AMD claims LG and Vizio are violating its graphics patents

[dizmo]

5 hours 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.

LG is designing it's own SoC, that's likely where that comes from. Wouldn't be surprised if Vizio is in the same boat.

It's no ARM related afaik.

4 hours ago, Maslofski said:

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

I know that's true for Trademarks, not sure about patents. I think patents have greater protection by law.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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).

 

 

That's more for trademarks.

The only flaw with that rant is that they're likely taking issue with the SoC LG is making, not with ARM.

Though they've since turned to Intel so I imagine it might be for something else like an SoC for a wearable, their old SoC, or something similar.

They need the royalties. It's generally how a business operates. You know, revenue and such.

[DoctorZeus]

13 minutes ago, dizmo said:

 

Companies need revenue to operate? WTF

[dizmo]

7 minutes ago, DoctorZeus said:

Companies need revenue to operate? WTF

I was shocked too. I thought they ran on hopes and dreams.

[Doobeedoo]

I hope people realize that companies need to defend their patents and IPs even if it doesn't hurt them directly. Same how Blizzard needs to defend WoW in a sense of banning private server.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

LG is designing it's own SoC, that's likely where that comes from. Wouldn't be surprised if Vizio is in the same boat.

It's no ARM related afaik.

I know that's true for Trademarks, not sure about patents. I think patents have greater protection by law.

The only flaw with that rant is that they're likely taking issue with the SoC LG is making, not with ARM.

Though they've since turned to Intel so I imagine it might be for something else like an SoC for a wearable, their old SoC, or something similar.

They need the royalties. It's generally how a business operates. You know, revenue and such.

This has nothing to do with LG designing their own chips, because the chips they are being sued for are not using their own chips.

 

It would be nice if people could do a bit of research before jumping in to defend their favorite companies.

The example of infringement AMD gives in their filing is the LG XPower. That smartphone has either a Snapdragon 210 (Adreno GPU) or a Mediatek MT6735 (with a Mali-T720).

The reason why that phone is infringing their patent (according to AMD) is because that device "feature the same or substantially similar infringing functionality".

So that particular filing is because the Mali or Adreno GPU features the same or similar functions (the patent in question is essentially a patent for using unified shaders for GPUs).

 

They are also being sued for their TVs. I don't know who manufacturers that SoC, but the GPU in it is a Mali T760 which again is designed and licensed by ARM (the SoC seems to be called M16).

 

 

This lawsuit is absurd. If AMD thinks that Mali is infringing on their patents then they should go after ARM.

For crying out loud they are going after Sigma as well.

 

How anyone can defend this is beyond me.

 

 

 

By the way, this was @Notional's post about when Nvidia sued Samsung on the same bullshit grounds:

On 4/7/2015 at 7:57 PM, Notional said:

If NVidia wins these court cases, both Samsung and Qualcomm will either be forced to stop making gpu's for mobile phones (a market with 0 market share from NVidia), or they will have to pay royalties/licensing. Either way, consumers lose.

 

I really do not understand, why anyone, who is NOT an NVidia shareholder, would hope for NVidia to win this.

 

Also bear in mind, that this entire case started with NVidia's BS patent trolling Kepler licensing strategy, trying to force itself on the entire ARM eco system. With a monumental 0 companies buying their BS, NVidia has now gone nuclear on the ARM eco systems: http://semiaccurate.com/2015/01/20/two-new-twists-nvidia-patent-trolling-kepler-license-scheme/

 

Ironically NVidia licenses IP from ARM, which is the only reason they didn't sue ARM. It makes sense, but considering that Samsung and Qualcomm is being sued for their own ARM based designs, this is essentially an attack by proxy on ARM as well.

 

This is a patent war between NVidia and ARM, not NVidia and Samsung per se.

I think this entire post is spot on, except now you need to swap out Nvidia for AMD, and Samsung for LG.

Funnily, he doesn't sound anything like that in this thread though. I wonder why...

 

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

I was shocked too. I thought they ran on hopes and dreams.

