[Kitguru] Samsung asks ITC to ban sales of Nvidia products in the U.S.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,601
8,311
136
norseamd said:
Favoring any company?
Click to expand...
Were either of them particularly disadvantaged before this round of patent arguments?

I'm guessing that it'll just be business as usual (maybe a couple of licence agreements but nothing that's going to change anything).
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Daedalus685 said:
Qualcomm's SOC graphics (Adreno) were sold to it by AMD as the ATI Imageon IP, in what is up there for most ironic sales ever (sold for $65 million to allow AMD to focus on more profitable businesses). In the old days I had thought that Imageon actually used ATI's general graphics IP just directed at handheld SOC only market (circa 2002-2009) and that the sale would thus include a lot of the IP for desktop Radeons around that time (2009) again for use in handheld only.

Would a Samsung controlled AMD (or amd at all) be allowed to compete with Adreno without some lawsuits or licence agreements in place?

I have no idea what IP Imageon actually included when it was sold.

Edit: the IP questions aside I guess my other point is that qualcomm graphics does in fact share its roots in PC, but its not that it couldn't compete with ATI, it WAS ATI.
Click to expand...

That sale by AMD could be one of the worst decisions in the history of business. Sell a product perfect for smartphones right as smartphones take off. And to do it for so little. Qualcomm had to be laughing their asses off after that closing.
 
JM Popaleetus

JM Popaleetus

Senior member
Oct 1, 2010
372
20
81
heatware.com
Genx87 said:
That sale by AMD could be one of the worst decisions in the history of business. Sell a product perfect for smartphones right as smartphones take off. And to do it for so little. Qualcomm had to be laughing their asses off after that closing.
Click to expand...
It's up there. But really, under AMD, ATI's Handset Division really wasn't gaining any traction or funding.

Personally, Sprint/Nextel merger comes to my mind as one of the worst.
 
Last edited:
D

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
norseamd said:
Favoring any company?
Click to expand...

Nvidia obviously - almost certainly Nvidia feel they have a much stronger case (they started this). Samsung are just going through the counter sue motions to delay and lower what they will eventually have to pay out in the inevitable agreement.
 
norseamd

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Genx87 said:
That sale by AMD could be one of the worst decisions in the history of business. Sell a product perfect for smartphones right as smartphones take off. And to do it for so little. Qualcomm had to be laughing their asses off after that closing.
Click to expand...

Was Dirk Meyer responsible?
 
S

Silverforce11

Lifer
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Daedalus685 said:
Qualcomm's SOC graphics (Adreno) were sold to it by AMD as the ATI Imageon IP, in what is up there for most ironic sales ever (sold for $65 million to allow AMD to focus on more profitable businesses). In the old days I had thought that Imageon actually used ATI's general graphics IP just directed at handheld SOC only market (circa 2002-2009) and that the sale would thus include a lot of the IP for desktop Radeons around that time (2009) again for use in handheld only.

Would a Samsung controlled AMD (or amd at all) be allowed to compete with Adreno without some lawsuits or licence agreements in place?

I have no idea what IP Imageon actually included when it was sold.

Edit: the IP questions aside I guess my other point is that qualcomm graphics does in fact share its roots in PC, but its not that it couldn't compete with ATI, it WAS ATI.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Qualcomm gained a lot by taking in many ATI engineers during that sale along with the rights to use ATI graphics IP. But its not exclusive since AMD continued to build upon those graphics technologies to be where they are today.

The problem with Samsung is they weren't prolific in the graphics field in the old days, unlike PowerVR which was competitive for awhile alongside 3dfx, ATI, NV and Matrox. So now on the mobile field, two of the best GPU companies have a long history of engineers & innovation from the PC era. Samsung has squat and they know it, their custom SOCs are slowly being obsoleted over a few generations and now the problem is too large to ignore.

They have two realistic choices, become purely smartphone builder and use other company's hardware (they already do so on some markets due to LTE rights) or they innovate and deliver the best SOC to maintain a true Samsung ecosystem. Pride would lean towards the latter choice, which needs serious investment (AMD GPU IP is not too expensive in this sense). Taking the 1st approach is not optimal for the long run, leaving them at the mercy of Qualcomm like all other premium Android handset makers and dilute their influence & margins.

Not only that, I assume ATI/AMD share a lot of IPs with NV on graphics. Samsung would benefit for basically chump change investment.
 
Denithor

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,300
23
81
Unless I'm missing something really obvious, Samsung wouldn't sue nVidia if they were intending to buy AMD. Doing so hurts AMD's direct competitor - which could drastically increase AMD's market share if nVidia's cards actually got banned in the US. And this would (most likely) result in a drastic rise in AMD's value, and therefore selling price.
 
ShintaiDK

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Denithor said:
Unless I'm missing something really obvious, Samsung wouldn't sue nVidia if they were intending to buy AMD. Doing so hurts AMD's direct competitor - which could drastically increase AMD's market share if nVidia's cards actually got banned in the US. And this would (most likely) result in a drastic rise in AMD's value, and therefore selling price.
Click to expand...

