Patent trolling is the way to go!

[bogus]

 

Probably because Apple didn't spent billions for the swipe move. On the other side Nvidia did spend billions for their R&D regarding visual and parallel computing technologies and it was the first one to introduce graphics computational unit (not to be confused with graphics cards or video accelerators, since those existed before) capable of 3D rendering, video acceleration, and integrated GUI acceleration, and they patented this technology. If those were 'weird patents' Intel wouldn't pay Nvidia to licence their visual and parallel computing technologies.

 

 

Neither NVIDIA spent billions on unified shaders. Then you come with that PR talk that NVIDIA spent billions for their IP (more precisely 9 billions since 1993 according to NVIDIA themselfs) and you dismiss Apple IP that only in 2013 spent 4,5 billion on R&D:

 

 

About intel: Was it the same patents that are listed in this lawsuit that made Intel choose to pay the licensing and refuse to license x86 to NVIDIA? I don't think so.

 

 

A patent troll is, and I quote:

Yeah you seem to forgot to read the full article from Wikipedia

 

 

Etymology and definition[edit]

The term "patent troll" was used at least once in 1993 with a slightly different meaning, to describe countries that file aggressive patent lawsuits.[3] The 1994 educational video, The Patents Video also used the term, depicting a green troll guarding a bridge and demanding fees.[4][5] The origin of the term patent troll has also been variously attributed to Anne Gundelfinger, or Peter Detkin, both counsel for Intel, during the late 1990s.[6][7]

 

Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law.[8] Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following:

 

Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;[3]

Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;[9][10]

Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;[11]

Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;[12] or

 

Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.[13]

 

I can identify NVIDIA actions in that short and incomplete list.

 

 

Nvidia is a graphics technology company that has valid patents (7000 of them) and use them to develop their own products and offer licences to others. Far from 'patent troll' business model where small company (usually law firm) holds patents that don't even use and sue big players. I agree that Nvidia is a smaller company than Samsung, but Nvidia is far from small company and they do make billions every year.

 

I don't know why ARM and Imagination Tech are not sued, but I do know ARM will be assisting Samsung in this case. Saying that Nvidia sued Samsung just because 'that's where the money is' is pointless. I mean, have your opinion all you want, but don't try to pose it as a fact without some solid evidence.

 

Nvidia's patents are valid with billions of R&D money put into them, there's no doubt about it.

 

I'd say we should wait and see how this case will develop before making assumptions.

 

 

NVIDIA is using a patent troll called Intellectual Ventures, a non-practicing entitie, that has 40,000 patents in their portefolio. They used them to purchase patents from other companys, and there is a possibility they are using them to sue Samsung as well, who knows? We will know in due time. Or not. And just like you said, NVIDIA is way smaller then Samsung, wich makes Samsung a fat target.

The action of the lawsuit against Samsung because they are using licenses that are (or not) infringing NVIDIA IP is the same has suing the consumers who bought those devices. I have my oppinion, and I'm not trying to pose nothing - the facts are there and they stink not only to me, now you can have your oppinion - such oppinion doesn't make NVIDIA /Apple less of a patent troll. Such oppinion doesn't clean you from trying to pose facts.

 

All patents that are approved are valid and are worth billions, NVIDIA isn't alone on that one. As you can see in the article the value of the patents of non-practicing entities also is worth billions.

The outcome is irrelevant when you have patent trolls that won cases and profited from them.

[mr moose]

Hello mr moose, long time no see!

You need to pinpoint the exact definition of "patent troll" ... because from my understanding of the definition it's not only bound to non-practicing entities, it's bound to the intentions: either agressivly enforced licensing, marketing, spread fear, constrain markets, and the list goes on... still it seems that it's only me who calls Apple/NVIDIA "patent trolls" due to their behavior - a simple Google search clearly links only my post to consider Apple and NVIDIA to patent trolling.

But if it makes you feel better, NVIDIA uses a non-practicing entitie for IP and licensing management - a "patent troll pro" or the "biggest patent troll of them all" by YOUR precise definition standards, called Intellectual Ventures.

Get your facts straight before you talk about my intentions and the discredibility of the article intention... at least try to, because the context of what I said completly passed by you lol

What NVIDIA is doing to Samsung is clearly patent trolling - they tryed to enforce licensing to Samsung that is using licensed GPUs from Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination Tech, then NVIDIA went to the lawsuit to try to hold the sales from Samsung devices. Other companys that use the same licensing model as Samsung (HTC, LG, Sony, Motorola, etc) and the ones who license (ARM, Imagination Tech) weren't targets somehow... probably because they don't match Samsung revenues, another random (not) variable for patent trolling.

 

Except that you are completely ignoring the fact that they are only suing for IP that relate to tech they produce and use. And the fact they tried to avoid the legal system in the first place.  Regardless of whether they use a second firm to help them source IP, they are not a troll because they are practicing and they use the patents they acquire, they do not acquire them for the purpose of suing other who use them.  That is what the article is about and that is why you are wrong to try and include Nvidia in your argument.