There are several ways of making money.

1) Making good products that people want to buy.

2) Crippling competitors so that you become the only option.

 

Option 1 is good for consumers. Option 2 is bad for consumers.

You as a consumer, should be disgusting by any company who goes for option 2.

 

 

Like I said in the Nvidia vs Samsung thread, they should only be going after ARM since those are the ones selling the license to Mediatek/Qualcomm/other SoC manufacturers. They should not be going after the companies simply buying the chips.

 

That's like if Intel found out that AMD infringed on their patents, but instead of going after AMD they started going after NCIX and Newegg because they are selling computers with Ryzen CPUs in them.

How fucked up would that be? Very, and it is exactly what is happening here.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

This has nothing to do with LG designing their own chips, because the chips they are being sued for are not using their own chips.

 

It would be nice if people could do a bit of research before jumping in to defend their favorite companies.

The example of infringement AMD gives in their filing is the LG XPower. That smartphone has either a Snapdragon 210 (Adreno GPU) or a Mediatek MT6735 (with a Mali-T720).

The reason why that phone is infringing their patent (according to AMD) is because that device "feature the same or substantially similar infringing functionality".

So that particular filing is because the Mali or Adreno GPU features the same or similar functions (the patent in question is essentially a patent for using unified shaders for GPUs).

hod on a second ... didn't AMD sold all the rights to Qualcomm? back then it was known as Imageon?

8 fucking years AMD had not a single issue with Qualcomm and now they do?!

 

oh, and BTW .. most of the stuff AMD is suing for, except the Adreno, are owned under licence by ARM Holdings

 

AMD is in desperate need of $, otherwise I don't understand this patent troll behaviour

[Nineshadow]

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For crying out loud they are going after Sigma as well.

Oh, and this is why I remember this post. I saw it a couple of weeks ago(if not a few months) on these forums, and I was really wondering why would AMD sue a lens manufacturer.

 

Here it is:

 

It should also be noted they are going after MediaTek as well. More exactly, AMD is going after anyone who is using MediaTek technology it seems. iirc Adreno has some licenses for Radeon so they aren't going after them I guess.

 

[Notional]

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think this entire post is spot on, except now you need to swap out Nvidia for AMD, and Samsung for LG.

Funnily, he doesn't sound anything like that in this thread though. I wonder why...

 

Because they are two entirely different situations. Qualcomm had bought ATI's mobile division, and had the necessary patents for their Adreno architecture (anagram for RadeOn btw). The rest to my knowledge, already licensed patents from either qualcomm and/or AMD. As such they should be covered.

 

For NVidia to win the case back then, would mean the nullification of several patents for ARM, Qualcomm and possibly AMD as well. That would have been a disaster for the entire GPU market, mobile and desktop.

 

In this case, it seems that LG has further developed their own ARM processor, but without having licensed the right patents to do so. This is a case of not having licenses, the other case was NVidia thinking their patents would nullify all others. 

 

Just in case you wondered.

 

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, Nineshadow said:

It should also be noted they are going after MediaTek as well. More exactly, AMD is going after anyone who is using MediaTek technology it seems. iirc Adreno has some licenses for Radeon so they aren't going after them I guess.

Mediatek produces GPUs/SoCs based on ARM's licences, all Mali GPUs are under ARM Holdings

Adreno was Imageon, who was sold 8y ago by AMD to Qualcomm

 

AMD has serious mental problems

[Notional]

19 minutes ago, zMeul said:

AMD has serious mental problems

Yeah.. "AMD" 

[Citadelen]

"Hurr durr scummy companies protecting their parents DISGUSTUNG OH MU GOSHU PATENT TR0LLLI"

 

It goes both ways guys, we don't need some perfect balance of people that defend AMD at every incident and those that criticise them, take everything subjectivly. People need to stop throwing patent troll around so losely, as seems to be the general trend recently.

 

 

 

[Jahramika]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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).

 

 

That's more for trademarks.

