms that stipulate that breach of the contract can include doing something as simple as publicly declaring that the contract allows for NV to do something which the contract actually does not.

Now yes if NV developed and attempted to sell an x58 chipset then Intel would create a new lawsuit that claimed NV was producing products that infringe on Intel's unlicensed IP.

(meaning its not necessarily a violation of an existing contract, but rather it is simply a violation of patent law...now there may be contract wording that says if you violate patent law then you also forfeit the rights of existing contracts, thats up to the specifics of Intel's and NV's contracts)

Yep, I think you're right IDC.

It's all down to the terms in the contract and how they are/can be interpreted by Intel (for filing the law-suit in the first place), NV (their defense or they could counter-sue) and the court (the decision). We won't know what those terms are until the court comes to their decision. Alternatively NV & Intel could settle outside of court (does this usually happen with Intel's law-suits?). Presumably, the losing party could also appeal against the decision.

 

[geokilla]

Not gonna read the thread. Just gonna voice my opinion.

Intel is a great company and everything, but I hate what they're doing. Suing NVIDIA, not giving NVIDIA access to the Atom, going with this Tick-Tock approach when AMD is like dying. Come on, loosen up. Stop trying to monopolize everything. If Phenom II had hit a wall during the CPU development stages, AMD probably wouldn't exist thus giving them a monopoly.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Truth. When does the x86 patent expire? Gotta be coming up sometime.

x86 isn't covered by a single patent. Every technological element of the current x86 is covered by at least one patent. So, you can use dated implementations of the x86 instruction set, including extensions.

Currently you can produce a CPU based on patents filed in February of 1992 or earlier, since patents are 17-year deals. What that covers is not entirely clear, though many of the key patents necessary for the production of the first P6 chips may be included. In all likelyhood, the IP necessary for the P5 and P54c are probably public domain by now. If not, than anything pre-P5 is public domain.

I'll bet you could do some interesting things with a bunch of die-shrunk P54c cores strapped to a bunch of cache. Now where have I heard about something like that before? Hmm!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Denithor

Truth. When does the x86 patent expire? Gotta be coming up sometime.

x86 isn't covered by a single patent. Every technological element of the current x86 is covered by at least one patent. So, you can use dated implementations of the x86 instruction set, including extensions.

Currently you can produce a CPU based on patents filed in February of 1992 or earlier, since patents are 17-year deals. What that covers is not entirely clear, though many of the key patents necessary for the production of the first P6 chips may be included. In all likelyhood, the IP necessary for the P5 and P54c are probably public domain by now. If not, than anything pre-P5 is public domain.

I'll bet you could do some interesting things with a bunch of die-shrunk P54c cores strapped to a bunch of cache. Now where have I heard about something like that before? Hmm!

That's some pretty great info, thanks!

I always thought that x86 was a basic instruction set. Should that not have been created way more than 17 years ago? If you're right on this, it should give NV the right to create an x86 processor provided they engineer it from the ground up and do not infringe on any of the more modern patents.

 

[aka1nas]

Yeah, but what do you actually get out of that? A basic 8(or even 16-bit) x86 processor can't run modern software. They would really need an x86-64 license (among others) to make something usable.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Yeah, but what do you actually get out of that? A basic 8(or even 16-bit) x86 processor can't run modern software. They would really need an x86-64 license (among others) to make something usable.

So basically you're saying that the structure that defines x86 has evolved and changed over the years?

Really though, most things that will run under Windows 95 will still run today under XP or Vista. 1995 was 14 years ago. Almost there.

Actually, I'll bet most of the patents that went into the CPUs during the time of Windows 95 are now 17 years old. If they're lucky, even the P2 will be exempt.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: geokilla
Not gonna read the thread. Just gonna voice my opinion.

Intel is a great company and everything, but I hate what they're doing. Suing NVIDIA, not giving NVIDIA access to the Atom, going with this Tick-Tock approach when AMD is like dying. Come on, loosen up. Stop trying to monopolize everything. If Phenom II had hit a wall during the CPU development stages, AMD probably wouldn't exist thus giving them a monopoly.

The Phenom 1 hit the wall during development and AMD is still around, albeit crippled.

AMD was trying to develop a CPU with a massive number of cores, probably similar to what will be Larabee. I'll bet the AMD engineers are looking at that project thinking to themselves "hmmm...it would be so easy to make a GPU like that". Intel OTOH had to hire a bunch of engineers to try and make it.