 

You are entitled to consider what Nvidia is doing to be unethical,  unfair,  not in the best interests of consumers or even simply not in the spirit of progress, however to call it trolling and then insinuate I need to get my facts straight shows how little you understand both business ethics and your motivation for posting this.

[MonkeyFace]

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling on software patents in the Alice vs CLS Bank case, there seems to be a decline on both patent lawsuits and “business method” patent approvals by the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). The rejection rate of business method patents has jumped from 24 percent in January of this year to 78 percent this July. It looks like a major shift in the patent battles is about to happen.

 

 

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/uspto-rejecting-business-method-patents,27876.html

 

 

 

Well hopefully this will mean less law suites deriving from ideas that don't deserve to be patented...like rounded corners. 

 

 

 

[bogus]

Except that you are completely ignoring the fact that they are only suing for IP that relate to tech they produce and use. And the fact they tried to avoid the legal system in the first place.  Regardless of whether they use a second firm to help them source IP, they are not a troll because they are practicing and they use the patents they acquire, they do not acquire them for the purpose of suing other who use them.  That is what the article is about and that is why you are wrong to try and include Nvidia in your argument.

 

You are entitled to consider what Nvidia is doing to be unethical,  unfair,  not in the best interests of consumers or even simply not in the spirit of progress, however to call it trolling and then insinuate I need to get my facts straight shows how little you understand both business ethics and your motivation for posting this.

NVIDIA tryed to enforce their IP to a manufacturer (Samsung) that licensed the GPUs it uses on it's devices from other tech companys (ARM, Qualcomm, Imagination Tech), and after Samsung stating it was not their problem, because Samsung is a licensee, NVIDIA went for the lawsuit - is this difficult to understand? This is patent trolling - you are limiting the definition to the latest cases of patent trolling that come from non-practicing entities, but patent trolling exists for a long time and was/is done by practicing entities - what NVIDIA did is patent trolling by definition. They enforced, then they tryed to ban the devices from being sold, and we will see the outcome of the lawsuit - all from a company that licensed other companys IP. 

Again, try to get this through your head, I mentioned NVIDIA and Apple because they brought patent trolling to their business practices. Simple. If it's profitable for non-practicing entities, it is profitable for practicing entities - not only with the outcome of financial compensation, but also because it harms the competition, and cripples the evolution/progress of the market. That's my interpretation of the article : patent trolling is so profitable that you have non-practicing entities that make a living out of it, successfully.

I'm entitled to call NVIDIA patent troll not only by my personal oppinion, but also BY DEFINITION OF THE TERM PATENT TROLL.

Again, get your facts straight.

[bogus]

-snip-

I'm not sure mr moose, but you are the one showing your colors, to the point that you are not even thinking logicaly. 

If NVIDIA was protecting their IP they were knocking on Imagination Technology, ARM and Qualcomm door... it seems they only knocked on one of those, and are knocking on Samsung door wich didn't violate anyones IP, since they are a licensee. But still by your logic, why aren't they knocking on other manufacturers doors? HTC? LG? Motorola?

Gotta protect legitimately their IP, right? lol.. You clearly don't understand the meaning of Patent Trolling or Patent Troll.

Well done indeed mr moose, well done indeed.

[mr moose]

I'm not sure mr moose, but you are the one showing your colors, to the point that you are not even thinking logicaly. 

If NVIDIA was protecting their IP they were knocking on Imagination Technology, ARM and Qualcomm door... it seems they only knocked on one of those, and are knocking on Samsung door wich didn't violate anyones IP, since they are a licensee. But still by your logic, why aren't they knocking on other manufacturers doors? HTC? LG? Motorola?

Gotta protect legitimately their IP, right? lol.. You clearly don't understand the meaning of Patent Trolling or Patent Troll.

Well done indeed mr moose, well done indeed.

 

Why don't your right them a letter and ask why they are going after Samsung first?  Instead of just making up reasons why you think they are troll in the face of all the evidence.

[bogus]

Why don't your right them a letter and ask why they are going after Samsung first?  Instead of just making up reasons why you think they are troll in the face of all the evidence.

There's no need for that : they made a clear post on their official blog, since this is PR material, and ARM already said they are sticking behind their licensees and IP.

I'm "making up" reasons the same way you are "making up" reasons - the difference is that you wrongly limit your patent troll definition to non-practicing entities, when the actual definition is way wider then that wich includes both non-practicing entities and practicing entities. 

So there's no point in continuing this argument when I'm talking to someone who has a limited definition and doesn't even make an effort to try to understand why he is wrong - now you can write them two letters: one asking why they are going after the Samsung whale, and other asking what is the definition of patent troll, they surely know this one since they are working with Intellectual Ventures.

[mr moose]

So there's no point in continuing this argument when I'm talking to someone who has a limited definition and doesn't even make an effort to try to understand why he is wrong -

 

This is the standard LTT go to cop out when they are losing an argument.