So a honest company's like Samsung license properly from Amd and for rights to use Amd property but other company's do have to play Fair?

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

LG is designing it's own SoC, that's likely where that comes from. Wouldn't be surprised if Vizio is in the same boat.

Not sure if it's just an embedded APU, or a full on SoC, but Vizio has had their 'V' series chips as part of their smart and smartcast TVs for awhile.

The main pickings (perhaps only) are "6" and "8" core ARM processors that are really 2 or 4 core compute, and 4 'core' graphics, similar to AMD's APUs, if memory serves correctly.

[dizmo]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

 

There are several ways of making money.

1) Making good products that people want to buy.

2) Crippling competitors so that you become the only option.

 

Option 1 is good for consumers. Option 2 is bad for consumers.

You as a consumer, should be disgusting by any company who goes for option 2.

 

Like I said in the Nvidia vs Samsung thread, they should only be going after ARM since those are the ones selling the license to Mediatek/Qualcomm/other SoC manufacturers. They should not be going after the companies simply buying the chips.

 

That's like if Intel found out that AMD infringed on their patents, but instead of going after AMD they started going after NCIX and Newegg because they are selling computers with Ryzen CPUs in them.

How fucked up would that be? Very, and it is exactly what is happening here.

Yes and no.

They're not crippling competitors, they're protecting what they see as their IP. Yes, the chip manufacturer is at fault, but you can't let one company get away with reaping the benefits while the other is punished. How is that fair? How is it fair that the company at fault will see a profit on stolen IP? No. You stop sale of that product, LG charge backs the chip manufacturer or sues them for lost revenue.

 

Intel likely would. They'd request a stop sale of the merchandise in question to stop the company from getting profits from the illegal act. It's not the company they're going after, but the infringing product. Not sure how you don't see that.

 

How are the crippling competitors so that they become the only option? IIRC everyone needs to get patents from either Nvidia or AMD when it comes to graphics.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Jahramika said:

So a honest company's like Samsung license properly from Amd and for rights to use Amd property but other company's do have to play Fair?

Can you please link me to a source that shows Samsung pays AMD a licensing fee for the technology in Mali chips? If they do then this is worse than I thought, because AMD would be trying to get licensing fees from several companies when they should only get it from one. 

[leadeater]

Quote

A patent owner that seeks to prevent another from infringing is NOT a bully, period. A patent owner that takes action to prevent infringement is merely protecting the property right they have been granted; a right purposefully granted by the federal government after a lengthy examination process.
It should be self evident to everyone that you cannot be a bully when you are standing up to protect a right you have been given. It is utter nonsense to even suggest that a patent owner seeking vindication from the trampling of rights could ever in any fair way be characterized as a bully.

 

Quote

Would you consider a business owner who prevented someone from breaking into their store and stealing a tangible product to be a bully? Of course not! They would be taking reasonable steps to protect themselves, and their property, from the thug who was stealing. But if that is the case, why then would you consider a patent owner who protects and defends their rights to be a bully?

 

Quote

The Patent Act unambiguously says: “patents shall have the attributes of personal property.” See 35 U.S.C. 261. Thus, if a shop owner defending a tangible item against a thief is not bullying then neither is a patent owner defending rights against an infringer. These examples are perfectly analogous from a legal standpoint.

 

Quote

If untrained individuals are capable of making difficult legal determinations after considering all the legally relevant facts, interpreting the patent in question and taking into consideration the relevant case law, as Professor Chien seems to suggest, then why exactly are law schools charging students well over $100,000 dollars for an education? If anyone can do this without a lawyer it seems law schools are running some kind of scam themselves.

 

Quote

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of IPWatchdog.com. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/16/patent-owner-defending-property-rights-not-bully/id=63900/

 

Quote

The moral of the story is that in order to maintain the integrity of the exclusive right granted in the patent, mechanisms must be in place to discover infringement.  Likewise, once infringement is discovered enforcement actions need to be taken swiftly, or else the risk of there being prejudice to the defendant rises, which could limit or preclude recovery.  Moreover, even if laches does not ultimately provide a defense, inaction on the part of the patent owner chips away at the exclusionary right and allows a competitor to gain a foothold in the patent owner’s marketplace.   Any way you look at delay in enforcement, it is costly.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/05/27/the-risk-of-sleeping-on-your-patent-rights/id=10777/

[mach]

I don't know what sides some of you guys are on, but your hatred for AMD has blinded your eyes.