That project wound up delaying the Phenom 1 by 6 months to 1 year before they scrapped it.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Yeah, but what do you actually get out of that? A basic 8(or even 16-bit) x86 processor can't run modern software. They would really need an x86-64 license (among others) to make something usable.

So basically you're saying that the structure that defines x86 has evolved and changed over the years?

Really though, most things that will run under Windows 95 will still run today under XP or Vista. 1995 was 14 years ago. Almost there.

Actually, I'll bet most of the patents that went into the CPUs during the time of Windows 95 are now 17 years old. If they're lucky, even the P2 will be exempt.

Not if they are 16 bit apps and you want to run them on a 64-bit OS. There's no point coming out with a such a platform if it doesn't run everything a modern Intel or AMD chip can.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
x8
That's some pretty great info, thanks!

I always thought that x86 was a basic instruction set. Should that not have been created way more than 17 years ago? If you're right on this, it should give NV the right to create an x86 processor provided they engineer it from the ground up and do not infringe on any of the more modern patents.

x86 is much older than 17 years, yes. Extensions to the instruction set were made with nearly every upgrade of processor generations throughout the years, including some baby-step evolutionary upgrades between generations. And glad to be of assistance.

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Yeah, but what do you actually get out of that? A basic 8(or even 16-bit) x86 processor can't run modern software. They would really need an x86-64 license (among others) to make something usable.

It gets you a 32-bit processor (286s, 386s, 486s, and Pentiums were all 32-bit) that could boot Windows 7, at least in theory, if not in practice. Might be slow as balls but you get the idea. If the patents behind the P6 core are now in public domain, it might enable Nvidia to reverse-engineer a Klamath-core P2 or something (or at least a Pentium Pro). I doubt they would have any legal answer to X86-64 or EM64T, but it sure would be interesting to see whether or not AMD would license those extensions to Nvidia. My guess would be no, but you never know.

Anyway they might be able to do something with that, but it would take a lot of resources they don't necessarily have, and whatever they created would probably wind up looking a lot like a Cell processor (they'd have to use multiple vector processors to make up for a lack of native SSE/SSE2/SSE3/SSE4 support, and they'd have to do instruction translation in hardware to feed SIMD instructions to the vector processors, and I don't even know if they can do that legally).

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: geokilla
Not gonna read the thread. Just gonna voice my opinion.

Intel is a great company and everything, but I hate what they're doing. Suing NVIDIA, not giving NVIDIA access to the Atom, going with this Tick-Tock approach when AMD is like dying. Come on, loosen up. Stop trying to monopolize everything. If Phenom II had hit a wall during the CPU development stages, AMD probably wouldn't exist thus giving them a monopoly.

It's a tough economy to be in, everyone for themselves. Intel wants to continue making profitable products, keep or increase marketshare, and please their investors. Its a juggling act and I am sure they have very good reasons for why they are doing what they are doing. I am not saying I agree with it, just that you can't really fault them for being agressive in this kind of economic environment.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Denithor

Truth. When does the x86 patent expire? Gotta be coming up sometime.

x86 isn't covered by a single patent. Every technological element of the current x86 is covered by at least one patent. So, you can use dated implementations of the x86 instruction set, including extensions.

Currently you can produce a CPU based on patents filed in February of 1992 or earlier, since patents are 17-year deals. What that covers is not entirely clear, though many of the key patents necessary for the production of the first P6 chips may be included. In all likelyhood, the IP necessary for the P5 and P54c are probably public domain by now. If not, than anything pre-P5 is public domain.

I'll bet you could do some interesting things with a bunch of die-shrunk P54c cores strapped to a bunch of cache. Now where have I heard about something like that before? Hmm!

That's some pretty great info, thanks!

I always thought that x86 was a basic instruction set. Should that not have been created way more than 17 years ago? If you're right on this, it should give NV the right to create an x86 processor provided they engineer it from the ground up and do not infringe on any of the more modern patents.

patens are NOT copy protection... if nvidia engineers it from the ground up it STILL infringes on the patent... take for example the following patent:
"a device for making of sandwiches by means of placing the ingredients on two opposing platters which are then combined by the machine"
This is a real patent, that mcdonnalds got for a burger making machine. It does not matter if someone designes a machine from the ground up that looks nothing LIKE the mcdonnalds machine it is still infringing on their PATENT.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Yeah, but what do you actually get out of that? A basic 8(or even 16-bit) x86 processor can't run modern software. They would really need an x86-64 license (among others) to make something usable.