 

You can't change the definition of a patent troll to suit your needs then accuse everyone else of limiting theirs. 

 

It's simple, Nvidia believe patents that they developed and use have been violated, their legal plan of action is to go for Samsung before anyone else. You neither like Nvidia nor understand this, but that does not make them trolls.

 

A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity (PAE), is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.

 

 

manufacturing products or supplying services based upon the patent in question is an integral part of the definition, you cannot remove it.

[bogus]

This is the standard LTT go to cop out when they are losing an argument.

 

You can't change the definition of a patent troll to suit your needs then accuse everyone else of limiting theirs. 

 

It's simple, Nvidia believe patents that they developed and use have been violated, their legal plan of action is to go for Samsung before anyone else. You neither like Nvidia nor understand this, but that does not make them trolls.

 

 

manufacturing products or supplying services based upon the patent in question is an integral part of the definition, you cannot remove it.

Cop out when I'm losing an argument? I'm talking to someone who doesn't know the proper definition of patent troll and you call it "cop out" just to because I don't want to waste time with someone who chooses to remain ignorant just because he is a fanboy of a hardware brand?

You call this losing an argument, I call it wasting time. But hey, if you think i'm "losing the argument" it's fine by my as long as it makes you happy.

I didn't change any definition, you on the other hand are trying to. You can't give a narrowed and limited definition because it suits you - it's wrong.

 

Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law.^[8] Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following:

• Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;^[3]
• Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;^[9][10]
• Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;^[11]
• Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;^[12] or
• Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.^[13]

You want more?

 

 

A narrower term is non-practising entity (NPE), which denotes a sub-category of patent trolls whose only activity in a domain is patent trolling. One definition of NPE is "an entity that does not have the capabilities to design, manufacture, or distribute products that have features [covered] by the patent".^[1]

source: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls

So again, yes, you are giving a narrow definition of the term because it suits you. It doesn't impress me, because it's a common practice for you in other arguments. Patent trolls are not ONLY NPEs. Microsoft, Apple, Samsung were appointed as a patent troll several times, either by their behaviors, by the kind of vague patents they have, and by enforcing such patents. Some, like Samsung, accused practicing entities of patent trolling.

 

You want to know the oppinion of a tech consultant, reknown in the market?

 

If you saw today’s new Nvidia patent trolling lawsuits against Samsung and Qualcomm. SemiAccurate told you about them over a year ago. Not only that, we told you why it was happening, who the targets were and an estimate of the chance of success.

 

It all started with the announcement of the bogus “Kepler licensing” program, something that had absolutely no merit whatsoever. In fact when we first looked at this laughable attempt at a cover story, we concluded that, “Licensing Kepler and any future IP has absolutely no chance of success.” We were dead on right because we knew that ‘licensing’ was not a real, it was a distraction for later use in court.

 

We explained the reasons behind this patent trolling exercise here in great detail. We told you how Nvidia was approaching ‘licensees’ and that it was in no uncertain terms a simple patent trolling exercise. We also went into great detail about the chances it had in the market, calling the move an exit strategy from their core businesses and “actively suicidal”. Nothing has made us change our mind in the slightest on the topic since, it is base patent trolling with direct and quantifiable effects on their current businesses.

source: http://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/

It's NOT ONLY about manufacturing products or supplying services based on patents, it's about unclear patents, enforcing licensing deals, marketing, threatning, and harm other businesses without knowing for sure if the other company is infringing the patents or not. NVIDIA is trying to ban Samsung devices without knowing if Samsung is guilty or not... in the end it's to profit from it or harm competition, when patents are used as a protection, not as a tool to make money.

It's funny that you once again avoid to comment the relationship and investments of NVIDIA with Intellectual Ventures, the so called "King of the patent trolls" wich kinda reflects NVIDIA position on the subject. They already aquired patents with them, a non-practicing entitie. Apple was pointed out before in court by doing the same (financing) another non-practicing entitie.

Now if you don't want to aknowlege it, it's not my problem.

If you disagree with my oppinion that NVIDIA is bringing patent trolling into their business model - that's fine by me lol, you are entitled to your oppinion.

[mr moose]

Cop out when I'm losing an argument? I'm talking to someone who doesn't know the proper definition of patent troll and you call it "cop out" just to because I don't want to waste time with someone who chooses to remain ignorant just because he is a fanboy of a hardware brand?

You call this losing an argument, I call it wasting time. But hey, if you think i'm "losing the argument" it's fine by my as long as it makes you happy.

I didn't change any definition, you on the other hand are trying to. You can't give a narrowed and limited definition because it suits you - it's wrong.

 

You want more?

 

 

So again, yes, you are giving a narrow definition of the term because it suits you. It doesn't impress me, because it's a common practice for you in other arguments. Patent trolls are not ONLY NPEs. Microsoft, Apple, Samsung were appointed as a patent troll several times, either by their behaviors, by the kind of vague patents they have, and by enforcing such patents. Some, like Samsung, accused practicing entities of patent trolling.