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, Notional said:

Because they are two entirely different situations. Qualcomm had bought ATI's mobile division, and had the necessary patents for their Adreno architecture (anagram for RadeOn btw). The rest to my knowledge, already licensed patents from either qualcomm and/or AMD. As such they should be covered.

Got any source that for example Samsung, HTC, Sony, Acer, Lenovo, Oppo, Nokia and basically every single phone manufacturer you can think of is each paying a separate fee to AMD?

Because that seems to me like what AMD is after with this lawsuit.

 

Instead of having ARM pay a licensing fee for their GPUs, they go after each and every manufacturer who uses an SoC with ARM's GPU inside it, which is bullshit.

 

 

11 hours ago, Notional said:

For NVidia to win the case back then, would mean the nullification of several patents for ARM, Qualcomm and possibly AMD as well. That would have been a disaster for the entire GPU market, mobile and desktop.

Source? Because I have been reading that thread and that was not your argument back then. Back then it was essentially:

1) If Nvidia wins then everyone but Nvidia loses. This is exactly the same scenario here where if AMD wins, we consumers and everyone else who isn't an AMD shareholder loses.

2) It is bullshit to go after Samsung when it is ARM violating the patent. Exact same situation here. It is bullshit to go after LG, Sigma and Mediatek for simply licensing something from ARM. But AMD don't want to go after ARM in fear of either better lawyers, bias by the US legal system where they favor US companies over foreign companies, or fear of losing their license for Cortex.

 

As you can see, both of those things applies to AMD as well.

 

 

9 hours ago, Citadelen said:

It goes both ways guys, we don't need some perfect balance of people that defend AMD at every incident and those that criticise them, take everything subjectivly. People need to stop throwing patent troll around so losely, as seems to be the general trend recently.

Patent troll has only been mention twice in this thread, and one of those instances were you. So I don't really think people are throwing that term around a lot.

This does not seem like patent trolling to me (although that is arguable) but I do think it is disgusting behavior and I do think AMD deserves to get fucked in court, even if their patent is valid and being infringed.

 

The reason why I hope AMD loses, even if their patent is valid, is because they are going after the wrong company.

If ARM is violating their patent then go after them. Don't go after ARM customers. If AMD should get a licensing fee then they should get it once, and only once. They should get a license fee for the Mali architecture, and it should come from ARM since they are the ones designing the architecture (and thus the first in the chain of violations). They should not just ignore ARM and then go and sue every single company who has an ARM GPU in their product. That is bullshit which will lead to them getting something like 20 licensing fees for every single GPU violating their patent.

 

Again, it is as if Intel went after NCIX or Newegg just because AMD was violating one of their patents. That is horrible behavior.

 

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

The main pickings (perhaps only) are "6" and "8" core ARM processors that are really 2 or 4 core compute, and 4 'core' graphics, similar to AMD's APUs, if memory serves correctly.

This is 100% false.

They are being sued specifically because Mali GPUs are using unified shaders. It has nothing to do with CPU cores or what they are being labeled as. It is strictly about the Mali GPU (although the handset they gave as an example has two versions, one with Mali and one with Adreno but we can pretty safely assume that it is just the Mali one AMD has an issue with right now).

 

 

 

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

Yes, the chip manufacturer is at fault

No they aren't. The GPU designer (ARM) is.

 

6 hours ago, dizmo said:

but you can't let one company get away with reaping the benefits while the other is punished.

That is exactly what AMD is doing. They are allowing ARM to keep selling the GPUs that infringe their patent, and then they go after the companies that buy from ARM. That is the only reason I object to this lawsuit.