So basically you're saying that the structure that defines x86 has evolved and changed over the years?

Really though, most things that will run under Windows 95 will still run today under XP or Vista. 1995 was 14 years ago. Almost there.

Actually, I'll bet most of the patents that went into the CPUs during the time of Windows 95 are now 17 years old. If they're lucky, even the P2 will be exempt.

hell no, nothing will run on windows 95, and an 8 bit processor in this day and age is USELESS!

The chinese are interested in CPU independence, but they are unwilling to ignore international treaties for patents for it, yet... so they developed a 32bit (and now a 64bit version) chip that does NOT use the x86 instruction set, and runs a specially compiled version of linux.
Their latest version will do SOFTWARE emulation of x86 (which they claim is legal, and intel says they are looking into, but if its truely software its legal, but will have extremely poor performance).

There was some other company, they tried to make a chip that uses very long instruction words and software emulation of x86 (which again, does not infringe on patents), but it was so unimaginably slow that it failed.

 

[TantrumusMaximus]

Does this all mean we'll finally see the Lucid Hydra chip on m/b's???

 

[taltamir]

thats INTEL hydra chip... intel bought lucid some time ago.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Yeah, but what do you actually get out of that? A basic 8(or even 16-bit) x86 processor can't run modern software. They would really need an x86-64 license (among others) to make something usable.

So basically you're saying that the structure that defines x86 has evolved and changed over the years?

Really though, most things that will run under Windows 95 will still run today under XP or Vista. 1995 was 14 years ago. Almost there.

Actually, I'll bet most of the patents that went into the CPUs during the time of Windows 95 are now 17 years old. If they're lucky, even the P2 will be exempt.

hell no, nothing will run on windows 95, and an 8 bit processor in this day and age is USELESS!

The chinese are interested in CPU independence, but they are unwilling to ignore international treaties for patents for it, yet... so they developed a 32bit (and now a 64bit version) chip that does NOT use the x86 instruction set, and runs a specially compiled version of linux.
Their latest version will do SOFTWARE emulation of x86 (which they claim is legal, and intel says they are looking into, but if its truely software its legal, but will have extremely poor performance).

There was some other company, they tried to make a chip that uses very long instruction words and software emulation of x86 (which again, does not infringe on patents), but it was so unimaginably slow that it failed.

Transmeta

it definitely worked .. it had several misfires and bad company decisions
- it was an "almost" .. but its technology is still used

.. but now maybe the GPU can do it much faster
- if so, Intel has much to fear
:clock:

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: taltamir
There was some other company, they tried to make a chip that uses very long instruction words and software emulation of x86 (which again, does not infringe on patents), but it was so unimaginably slow that it failed.

You mean Transmeta? It wasn't slow, not at all.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: taltamir
There was some other company, they tried to make a chip that uses very long instruction words and software emulation of x86 (which again, does not infringe on patents), but it was so unimaginably slow that it failed.

You mean Transmeta? It wasn't slow, not at all.

Was it legal?

 

[apoppin]

Of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta

You might find this interesting from August, last year

http://www.techpowerup.com/678...smeta_Corporation.html

NVIDIA has achieved an agreement with Transmeta Corporation today, to license Transmeta's LongRun and LongRun2 technologies and other intellectual property for use in connection with NVIDIA products. The agreement grants to NVIDIA a non-exclusive and fully paid-up license to all of Transmeta's patents and patent applications, and a non-exclusive license and transfer of certain Transmeta advanced power management and other computing technologies. Under the agreement, NVIDIA agrees to pay Transmeta a one-time, non-refundable license fee of $25.0 million. The agreement also includes mutual general releases of all claims by both parties. "We are very pleased to have achieved this license agreement with NVIDIA," said Les Crudele, president and CEO of Transmeta. "We believe that this agreement both illustrates the value of Transmeta's intellectual property and technologies to our industry and realizes for Transmeta stockholders an immediate return from the strategic licensure of our intellectual property rights."

 

[SickBeast]

Well then...it looks to me like NV will have better graphics performance, but intel will have better x86 performance. It's interesting. NV is emulating x86, whereas intel is sort of emulating a GPU.

I look forward to NV releasing something x86-compatible. I wonder if we'll ever see the day where we can just plug a graphics card into a motherboard and boot up - no CPU or memory required!