 

You want to know the oppinion of a tech consultant, reknown in the market?

 

It's NOT ONLY about manufacturing products or supplying services based on patents, it's about unclear patents, enforcing licensing deals, marketing, threatning, and harm other businesses without knowing for sure if the other company is infringing the patents or not. NVIDIA is trying to ban Samsung devices without knowing if Samsung is guilty or not... in the end it's to profit from it or harm competition, when patents are used as a protection, not as a tool to make money.

It's funny that you once again avoid to comment the relationship and investments of NVIDIA with Intellectual Ventures, the so called "King of the patent trolls" wich kinda reflects NVIDIA position on the subject. They already aquired patents with them, a non-practicing entitie. Apple was pointed out before in court by doing the same (financing) another non-practicing entitie.

Now if you don't want to aknowlege it, it's not my problem.

If you disagree with my oppinion that NVIDIA is bringing patent trolling into their business model - that's fine by me lol, you are entitled to your oppinion.

 

I think you've lost the plot. you are using a definition to prove something it doesn't define. There is no way to rebut such illogical and fallacious arguments. 

 

Again you really don't understand the issue:

 

Nvidia is only suing for the first time over patents it holds and uses. <- Key here being uses. they are a practicing entity.

Nvidia is suing both Samsung and Quallcomm. not just Samsung

Nvidia claims they are suing Samsung because allegedly Samsung designed the chips that infringe the patents, not just brought them.

Nvidia claim they were in negotiations with Samsung for 2 years prior to this, so hardly the actions of a patent troll.

Intel have been paying licensing to Nvidia for those exact patents, showing in their mind that the patents are legitimate and not just acquired for the sake of non-practicing financial gain.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-sues-samsung-and-qualcomm-alleging-patent-infringement-1409864408

 

It can't be spelled out much clearer than that.    But We all know you have such a hatred for Nvidia you won't accept the facts and just choose to dismiss reality. To make it worse you think anyone who disagrees with you is a fanboy.

 

Again I find myself asking whatever happened to critical thinking?

[bogus]

I think you've lost the plot. you are using a definition to prove something it doesn't define. There is no way to rebut such illogical and fallacious arguments. 

 

Again you really don't understand the issue:

 

Nvidia is only suing for the first time over patents it holds and uses. <- Key here being uses. they are a practicing entity.

Nvidia is suing both Samsung and Quallcomm. not just Samsung

Nvidia claims they are suing Samsung because allegedly Samsung designed the chips that infringe the patents, not just brought them. - wtf?!

Nvidia claim they were in negotiations with Samsung for 2 years prior to this, so hardly the actions of a patent troll.

Intel have been paying licensing to Nvidia for those exact patents, showing in their mind that the patents are legitimate and not just acquired for the sake of non-practicing financial gain.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-sues-samsung-and-qualcomm-alleging-patent-infringement-1409864408

 

It can't be spelled out much clearer than that.    But We all know you have such a hatred for Nvidia you won't accept the facts and just choose to dismiss reality. To make it worse you think anyone who disagrees with you is a fanboy.

 

Again I find myself asking whatever happened to critical thinking?

You haven't found the plot in the first place, how can you say that I've lost it?

- NVIDIA tryed to enforce licensing, not only to Samsung (patent trolling);

- Samsung and Qualcomm are not the same company. Samsung is being sued for "We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures." So yeah basicly they are suing Samsung for using GPUs (patent trolling);

- NVIDIA claim it tryed to negociate with Samsung that doesn't manufacture GPUs, only buys them, with a ridiculous licensing scheme (patent trolling); (http://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/)

- Why are you lying? Making up information doesn't take you anywhere: no samsung didn't allegedly designed chips that infringe patents, neither NVIDIA CLAIMS IT - they bought them from the manufacturers and are being sued for SELLING PRODUCTS that have such GPUs , this is from the process:

 

 

(...)Many of Samsung’s smartphones and tablet computers are

powered by mobile processors supplied by Qualcomm, which use GPUs commercially known as

“Adreno.” Other smartphones and tablets sold by Samsung use GPUs commercially known as

“Mali” or “PowerVR.” All of these products infringe the Asserted Patents. The market success

of Qualcomm and Samsung in these areas is built on the back of NVIDIA’s pioneering graphics

technology, and Qualcomm and Samsung continue to release new products using NVIDIA’s

technology(...)

