Patent trolling is the way to go!

[Guest Kloaked]

Another NVIDIA fanboy, the more, the merrier!

 

Opposite could be said about you since you keep on insisting that Nvidia is somehow a patent troll, when they're clearly not. You've been presented so much evidence that you're wrong, but you won't accept it for some odd reason.

 

I'm seriously not trying to be mean, but you need to learn to comprehend English bro. Even by reading your posts, I can tell you're feeling like you're backed into a corner and you're just trying to make shit up to support your viewpoint. You're even contradicting your own statements by linking articles that blatantly say the opposite of what you're touting.

 

You're wrong, just accept it. The internet will forget, it's not the end of the world.

[bogus]

Opposite could be said about you since you keep on insisting that Nvidia is somehow a patent troll, when they're clearly not. You've been presented so much evidence that you're wrong, but you won't accept it for some odd reason.

 

I'm seriously not trying to be mean, but you need to learn to comprehend English bro. Even by reading your posts, I can tell you're feeling like you're backed into a corner and you're just trying to make shit up to support your viewpoint. You're even contradicting your own statements by linking articles that blatantly say the opposite of what you're touting.

 

You're wrong, just accept it. The internet will forget, it's not the end of the world.

I'm such a AMD fanboy that the only purchase I ever did from them was a R9 290X, wich I only bought because a friend of mine sold me one at a discount and without VAT, else I would have a 780. I'm such a NVIDIA hater that I spent thousands of dollars on their hardware through my hole life.

I'm not the only one who sees this NVIDIA action as patent trolling. I'm not the only one who called other Practicing Entities of Patent Trolls. I just wont limit the narrow definition of patent troll to Non-Practicing-Entities. Simple.

[Guest Kloaked]

I'm such a that the only purchase I ever did from them was a R9 290X, wich I only bought because a friend of mine sold me one at a discount and without VAT, else I would have a 780. I'm such a NVIDIA hater that I spent thousands of dollars on their hardware through my hole life.

I'm not the only one who sees this NVIDIA action as patent trolling. I'm not the only one who called other Practicing Entities of Patent Trolls. I just wont limit the narrow definition of patent troll to Non-Practicing-Entities. Simple.

 

I also own an AMD system, but I have since moved to my Intel/Nvidia system since I got the parts for it for free/at a discount and it outperformed the other one. The other one is being occupied by my brother since I don't have a use for it for now, not that it matters.

Nvidia hasn't seen a dime from my bank account, so I am not monetarily invested in them. I got my video cards for free. So I think I can look at this situation and assess it as a rational individual. I would think you could too, but apparently not.

[bogus]

So I think I can look at this situation and assess it as a rational individual. I would think you could too, but apparently not.

 

As a rational individual I find what NVIDIA is doing to Samsung an exercise of Patent Trolling. We don't know if any patents are being infringed, and if they are, Samsung is buying the GPUs from suppliers, wich in return pays the licensing fees to the GPU manufacturers. NVIDIA claims there was a licensing deal effort (one wich we don't know the terms, and if there was any intention in the negotiation, or simply a activity to go on the record for the lawsuit), by wich Samsung claimed it was a suppliers problem. One of the suppliers, ARM, already claimed they will stick by their IP, yet it didn't stop NVIDIA to sue Samsung from violating their IP by using ARM Mali GPUs.

So you have a Practicing Entitie that is enforcing patents, filed a lawsuit, used it as marketing, and aimed to ban products from the US market of the biggest device manufacturer, Samsung, that has no knowlege if all of his GPU suppliers are infringing patents, or not. The only difference between this and what Microsoft, Nokia, Apple and many more did, is that they created/financed companys to manage their IP and the lawsuits (NPEs) and NVIDIA is doing it themselfs. IMO that doesn't seem enough to set appart NVIDIA from patent trolling.

Like I said in my first post: if the business model of NPEs works and it's profitable, why not bring it to PE business models.

[Redliub]

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/

For fucks sake, you're dense.