 

If AMD was only going after ARM then fair enough. Go after ARM who is selling GPUs using your patent if you want. You have all the rights in the world to do so. I don't agree with the patent system, but right now it is the law.

What I object to is AMD allowing ARM to violate their patent, and then going after multiple ARM customers to get as many licensing deals as possible. It shows that AMD is clearly not interested in protecting their patent. If they win this lawsuit then AMD will actually benefit greatly if they allow ARM to keep violating their patent, and they would end up wanting more and more companies violating it. That's not how the patent system should work.

 

AMD has the option to go to ARM and demand a licensing fee from them. They would get one license fee and everything would work out just fine. However, AMD's current actions seems to indicate that they want ARM to keep violating their patent, so that AMD can go after individual chip makers as well as ARM clients. This way, instead of getting one license (like they should) they will be able to get 50 licensing fees (a number I pulled from my ass, but you get the point).

 

That is clearly abusing the system.

 

 

Just to reiterate:

I have no problem with AMD trying to defend their patent, just like I did not have any problem with Nvidia wanting to protect their patent. My problem with both of these lawsuits is that neither AMD nor Nvidia actually went after the company violating their patent to begin with. They allowed ARM and Imagine do whatever they wanted with their patent, and then only went after the customers after the chips had been sold.

 

That is like Intel suddenly turning up at your door going "you bought an AMD CPU last week, and now you must pay us a royalty". You as the customer already paid for the AMD CPU so you assume that AMD had the rights to sell that, right? Now imagine if Intel just went "oh we aren't going to go to AMD and do anything, nor will we stop Newegg from selling these. We will however look up everyone who bought a Ryzen CPU and demand a royalty from them".

 

If AMD (or Intel in my example) want a license fee for the patents then they should go to the source of the patent infringement. Not to customers who just happened to buy that GPU.

 

 

56 minutes ago, mach said:

I don't know what sides some of you guys are on, but your hatred for AMD has blinded your eyes.

Who are you talking to/about?

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Instead of having ARM pay a licensing fee for their GPUs, they go after each and every manufacturer who uses an SoC with ARM's GPU inside it, which is bullshit.

It's not necessarily that cut and dry. Take for example home theater receivers and DTS/Dobly Digital licenses, in these hardware products their is a decoder chip and while many brands say how they are custom made etc etc they are actually typically the same chip across multiple brands and it is not the chip maker that pays DTS/Dobly Digital the licenses fees it's Sony/Onkyo/Yamaha etc.

 

Now the chips may be programmable but there is certain design elements in them that make them capable of decoding these audio streams, it's not entirely software/firmware based decoding.

 

What you are effectively saying is the chip maker in this case should be paying those license fees and not Sony/Onkyo/Yamaha who actually are, along with other licenses fees for things like HDMI.

 

HDMI is another interesting case of who pays the license/royalties, luckily they are quite open about how that works. 

Quote

The HDMI royalty is only payable on Licensed Products that will be sold on a stand-alone basis (i.e. that are not incorporated into another Licensed Product that is subject to an HDMI royalty). For example, if a cable or IC is sold to an Adopter who then includes it in a television subject to a royalty, then the cable or IC maker would not pay a royalty, and the Adopter television manufacturer would pay the royalty on the final product. If the cable is sold directly to consumers, then it would be subject to a royalty.

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/terms.aspx

 

In this example ARM would only have to pay the adopters license fee.

 

As you can see here there are two examples of how ARM would not be responsible for paying any royalties to AMD but manufactures such as Samsung, LG, Vizio are. I'm not saying that this is the case but rather we don't actually know the full licensing terms at play here.

 

Edit:

Not paying the HDMI royalty is patent infringement even if you never actually designed or manufactured the infringing component in your product.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

-snip-

I absolutely hate how the licensing for things like audio codecs and HDMI works as well, and I would be super happy if those patents/licensing terms got nullified by a court.

So while you might have a point about how this type of bullshit could be legal, I definitely don't want it to happen, and I really don't understand how any consumer in their right mind could be cheering for AMD here.