(...)Instead of developing its own graphics processing technology, Samsung

purchases and uses Qualcomm’s infringing processors and GPUs, as well as other processors and

GPUs that infringe the claims of the Asserted Patents. Yet Samsung refuses to enter into

licenses that would appropriately compensate NVIDIA for its use of the important graphics

technologies protected by the NVIDIA patent portfolio. Since August 2012, NVIDIA has

attempted to reach an appropriate license with Samsung, which would enable Samsung to

properly use NVIDIA’s IP within its products. But Samsung has negotiated based on delay and

by pointing the infringement finger at its chipset suppliers, such as Qualcomm, or third parties

that supply GPU technology to Samsung, while continuing to reap enormous profits from the

Samsung-branded products shipped into the United States and elsewhere. Samsung refuses to

enter into a license with NVIDIA, while it continues to reap enormous profits from the sale of

Samsung-branded products shipped into the United States, which harms the important domestic

industry that is based on NVIDIA’s patented graphics technologies.(...)

(...)

31. Qualcomm designs, develops, manufactures, has manufactured, imports, sells for

importation into the United States and/or sells within the United States after importation,

processors that infringe the Asserted Patents that are used in Samsung’s products. These

processors include Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors using Adreno GPUs, which processors

include but are not limited to, the Snapdragon S4 (using the Adreno 225), Snapdragon 400

(using the Adreno 305), Snapdragon 600 (using the Adreno 320), Snapdragon 800 and 801

(using the Adreno 330), and Snapdragon 805 (using the Adreno 420).

 

32. Samsung designs, develops, manufactures, imports, sells for importation into the

United States and/or sells within the United States after importation, products that infringe the

Asserted Patents. The Accused Products include, but are not limited to, mobile products such as

mobile phones (including the Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3, and

Galaxy S4) and tablet computers (including the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro, and Galaxy Tab

(...)

It's all there, the facts, inform yourself and stop being a fanboy. No I don't call you a fanboy because you disagree with me, I call you a fanboy because you lie and cherry pick only what suits you to make NVIDIA look good in this scenario - but then you say that because I disagree with you then I'm a hater. Where is the logic in that? Yup.

I don't hate NVIDIA, if I did I wouldn't have their products. But are they being patent trolls? Yes they are and that's as shitty as it gets - who will they sue next? Every retailer that profits from selling Samsung devices, because they are profiting from  devices that uses GPUs that were manufactured by companys that NVIDIA claims that are infringing their patents?

lol.

[mr moose]

You haven't found the plot in the first place, how can you say that I've lost it?

- NVIDIA tryed to enforce licensing, not only to Samsung (patent trolling);

- Samsung and Qualcomm are not the same company. Samsung is being sued for "We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures." So yeah basicly they are suing Samsung for using GPUs (patent trolling);

- NVIDIA claim it tryed to negociate with Samsung that doesn't manufacture GPUs, only buys them, with a ridiculous licensing scheme (patent trolling); (http://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/)

- Why are you lying? Making up information doesn't take you anywhere: no samsung didn't allegedly designed chips that infringe patents, neither NVIDIA CLAIMS IT - they bought them from the manufacturers and are being sued for SELLING PRODUCTS that have such GPUs , this is from the process:

 

 

It's all there, the facts, inform yourself and stop being a fanboy. No I don't call you a fanboy because you disagree with me, I call you a fanboy because you lie and cherry pick only what suits you to make NVIDIA look good in this scenario - but then you say that because I disagree with you then I'm a hater. Where is the logic in that? Yup.

I don't hate NVIDIA, if I did I wouldn't have their products. But are they being patent trolls? Yes they are and that's as shitty as it gets - who will they sue next? Every retailer that profits from selling Samsung devices, because they are profiting from  devices that uses GPUs that were manufactured by companys that NVIDIA claims that are infringing their patents?

lol.

:rolleyes:

 

Really?  what? none of that means what you think it does.  And to be quite honest it's scary that you can't identify the difference between protecting legitimate patents and being a troll.

 

On top of that you call me a liar even though I linked supporting articles. you clearly aren't reading my posts because I never said Samsung and qualcom were the same company.  To be honest you are just dribbling rubbish now.

[bogus]

:rolleyes:

 

Really?  what? none of that means what you think it does.  And to be quite honest it's scary that you can't identify the difference between protecting legitimate patents and being a troll.

 

On top of that you call me a liar even though I linked supporting articles. you clearly aren't reading my posts because I never said Samsung and qualcom were the same company.  To be honest you are just dribbling rubbish now.

To make a lawsuit and ask for a product ban against a device manufacturer (the largest one, Samsung) that buys GPUs from other companys (Qualcomm, ARM, Imagination Tech), when it's not known if such companys are in fact infringing patents - it's not a way to protect themselfs, it's going after money.

I called you a liar because what YOU CLAIMED it's lie: "Nvidia claims they are suing Samsung because allegedly Samsung designed the chips that infringe the patents, not just brought them."  

Why? - I will break it down to you: Because that information does not match what is in the official information/press release/lawsuit documentation, and I even made an effort to quote where that information was. But if you think that your interpretation of a news article is more reliable then the actual document that NVIDIA lawyers filled to present to the court... then that shows the kind of person you are.