 

You'd rather have them not enforce patents at all. Just say it. Please. That's what your argument boils down to. Despite multiple attempts from numerous community members you still don't understand what makes a patent troll a patent troll and not just exceptionally litigious. Appealing to authority won't help you here. You've shown your inability to comprehend what a non practicing entity is and instead dodge the question by suggesting that you're right because other people agree with you.

 

Like I said in my first post: if the business model of NPEs works and it's profitable, why not bring it to PE business models.

It's not a business model. It's trolling. Hence the phrase patent trolling. Corporations have been litigating patents since long before you were born and they will continue to do so until after you die. 

 

If you'd like to call it a business model, because hey, we're all being idiots here, bringing it to practicing entities would mean they would stop selling products. That's the whole reason a patent troll is a troll and not just a concerned party, because they don't actually use the patents they litigate. That's the difference here. You here patent litigation and you think TROLL, but you're so completely wrong it's laughable.

 

But you know all of this. You're just using it to further your anti-patent agenda.

[mr moose]

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/

 

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

 

Another NVIDIA fanboy, the more, the merrier!

well done,  I work in special education, My job is to ensure those without access to education gets it.  You on the other hand, what's your excuse for such a low ability to comprehend basic English?   Everyone is telling you you are wrong but you refuse to accept it to the point of insulting disabled people.

[Shahnewaz]

My question is, how does Samsung infringe some NVIDIA patents when they are a consumer product seller? It's like saying "Lets sue Linus Media Group because Invision Power Services has infringed some of our patents (Invision Power is the forum software provider). Samsung just sells Qualcomm based products. They didn't do anything!

 

NVIDIA should sue ARM, Imagination Tech and Qualcomm according to my understanding.

 

@bogus I see you quoted a SemiAccurate article. Respect!

[mr moose]

My question is, how does Samsung infringe some NVIDIA patents when they are a consumer product seller? It's like saying "Lets sue Linus Media Group because Invision Power Services has infringed some of our patents (Invision Power is the forum software provider). Samsung just sells Qualcomm based products. They didn't do anything!

 

NVIDIA should sue ARM, Imagination Tech and Qualcomm according to my understanding.

 

@bogus I see you quoted a SemiAccurate article. Respect!

 

I hink those details are what we are going to have to wait for the court case to find out.  Ultimately neither company is going to make their claim arguments known nor state their defense outside of court as it will give the other time to counter it before the actual hearing.  For now all we can do is speculate on the information at hand.  The courts will ultimately decide if Samsung need to license it or whether that is the responsibility of the chip designer/manufacturer.   One argument might be that Qualcomm is doing nothing more than providing a manufacturer with a part made to order, if the processor is considered a part and not a finished product then the courts could decide in favor of Nvidia. If the courts decide that a SOC processor is a product in it's own right then there might be trouble for qualcomm. 

[Shahnewaz]

One argument might be that Qualcomm is doing nothing more than providing a manufacturer with a part made to order, if the processor is considered a part and not a finished product then the courts could decide in favor of Nvidia. If the courts decide that a SOC processor is a product in it's own right then there might be trouble for qualcomm. 

I really didn't understand what you meant by this, sorry.

 

“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,” Nvidia said in its Delaware complaint.

That clearly shows Samsung should not be part of this lawsuit. Qualcomm is the one infringing CPU and GPU patents.

 

Nvidia said it tried to negotiate a license for its patents with Samsung, and that Samsung “repeatedly said that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem.”

Pretty obvious, right? Why should Samsung bother when Qualcomm is the problem?

 

In the ITU complaint, Nvidia says the accused Samsung products use processors that incorporate three GPU architectures—Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali and Imagination’s PowerVR.

“Adreno GPUs are used in Qualcomm’s processors and chipsets. Other processors and chipsets used in Samsung’s accused products, including Samsung’s Exynos processors, use Mali GPUs or PowerVR GPUs,” Nvidia says in its complaint.

“Products using any one of these three types of GPUs infringe the asserted patents,” it says.

One unusual factor is that Nvidia is suing Samsung over its use of technology that was purchased from other companies rather than developed internally. The suit cites graphics circuitry that comes with Qualcomm chips, some of which are used in Samsung smartphones.

