AMD claims LG and Vizio are violating its graphics patents

[Space Reptile]

 

seems like AMD feels like LG and Vizio are copying what is essentially there architecture and the ITG has agreed to investigate

Quote

Late last month, AMD filed a legal complaint against a number of companies accusing them of infringing its patents covering graphics processing technologies. The company requested the United States International Trade Commission (US ITC) to investigate the matter and, if the ITC finds in their favor, ban products based on chips that infringe on AMD’s intellectual property rights.

this also looks to be a stab at ARM , in a proxy war fashion

Quote

Notably, all the defendants license their GPU technologies from third party developers such as ARM and Imagination. As case law involving IP infringement is generally weak - it's more difficult to sue over ideas as opposed to physical products - AMD is going after product manufacturers instead. As a result, instead of accusing IP vendor ARM of using its intellectual property, AMD is taking a legal action against MediaTek, LG, Sigma and Vizio, all of whom either make chips that AMD believes use their IP, or use said chips as part of finished consumer goods.

 

a lot more words and detail to be found at the source

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11101/amd-files-patent-complaint-against-mediatek-lg-vizio

and a more easy to understand re-hash

https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/19/amd-itc-complaint-vs-lg-and-vizio/

 

 

[HarryNyquist]

If they think they ARM chip is infringing their patent, shouldn't they go after the chip builder instead of the products using the chip? I would assume that LG and LeVizio didn't know this chip might infringe a patent.

[Misanthrope]

Guess what? The "open source" friendly company

*slams door*

JUST CLOSED!

[Syntaxvgm]

4 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

If they think they ARM chip is infringing their patent, shouldn't they go after the chip builder instead of the products using the chip? I would assume that LG and LeVizio didn't know this chip might infringe a patent.

lol 

 

 

also @zMeul

[Okjoek]

AyyMD go get them!

 

I can't wait for those Intel chips that get Radeon graphics as a separate die.

[xAcid9]

I thought NVidia already lost with similar battle last year, so what is the probability AMD won't be losing this one?

[NumLock21]

Repost

[zMeul]

34 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

lol 

 

 

also @zMeul

mate, what's your problem!?

[Maslofski]

42 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

I thought NVidia already lost with similar battle last year, so what is the probability AMD won't be losing this one?

dont patent holders have to go after people who infringe or else wise it sets a precedent?

[LAwLz]

This was already posted before, but I can't find the thread right now.

 

I hope AMD gets beaten the crap out of in court. It is such a scumbag move to go after the clients of the company you actually want to sue. If you think ARM is infringing on your patents (by the way, real nice move from the "open" and "friendly" company there) then go after ARM. Don't go after small ARM customers just because you think you have an easier time winning over them.

 

Really disappointed to see AMD fall this low. I hope they get to pay a big price for being absolute dickheads.

What's even worse is that they are actually seeking bans on the products. For all that talk about wanting HDR to become mainstream, it is a real weird move to try and ban products which support HDR such as a bunch of TVs. I guess they only want it widespread as long as they can earn royalties for seemingly really vague and old patents (some filed 14 years ago).

 

 

19 minutes ago, Maslofski said:

dont patent holders have to go after people who infringe or else wise it sets a precedent?

That's more for trademarks.

[Notional]

Yet again, people show how little they know about this stuff.

 

1. Equalling patent rights to open source is nonsensical in this regard. If a company doesn't actively defend their patents, they will lose the rights to them. Such a fundamental patent defining graphics cards are necessary for AMD to even make GPU's. AMD has (apparently) just licensed out these patents to Intel for about a billion dollars. As such, AMD really doesn't have a choice but to sue.
2. Going after the vendors serves 2 purposes.
   1. Getting a sales ban on those products, to stop the infringement in practice.
   2. By proxy, put pressure on ARM to sign a licensing deal.
3. Losing such a patent, opens AMD up to get sued by NVidia and their BS licensing plan.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

mate, what's your problem!?

this seemed like a topic you might have an opinion on. 

[zMeul]

5 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

this seemed like a topic you might have an opinion on. 

I don't

 

wait .. AMD has patents? where did they found them, in a cereal box?