 

I'm not dribbling rubbish - you are the one dribbling rubish, missinforming and lying. Then you have the moral to say that I'm a hater and I dribble rubish? LOL

[mr moose]

To make a lawsuit and ask for a product ban against a device manufacturer (the largest one, Samsung) that buys GPUs from other companys (Qualcomm, ARM, Imagination Tech), when it's not known if such companys are in fact infringing patents - it's not a way to protect themselfs, it's going after money.

I called you a liar because what YOU CLAIMED it's lie: "Nvidia claims they are suing Samsung because allegedly Samsung designed the chips that infringe the patents, not just brought them."  

Why? - I will break it down to you: Because that information does not match what is in the official information/press release/lawsuit documentation, and I even made an effort to quote where that information was. But if you think that your interpretation of a news article is more reliable then the actual document that NVIDIA lawyers filled to present to the court... then that shows the kind of person you are.

 

I'm not dribbling rubbish - you are the one dribbling rubish, missinforming and lying. Then you have the moral to say that I'm a hater and I dribble rubish? LOL

 

They believe the patents are breached, there is a difference between taking legal action to prevent a company from financially gaining from your patents and being a patent troll. you still haven't worked that bit out yet though.

 

Nividia does claim that, I even provided a link.  But obviously you would rather ignore the facts as they get in they way of your obvious delusion.

Here you go:

 

 

On information and belief, Samsung Electronics Co.,

Ltd., designs, develops, manufactures and sells consumer electronics, such as mobile phones and

tablet computers, that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents owned by NVIDIA.

 

 

From the court filed documents:

 

PDF LINK

[bogus]

They believe the patents are breached, there is a difference between taking legal action to prevent a company from financially gaining from your patents and being a patent troll. you still haven't worked that bit out yet though.

 

Nividia does claim that, I even provided a link.  But obviously you would rather ignore the facts as they get in they way of your obvious delusion.

Here you go:

 

From the court filed documents:

 

PDF LINK

 

Please get an education in what is happen before you accuse  other people of lying. 

Patents were breached by GPU manufacturers. Period. If they wanted to prevent companys from gaining financially from NVIDIA patents they would go after the supply of the GPUs, not DEVICE MANUFACTURERS, and again I will tell you: from EVERYONE who profits with the sales of smartphones > they choose the biggest one called Samsung - can you get that through your mind? Not every manufacturer, not retailers, not service providers - SAMSUNG. Yes it's patent trolling.

No NVIDIA DOESN'T CLAIM THAT - you either want to ignore it or you can't read properly. I will even pick up that quote you brought in, for the sake of stopping missinformation and lies:

 

 

On information and belief, Samsung Electronics Co.,

Ltd., designs, develops, manufactures and sells consumer electronics, such as mobile phones and

tablet computers, that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents owned by NVIDIA.

I assume that's where you got the word design, yet you somehow found chip somewhere... but they go into it again in detail:

 

32. Samsung designs, develops, manufactures, imports, sells for importation into the

United States and/or sells within the United States after importation, products that infringe the

Asserted Patents. The Accused Products include, but are not limited to, mobile products such as

mobile phones (including the Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3, and

Galaxy S4) and tablet computers (including the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro, and Galaxy Tab

Weird right? Again about DESIGNING, manufacturing, development, etc, etc, etc of PRODUCTS.***

Now let's compare to the one who is CLAIMED to DESIGN chips/processors that are infringing patents:

 

31. Qualcomm designs, develops, manufactures, has manufactured, imports, sells for

importation into the United States and/or sells within the United States after importation,

processors that infringe the Asserted Patents that are used in Samsung’s products. These

processors include Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors using Adreno GPUs, which processors

include but are not limited to, the Snapdragon S4 (using the Adreno 225), Snapdragon 400

(using the Adreno 305), Snapdragon 600 (using the Adreno 320), Snapdragon 800 and 801

(using the Adreno 330), and Snapdragon 805 (using the Adreno 420).

See the difference? One is about PRODUCTS other is about PROCESSORS. No where it says that SAMSUNG is has breached any patent by DESIGNING CHIPS or any PROCESSOR.

Somehow you grabbed the word DESIGN and made it into desiging chips - when this is completly wrong since they are talking about products. It's the design of products. Again you claimed "Nvidia claims they are suing Samsung because allegedly Samsung designed the chips that infringe the patents, not just brought them."   and this is a lie and is missinformation.

 

Another personal attack? Hater, rubish dribbler, and now uneducated! Yes you are a liar and a missinformant, instead of telling me to get education, get yourself some eduction and some maners first before trying to advise anyone to do such thing.

I'm done with you, like you say I'm copping out LOL, when in reality I'm just tired wasting time talking to a fanboy that likes to make up information and lies has he goes. Why? No idea, probably some moral superiority complex. Pathetic...