In other cases, Nvidia said, Samsung designs its own chips that also include graphics technology it purchases from either ARM Holdings PLC and Imagination Technologies Ltd. Mr. Huang said the technology from those two British companies also infringes Nvidia patents.

As I said before, Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination Tech should be the ones at trouble, not Samsung, Apple also uses ARM Mali GPUs. Shouldn't Nvidia sue Apple as well? It really doesn't make any sense suing a consumer product manufacturer when they just use the parts/products made, designed and developed by other companies. They don't hold any IP that infringe Nvidia's.

 

I kind of feel bad for Samsung. I feel like they are being extorted by Nvidia.

 

Jen-Hsun Huang, Nvidia's chief executive, hinted that even more money could be at stake in the latest legal action. He noted that Intel sells chips for about 300 million PCs a year.

"The mobile market is quite a bit larger than that," Mr. Huang said during a conference call.

Sounds like they'll sue Intel soon!

 

According to Charlie Demerjian, the Project Denver CPU may internally translate the ARM instructions to an internal instruction set, using firmware in the CPU. Also according to Demerjian, Project Denver was originally intended to support both ARM and x86 code using code morphing technology from Transmeta, but was changed to the ARMv8-A 64-bit instruction set because Nvidia could not obtain a license to Intel's patents.

Probably the reason they'll want to sue Intel.

 

Sources:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2603080/nvidia-sues-samsung-and-qualcomm-wants-galaxy-sales-blocked.html

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

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/189329-nvidia-sues-qualcomm-samsung-for-infringing-on-its-invention-of-the-gpu

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

http://semiaccurate.com/2010/08/17/details-emerge-about-nvidias-x86-cpu/

[mr moose]

I really didn't understand what you meant by this, sorry.

 

I just meant the courts might consider the processor to be a component like a logic chip or capacitor, that is, until it is soldered onto a board and made to do something (use of specific software) it does not infringe a patent. But my suggestion here is not a prediction, just speculation to encourage thought.

 

 

 

 

That clearly shows Samsung should not be part of this lawsuit. Qualcomm is the one infringing CPU and GPU patents.

 

Pretty obvious, right? Why should Samsung bother when Qualcomm is the problem?

 

As I said before, Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination Tech should be the ones at trouble, not Samsung, Apple also uses ARM Mali GPUs. Shouldn't Nvidia sue Apple as well? It really doesn't make any sense suing a consumer product manufacturer when they just use the parts/products made, designed and developed by other companies. They don't hold any IP that infringe Nvidia's.

 

I kind of feel bad for Samsung. I feel like they are being extorted by Nvidia.

 

Sounds like they'll sue Intel soon!

 

Probably the reason they'll want to sue Intel.

 

Sources:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2603080/nvidia-sues-samsung-and-qualcomm-wants-galaxy-sales-blocked.html

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

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/189329-nvidia-sues-qualcomm-samsung-for-infringing-on-its-invention-of-the-gpu

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

http://semiaccurate.com/2010/08/17/details-emerge-about-nvidias-x86-cpu/

 

They are suing qualcomm though, it's not just Nvidia.  I personally don't understand the connection to imagination or arm that's why I am waiting for the actual proceedings to hear why they are not included.

They won't sue Intel because intel are paying Nvidia for the rights to said IP.

[Shahnewaz]

I just meant the courts might consider the processor to be a component like a logic chip or capacitor, that is, until it is soldered onto a board and made to do something (use of specific software) it does not infringe a patent. But my suggestion here is not a prediction, just speculation to encourage thought.

Yup, a part means Qualcomm is safe.

 

They won't sue Intel because intel are paying Nvidia for the rights to said IP.

Really? Please tell me more. I'm curious about that.

[mr moose]

Yup, a part means Qualcomm is safe.

 

Really? Please tell me more. I'm curious about that.

 

No need to re-invent the wheel:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4121/the-license-agreement-intel-to-pay-nvidia-15-billion

 

EDIT: My thoughts are that what this means for intel is that it gives them freedom to implement the good parts of Nvidia IP in their CPU's.  People will speculate that Intel might want to copy/use an entire Nvidia GPU instead of their own, but I can't see that happening.