 

Like Notional said in the Nvidia thread:

I really do not understand, why anyone, who is NOT an NVidia AMD shareholder, would hope for NVidia AMD to win this.

 

 

Whether or not AMD is in the right is up to the court to decide. I won't pretend like I am some authority figure who can decide the law. What I can however do is give my opinion on AMD and their actions, and right now I am disappointed and angry at them, and I am appalled that people are siding with them (which by the way I was with people cheering on Nvidia in the Nvidia vs Samsung thread as well).

[Okjoek]

23 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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).

 

 

That's more for trademarks.

Come to think of it that sounds right, AMD should go after ARM if they're the one making and selling their products

 

As for "open" and "friendly", IDK. I love AMD for their engineering and products, but like all corporations I expect dirty behavior from everyone.

[pas008]

On 3/21/2017 at 8:14 AM, Okjoek said:

AyyMD go get them!

 

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

has this been confirmed

[Okjoek]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

has this been confirmed

This is where I heard it:

https://hardforum.com/threads/from-ati-to-amd-back-to-ati-a-journey-in-futility-h.1900681/page-72#post-1042797289

[Notional]

On 22/3/2017 at 2:38 PM, LAwLz said:

I absolutely hate how the licensing for things like audio codecs and HDMI works as well, and I would be super happy if those patents/licensing terms got nullified by a court.

So while you might have a point about how this type of bullshit could be legal, I definitely don't want it to happen, and I really don't understand how any consumer in their right mind could be cheering for AMD here.

 

Like Notional said in the Nvidia thread:

I really do not understand, why anyone, who is NOT an NVidia AMD shareholder, would hope for NVidia AMD to win this.

 

Whether or not AMD is in the right is up to the court to decide. I won't pretend like I am some authority figure who can decide the law. What I can however do is give my opinion on AMD and their actions, and right now I am disappointed and angry at them, and I am appalled that people are siding with them (which by the way I was with people cheering on Nvidia in the Nvidia vs Samsung thread as well).

 

Well HDMI came together based on that licensing. After all, the consortium and its members that receives payment, are the ones who invented and paid for it to come to life to begin with. Still think DisplayPort should be more widely implemented, especially on tv's.

 

From a consumer perspective, yeah, there really is no reason to hope for any company to win any license/ip issues, unless it has severe consequences for products and in the end the consumer (like copy medicine making the original inventor unable to invest in new medicine). IF this case is similar to the NVidia case, then my point of view is the same: I'd hope for AMD to lose.

 

However, from a company perspective, it's interesting to see where things like this go. I still think (maybe I'm wrong), that these cases are not similar, as the companies NVidia sued, had their licensing in order, whereas it seems like the companies involved here, does not.

Also remember the context of the NVidia case, where NVidia actively used PR to paint their case as something the fanboys should root for. It backfired hard for them though, especially on twitter.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Notional said:

However, from a company perspective, it's interesting to see where things like this go. I still think (maybe I'm wrong), that these cases are not similar, as the companies NVidia sued, had their licensing in order, whereas it seems like the companies involved here, does not.

Nope

Nvidia sued Samsung because Samsung refused to pay the licensing fee. I don't remember for how long they were having conversations back and fourth, but it was several months (if not years). The discussions basically boiled down to:

Nvidia: Hey, pay us a licensing fee!

Samsung: No, we license things from ARM. If you want a licensing fee ask ARM, not us.

Nvidia: OK, then we will sue you!

 

Samsung got sued because they flat out refused to get a license from Nvidia. Then Samsung fired back and rekt Nvidia.

 

8 hours ago, Notional said:

Also remember the context of the NVidia case, where NVidia actively used PR to paint their case as something the fanboys should root for. It backfired hard for them though, especially on twitter.

I think AMD doesn't want to bring public attention to the lawsuit because they are scared it will backfire on them. Also, AMD likes to pretend to be the underdog who gets bullied and suing other companies kinds of ruins that illusion.