***(Just in case you are wondering what Samsung uses in their products that is claimed by NVIDIA as a infrigment)

(...)Many of Samsung’s smartphones and tablet computers are

powered by mobile processors supplied by Qualcomm, which use GPUs commercially known as

“Adreno.” Other smartphones and tablets sold by Samsung use GPUs commercially known as

“Mali” or “PowerVR.” All of these products infringe the Asserted Patents. The market success

of Qualcomm and Samsung in these areas is built on the back of NVIDIA’s pioneering graphics

technology, and Qualcomm and Samsung continue to release new products using NVIDIA’s

technology(...)

[bogus]

Lol, a wall of text with bold and big bits in red.  It would actually mean something if you understood the meaning of what you are quoting.

I know that's too many words put together for you... I mean you can't even read and interpret properly a single quote from the lawsuit document... you even create words that are not there. I made and effort to help you, by using bold and hilight with red because you might have some sort of mental disability that doesn't let you read black text for too long... still I thought you could read it.

I was wrong.

 

[Redliub]

I was wrong.

Yes, yes you were. That's the one true thing you've said this entire thread.

 

Patent trolls do not make products. Samsung, Apple, Nvidia, and all of the companies involved in this do. Patent trolls exist specifically to make money off of patent litigation.

 

Litigating patents is not trolling. Only recently has the "patents are black magic" bullshit arisen. There's a difference between protecting your inventions and basing your business model off of exploiting the system that allows inventions to be protected. And let me tell you, if Apple, Samsung, and Nvidia were making more money off of patent litigation than they were from their products, they wouldn't be making good products anymore.

 

But they are making vastly more money from their products, so no, they aren't trolls. None of them are.

[backslash]

<Patent trolling>

 

Patent trolls patent troll patent trolls.

 

</Patent trolling>

 

Edit (because the above is optimized for cleverness, not clarity)

 

 

Why don’t whales get cancer more often?

 

I mean, think about it. Cancer results from a series of mutations occurring by chance in a single cell. So over a given time period, the cancer rate of an organism should be proportional to the number of cells in that organism. If a whale is a thousand times bigger than a person, it should have a thousand times more cells and therefore get cancer a thousand times more often. Since humans have maybe a 1% per year cancer risk, whales should get ten cancers a year. But most whales live a long time and don’t die of cancer. Why not?

...

I don’t know which of the various proposed solutions to this puzzle is true but the most hilarious is no doubt Nagy, Victor and Cropper (2007). Whales are very big, so in order to threaten a whale, a cancer must also grow very big. In order to grow very big, a cancer must evolve a complicated internal structure determining which cells expand where and who’s going to secrete the factors necessary for blood vessels to grow and so on. Cancers can do that: even in humans, tumors develop impressive amounts of structure and cooperation among the cancerous cells inside of them. But as tumors grow bigger and more intricate, and cells have to spend more and more time altruistically working for the good of the tumor rather than just reproducing, some cells will inevitably defect from the plan and just divide uncontrollably. This ends up in an unhappy equilibrium. Whenever the balance swings too far toward defectors, the tumor can’t support itself and most of the cells die. Whenever the balance swings too far toward cooperators, the defectors have a big advantage again and start expanding. As a result, the tumor either remains at a fixed size or dies off completely. It might get a chance to metastasize, but the same will happen to its metastatic descendents.

In other words, the theory is that whales survive because they are so big that their cancers get cancer and die.

(source)

 

My hope is that patent trolls sue other patent trolls, thereby making patent trolling no longer profitable. Thus, the legal system won't bear any patent trolls, since as soon as a patent troll becomes sufficiently high profile, a bunch of startup patent trolls patent troll it to death.

 

Maybe the solution isn't to make patent trolling illegal, but just to allow patent trolls to patent troll other patent trolls.

[bogus]

- snip - 

No. It's not limited to NPE - lately that's what you've seen more often: NPE going after some big companys.

Then let me tell you this: why the hell would Apple, Samsung, or NVIDIA stop making products if they can make products and use patent litigation?! Why the hell NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Google are investors in Intellectual Ventures, the NPE with over 40,000 patents and it's known has the "The King of Patent Trolling" because it's one who profits more from patent litigation?

This is what I said in my first post:

 

 

But what worries me is: are we reaching a stage where patent trolling is going to leak into actual business models of practicing entities due to the high success rate of it? Is this something that will start to show in financial projections of tech companys?

One thing is sure - the numbers add up to it. Apple is known for it, and NVIDIA filed the lawsuit with some "weird" patents probably to increase their success rate and they sure aimed at some big whales.

If NPEs can make money from it, so can PEs. Simple.

It's known for a long time that NVIDIA started a licensing business model, just like NPEs ( http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/21/nvidias-preemptive-strike/ ), and guess what they did? They enforce licensing to Samsung and Apple, and some more ( http://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/ ). We already know the outcome of the Apple shake down. We are yet to see the outcome of Samsung and Qualcomm lawsuit.

NVIDIA claims that every GPU used in smartphones and tablets in the market are infriging patents, yet they go after Samsung wich buy every GPU it uses from his suppliers, and Qualcomm. The two biggest players, one of them doesn't manufacture GPUs.