That doesnt stop people that is emotionally invested in AMD to believe otherwise. And thats where dreams and reality collides. If anything, Samsung would also just rip the company apart for IP and any talented people. Nobody is buying an economic failure to keep it running.
 
T

TrulyUncouth

Senior member
Jul 16, 2013
213
0
76
ShintaiDK said:
That doesnt stop people that is emotionally invested in AMD to believe otherwise. And thats where dreams and reality collides. If anything, Samsung would also just rip the company apart for IP and any talented people. Nobody is buying an economic failure to keep it running.
Click to expand...

I think it is more people who are CPU/GPU enthusiasts see how it could revitalize what has become a boring space. Can you honestly say you wouldn't be excited by some of the cool prospects if Samsung bought AMD tomorrow? Quit being a fuddy duddy, and realize not everyone is as invested in AMD bashing/praising as you are.
 
9

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,712
316
126
TrulyUncouth said:
I think it is more people who are CPU/GPU enthusiasts see how it could revitalize what has become a boring space. Can you honestly say you wouldn't be excited by some of the cool prospects if Samsung bought AMD tomorrow? Quit being a fuddy duddy, and realize not everyone is as invested in AMD bashing/praising as you are.
Click to expand...

Are you saying we shouldn't let real world business practices get in the way of a fantasy world?
 
Black Octagon

Black Octagon

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2012
1,410
2
81
Denithor said:
Unless I'm missing something really obvious, Samsung wouldn't sue nVidia if they were intending to buy AMD. Doing so hurts AMD's direct competitor - which could drastically increase AMD's market share if nVidia's cards actually got banned in the US. And this would (most likely) result in a drastic rise in AMD's value, and therefore selling price.
Click to expand...


Unless the selling price was already agreed. Acquisitions are organised behind the scenes for weeks and months before the public announcement and start of the formalities.
 
S

Silverforce11

Lifer
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
ShintaiDK said:
That doesnt stop people that is emotionally invested in AMD to believe otherwise. And thats where dreams and reality collides. If anything, Samsung would also just rip the company apart for IP and any talented people. Nobody is buying an economic failure to keep it running.
Click to expand...

Yup, dont mind that at all. Samsung takes over AMD, destroys the CPU division and focus on the graphics IP and with their fabs, release discrete GPU for consumer and HPC as well as improve their notebook & mobiles.

Certainly no worse off than under AMD's own management. At least they will have the advantage of not having to compete with Apple, Qualcomm, NV and everyone else for TSMC.
 
NTMBK

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,248
5,045
136
Hopefully it won't come to this. I'm hoping Samsung and NVidia just come to a cross-licensing agreement, and leave it at that. Losing the entire US market would be an insanely massive blow to NVidia, one which would probably kill it, and we really don't want a monopoly in GPUs.
 
norseamd

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
NTMBK said:
Hopefully it won't come to this. I'm hoping Samsung and NVidia just come to a cross-licensing agreement, and leave it at that. Losing the entire US market would be an insanely massive blow to NVidia, one which would probably kill it, and we really don't want a monopoly in GPUs.
Click to expand...

No but Jen-Hsun Huang and company are shady as ever especially with all the Gameworks software that is being released right now especially from Ubisoft. Something to possibly bring their conduct out into the open and potentially legally control what they are able to do would be a win for the computer and gamer industry. And if Jen-Hsun Huang and his close friends at the company were somehow removed from the company by law or by investors then I think that would also be a win for the whole computer and gamer industries and also the company. From what I have heard they have some amazing engineers but crap leadership so getting rid of the current executive leadership is what would benefit everyone the most out of anything.
 
Wild Thing

Wild Thing

Member
Apr 9, 2014
155
0
0
Well I'd have to say,even being an AMD fan, that JHH runs his company pretty damn well and his shareholders think so too.
NV make a lot of money.
 
norseamd

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Wild Thing said:
Well I'd have to say,even being an AMD fan, that JHH runs his company pretty damn well and his shareholders think so too. NV make a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Running the company administrationally well and morally well are not the same. JHH even got in trouble with his board and investors after they paid off Origin Systems to drop AMD from their computer offerings.
 
Keysplayr

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
norseamd said:
No but Jen-Hsun Huang and company are shady as ever especially with all the Gameworks software that is being released right now especially from Ubisoft. Something to possibly bring their conduct out into the open and potentially legally control what they are able to do would be a win for the computer and gamer industry. And if Jen-Hsun Huang and his close friends at the company were somehow removed from the company by law or by investors then I think that would also be a win for the whole computer and gamer industries and also the company. From what I have heard they have some amazing engineers but crap leadership so getting rid of the current executive leadership is what would benefit everyone the most out of anything.
Click to expand...

From what you've heard? hehe. Dude, you need new sources and cancel any checks you've written. :)
 
ShintaiDK

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom