• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nvidia Sues Qualcomm, Samsung Over GPU Patents

A

artivix

Member
Nvidia on Thursday filed patent infringement lawsuits in Delaware against Samsung and Qualcomm concerning graphics processor technologies which Nvidia claims those companies have used in their products without license.

The graphics chip maker also asked the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) "to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm's Adreno, ARM's Mali, or Imagination's PowerVR graphics architectures."
Click to expand...

First Apple suing Samsung and now Nvidia wants to sue Samsung and Qualcomm. If Qualcomm Adreno came from AMD Radeon years ago, maybe Nvidia will sue AMD next (because AMD is DMA spelled sideways).



http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2467372,00.asp
 
Virtually everyone who makes or uses a cellular modem pays a licensing fee to Qualcomm, so I don't see how this is much different in the end.

BTW, AMD and Nvidia have very large cross licensing agreements, so they can't / won't sue each other.
 
"GPU technologies like programmable shading, unified shaders, and multithreaded parallel processing"

LOL.

STFU NVIDIA, a disgraceful move. Can't compete against Samsung & Qualcomm with Tegra? Sue them.

Just like Apple on its downslide, can't compete with Samsung? Sue them.

Edit: I detest the tech patent industry, filled with troll patents and gotchas and who ends up paying for all this? Us consumers. We pay for their stupid court fees in higher prices, we pay for their licensing of common technologies in higher prices..
 
Last edited:
Sucks.
I wonder if they want to have access to some of their patents and aim for a cross patent agreement.
 
I hope all the anti-Apple people out there start bagging on Nvidia now too, right? Doubtful.
My view on this, for one- I don't know if it's legit. I don't judge whether the patents were valid to be -granted- or not.
But, if someone innovates- patents *anything that is granted a patent* and someone breaks that patent, then they SHOULD be sued. We can't have IP theft.
I support both Apple and Nvidia if they have patents that have been violated, no exceptions. And no derailment over the issue if they were granted "bs patents" (as if anyone who makes these claims is a qualified patent lawyer to say so).

I wouldn't disagree many patents which are granted are on sketchy ground, but that's not the issue. It's whether a patent was violated.

Silverforce11 said:
Edit: I detest the tech patent industry, filled with troll patents and gotchas and who ends up paying for all this? Us consumers. We pay for their stupid court fees in higher prices, we pay for their licensing of common technologies in higher prices..
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but, without patents protecting first-to-market with implementations, we'd still be using stone wheels and your idea of a game would still, at best, be a slinky.
 
Last edited:
tviceman said:
Virtually everyone who makes or uses a cellular modem pays a licensing fee to Qualcomm, so I don't see how this is much different in the end.

BTW, AMD and Nvidia have very large cross licensing agreements, so they can't / won't sue each other.
Click to expand...

Any vendor that sells a device with cellular capabilities pays a licensing fee + royalties to Qualcomm. Slight distinction, but yeah that's the gist of it.
 
I love how companies like to sue over basic ideas but not on a schematical merit. You could produce a "programmable shader" analog, using a different layout from Nvidia's design, give it a different name, etc but as long as it's being used for the same function, some one is going to get upset. I guess whoever created the first vector processor should sue Sony for having vector units in the PS2's Emotion Engine huh?
 
Obsoleet said:
Well, yes, but, without patents protecting first-to-market with implementations, we'd still be using stone wheels and your idea of a game would still, at best, be a slinky.
Click to expand...

Progress occurred fine prior to the US patent office. But that's not my point.

Troll patents are the problem. Just like Apple patents on their slide to unlock motion, or the slide to flip a page motion. WTF you cannot patent human actions, just because you designed your UI to the most common gestures that were available long before your stupid iWhatever came into existence.
 
Obsoleet said:
Well, yes, but, without patents protecting first-to-market with implementations, we'd still be using stone wheels and your idea of a game would still, at best, be a slinky.
Click to expand...

I think the current IP system stifles advancement. But we do need protection from people stealing others work ans ideas. It's just swung too far.
 
All these patent trolling lawsuits make me hate technology companies. Next thing you know the Benjamin Franklin is going to come back from the dead and sue EVERYONE for using electricity.
 
Patents on writing code in a high level language, using multi threading in a processor, "inventing" the GPU? I hope they lose, hard. Good luck getting into any Samsung devices in the future...
 
nVidia invented the GPU. The Geforce SDR was the first GPU using a geometry processor on the chip.

BTW: nVidia has a license agreement with Intel since 2004 about their IP. I dont see any difference to any other company using graphics IP from other companies.
 
ShintaiDK said:
I am sure Samsung would then just sue Qualcomm. All these companies are the same.
Click to expand...

I know. I was joking.

Well, at least the lawyers are getting something out of it. It's obvious nobody else is. Not the companies involved and certainly not the general public that has to foot the bills.
 
sontin said:
nVidia invented the GPU. The Geforce SDR was the first GPU using a geometry processor on the chip.

BTW: nVidia has a license agreement with Intel since 2004 about their IP. I dont see any difference to any other company using graphics IP from other companies.
Click to expand...

Could you admit that Nvidia is able to do anything wrong or it's mission impossible for you (looks like a rhetorical question in your case)?

Btw, claim that they have invented GPU is simply ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
STFU NVIDIA, a disgraceful move. Can't compete against Samsung & Qualcomm with Tegra? Sue them.
Click to expand...

Qualcomm had more revenue from licensing cellular modem IP in Q2 than Nvidia's total profit in the past two years. Everyone who makes a cellular modem pays money to Qualcomm.

Explain that to me and how it makes more sense than companies paying royalties to Nvidia and/or AMD for GPU technology, unless you think the same STFU mentality should be applied to Qualcomm.
 
rainy said:
Btw, claim that they invented GPU is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_256
GeForce 256 was marketed as "the world's first 'GPU', or Graphics Processing Unit", a term Nvidia defined at the time as "a single-chip processor with integrated transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping, and rendering engines that is capable of processing a minimum of 10 million polygons per second."
Click to expand...

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

Nvidia defines the GPU as a graphics chip that also calculate geometry and lighting. They were the first with such a chip, and they created the term "GPU" aka graphics processing unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top