The situation is not "NVIDIA files lawsuit against ARM, Imagination Tech, Qualcomm for patent infringment, and asked to stop the supply of every GPU to the manufacturers in the USA, because they refused licensing". The choose the fat targets, and one (Samsung) uses IP from other companys, so it's not even their issue. They are not the only ones profiting: retailers, service providers, and the whole chain that takes small profit bites out of it.

Want a analogy? Imagine NVIDIA filing a lawsuit against AMD, and then file another lawsuit against Asus for using AMD GPUs in their products. You can name others: Acer, Toshiba, Sony, Apple, Alienware, Maingear, w/e. All of this because they refused to be NVIDIA licensees for using AMD GPUs, when they don't even know if in they eyes of the law AMD is in fact infrining patents or not.

The only difference between YOUR definition of patent troll and what NVIDIA is doing is the word "Non". NVIDIA is a Practicing Entitie that is patent trolling.

 

[Redliub]

The only difference between YOUR definition of patent troll and what NVIDIA is doing is the word "Non". NVIDIA is a Practicing Entitie that is patent trolling.

But that's a huge word. I know what Intellectual Ventures is. You're simply hijacking the term to use in your greater anti-patent war.

 

It's pretty clear what a patent troll is.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity (PAE), is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Related, less pejorative terms include patent holding company (PHC) and non-practicing entity (NPE). Generally not considered patent trolls are NPEs such as individual inventors, university research laboratories, development firms that offer their patented technologies to licensees in advance, and licensing agents that offer enforcement and negotiation services on behalf of patent owners.^[1] 

[mr moose]

But that's a huge word. I know what Intellectual Ventures is. You're simply hijacking the term to use in your greater anti-patent war.

 

It's pretty clear what a patent troll is.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Thank you, I am glad someone else understands. 

[Redliub]

Thank you, I am glad someone else understands. 

He does understand, he's just ignoring the facts because he doesn't like patents.

[mr moose]

I know that's too many words put together for you... I mean you can't even read and interpret properly a single quote from the lawsuit document... you even create words that are not there. I made and effort to help you, by using bold and hilight with red because you might have some sort of mental disability that doesn't let you read black text for too long... still I thought you could read it.

I was wrong.

 

 

Resorting to such insults and derogatory discourse is surely the last resort of a failed argument. I can handle being told I am ignorant, I can handle being accused of being a liar (because I know the score), I can handle being called arrogant or have it insinuated that I don't properly understand the subject matter, I even accuse others of the same things,  but the second you accuse me of having a mental disability you insult every single person who struggles with mental illness, you trivialize their condition and belittle them to an throwaway insult when you can't handle yourself.  Using such rhetoric is beyond a doubt the actual disability here, as it clearly shows an inability to articulate yourself without resorting to cheap degradation of an entire demographic. 

[Guest Kloaked]

I wonder if bogus is actually reading any of these responses to him, and not simply going into a blind rage because someone says he's wrong.

Even in one of his own posts, he contradicted everything he's ever retorted.

[bogus]

But that's a huge word. I know what Intellectual Ventures is. You're simply hijacking the term to use in your greater anti-patent war.

 

It's pretty clear what a patent troll is.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

I hijack the term just like Google did when they called Microsoft and Nokia of Patent Trolls when both of them enforced patents. I hijack the term just like Microsoft and Apple were called of Patent Trolls for investing in Rockstar.

If you want to, give it a read: http://semiaccurate.com/2014/09/04/nvidia-sues-samsung-qualcomm-like-semiaccurate-said/

 

Resorting to such insults and derogatory discourse is surely the last resort of a failed argument. I can handle being told I am ignorant, I can handle being accused of being a liar (because I know the score), I can handle being called arrogant or have it insinuated that I don't properly understand the subject matter, I even accuse others of the same things,  but the second you accuse me of having a mental disability you insult every single person who struggles with mental illness, you trivialize their condition and belittle them to an throwaway insult when you can't handle yourself.  Using such rhetoric is beyond a doubt the actual disability here, as it clearly shows an inability to articulate yourself without resorting to cheap degradation of an entire demographic. 

Nah insults is your favorite tactic: hater, uneducated, the list goes on lol. You are just mad.

Again you show signs of not being able to read properly - I said you might have some sort of disability, wich is nothing to be shamed about. I simply presented that possibility and I tryed to highlight your missinformation and your lies when you said Samsung is being sued for designing chips, wich is completly wrong.

I had to laugh hard at the higlight statements, LOL! That escalated quickly. But then again it's ok for you to trivialize and degradate those who have no access to education? Shame on you

 

I wonder if bogus is actually reading any of these responses to him, and not simply going into a blind rage because someone says he's wrong.

Even in one of his own posts, he contradicted everything he's ever retorted.

Another NVIDIA fanboy, the more, the merrier!