Edited March 21, 2017 by zMeul

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This was already posted before, but I can't find the thread right now.

This one?

 

 

[Space Reptile]

2 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Repost

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This was already posted before, but I can't find the thread right now.

 

WHOOPS , my bad , i checked the newsthread if there was any mention of this topic but i must have missed it 

[Coaxialgamer]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Guess what? The "open source" friendly company

*slams door*

JUST CLOSED!

There's a difference between open source and violation of IP

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

There's a difference between open source and violation of IP

Yeah I know it was strictly Kek material.

[Bouzoo]

39 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

 

WHOOPS , my bad , i checked the newsthread if there was any mention of this topic but i must have missed it 

To be fair it's month and a half old.

[DoctorZeus]

LG "small ARM customer". poor defenseless LG. 

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm dead

[happyTAFFY]

Seems like legal shakedown.

 

Farmer #1 : "WTF, Farmer #2 stole my crops!"

Farmer #2 : *sells crops to customers*

 

Farmer #1 : *Goes over to the customers* "Hey, did you buy those crops from Farmer #2?!"

Customers : "Yes we did."

Farmer #1 : "Well, Farmer #2 stole them from me, so you have to pay me for those crops."

Customers : "We already paid Farmer #2"

Farmer #1 : "Doesn't matter, those are my crops so you have to pay me."

 

Classic double dip con. I guess those smart businessmen and lawmakers knows how to build loopholes and use hard and confusing vernaculars to legalize such shady shakedown tactics. Most likely AMD is going to lose this case if they meet any sensible judge in the courtrooms.

[Guest Kloaked]

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Guess what? The "open source" friendly company

*slams door*

JUST CLOSED!

'Member when the AMD members here shat all over Nvidia for suing Samsung for the same thing?

 

I 'member.

[DoctorZeus]

8 minutes ago, happyTAFFY said:

Seems like legal shakedown.

 

Farmer #1 : "WTF, Farmer #2 stole my crops!"

Farmer #2 : *sells crops to customers*

 

Farmer #1 : *Goes over to the customers* "Hey, did you buy those crops from Farmer #2?!"

Customers : "Yes we did."

Farmer #1 : "Well, Farmer #2 stole them from me, so you have to pay me for those crops."

Customers : "We already paid Farmer #2"

Farmer #1 : "Doesn't matter, those are my crops so you have to pay me."

 

Classic double dip con. I guess those smart businessmen and lawmakers knows how to build loopholes and use hard and confusing vernaculars to legalize such shady shakedown tactics. Most likely AMD is going to lose this case if they meet any sensible judge in the courtrooms.

It's actually a asking the cops to stop the sale of stolen goods (at least that's what the article is about, not sure if you read that) . It's actually like farmer 1 made something, patented it. Farmer 2 stole it, made it. Sold it to Farmer 3. Farmer 3 resells it. Farmer 1 goes to the cops and says hey that guy is selling stolen goods can we please stop that?

 

I'm not saying AMD is right. Just that your scenario is completely wrong

 

But it's not a farmers situation and your clear misunderstanding is due to wanting to pigeon hole ideas into small boxes that fit good guy vs bad guy.

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

 

WHOOPS , my bad , i checked the newsthread if there was any mention of this topic but i must have missed it 

 

Here you go

 

*crawls back into cave*

 

 

[mattebad]

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

I don't

 

wait .. AMD has patents? where they they found them, in a cereal box?

Ok, I laughed because it's probably where they also found their marketing department. Probably sent some boxtops into kellog for "professional marketeers"

[Lynx]

I think this make it quite clear:

 

"AMD claims that the aforementioned SoCs and products not only infringe on its intellectual property, but that those products also damage legitimate licensees of AMD's IP. To support the claim, AMD made one interesting disclosure: Samsung and GlobalFoundries have licensed its intellectual property covered by the ‘506, ‘454 and ‘133 patents, as well as the ‘967 application. The former has rights to use the IP in its Exynos mobile SoCs (up to 10-nm Exynos 8 Octa 8895 that uses an ARM Mali GPU), whereas the latter has rights to manufacture the appropriate chips".