Samsung Files Complaint with ITC to Block Nvidia Chips From US Markets

[Shahnewaz]

@mr moose

Then that question applies to everybody: Sony, HTC, Apple, and basically any other ARM/Imagination Tech/Qualcomm customer.

 

"If there is any IP violation why should a customer be paying for the suppliers violation?"

If there was any legitimate answer to this then I would whole-heartedly agree with Nvidia's decision to sue Samsung.

 

If an Ebay merchant violates some Ebay merchant rules, you don't charge the customer, do you?

[patrickjp93]

@mr moose

Then that question applies to everybody: Sony, HTC, Apple, and basically any other ARM/Imagination Tech/Qualcomm customer.

"If there is any IP violation why should a customer be paying for the suppliers violation?"

If there was any legitimate answer to this then I would whole-heartedly agree with Nvidia's decision to sue Samsung.

If an Ebay merchant violates some Ebay merchant rules, you don't charge the customer, do you?

Here's why: Samsung is the single largest seller of that GPU technology. It's also quite possible there was collusion involved between Samsung's engineers and other chip designers to do this. There are many valid reasons possible. We just need to see if any apply here.

[mr moose]

@Shahnewaz

 

Yes, it does apply to everybody. It has been speculated that if Nvidia win they will move on to the other phone manufactures,  So this is likely just a test case or pilot case.

 

But people here are confusing what it means to be a customer, we are not talking about end users (which is what all the analogies seem to focus on), we are talking about manufacturing companies that profit from making products with infringing components.  It would be a more apt analogy (from Nvidias perspective) if Samsung were likened to bloke who sells pirated dvd's at the local market, he didn't actually pirate them (just like it is argued that Samsung didn't actually make the infringing CPUs), he just got them cheap from a supplier and sells them for a profit. 

[Rune]

I am not okay with this. Just by pure paperwork alone Samsung could win in our courts.

[LAwLz]

@mr moose I think it's absurd to say Samsung should be paying Nvidia. The reason why is because that would end up double/triple dipping for Nvidia. You don't put fees on everyone in the chain, you put it on the first one.

By the same logic, stores like NCIX should also pay a licensing fee on all the phones they sell because they are profiting on a product using stolen IP. So first Qualcomm has to pay, then Samsung has to pay, then the store has to pay, and possibly the end user has to pay as well.

Oh and yes, with your own pirated DVD analogy you are saying that retailers should pay the fee because they are profiting from stolen IP. With the same analogy you could make the argument that if a store sells through Amazon, both Amazon and the store should pay Nvidia. Did you buy it with a credit card? Well then the credit card company should pay Nvidia as well because they are profiting off you buying stolen IP. All of a sudden we are up to Nvidia getting paid 6 times for the same patent.

To me it is obvious that the one actually making the product to begin with (Qualcomm, ARM, Imagination and other GPU designers) should pay the licensing fee and then everyone below them in the chain will be covered.

[mr moose]

@LAwLz

 

Fuck this lack of quote thing is annoying...

 

The idea that samsung are only a retailer is only one possibility though.  The courts could just as easily decide they are neither a consumer nor a retailer but a manufacturer.  As I understand it Nvidias claim simply amounts to Samsung using stolen IP to make their products.  They are becoming a trader of stolen goods.  no retailers could be made to pay a fee unless Nvidia can prove the chip violates their IP (which I is why they are suing qualcomm) and they have been asked  not to sell said goods on those grounds.  

 

I doubt Samsung will be found guilty of anything if qualcomm isn't, however if qualcomm are found guilty, then Samsung must either stop using the product or qualcomm has to start paying a license fee for it.  At the moment no-one is paying licensing so as far as Nvidia are concerned one is making the chips and the other is building them into phones and selling them.  This essentially has nothing to do with retail sales or domestic sales.  Therefore the analogies that each store should pay is not logical. With the pirated DVD analogy though, the market man knows they are illegal and is selling IP he doesn't have the right to sell (samsung was told they don't have the right to profit from the IP they are implementing in their phones).  Although given it is not being understood the way I meant it, I will concede it may not be the best analogy either.

 

Short version:  Most of the arguments claiming this is absurd and Samsung shouldn't pay fees rests on the condition that they are simply a middle mam like NCIX or amazon,  the problem with that is that if the courts decide the SoC in question violates IP and Samsung knew, then they are a middle man that is profiting from stolen goods. Which is illegal as far as I know.  There are also a few other scenarios that could play out in which Samsung might have trouble defending themselves.

[LAwLz]

@mr moose

 

But because of this lawsuit, all the retainers know that the phones they sell might contain stolen IP. I think this fits in perfectly with your pirated DVD analogy. They are willfully selling devices which contains stolen IP and therefore they might have to pay. Or do you mean that as long as Nvidia don't directly contact each retailer they are allowed to sell stolen products? So if Nvidia sent out an email to let's say NCIX saying "hey, all products with Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination GPUs are violating our patents. Stop selling them or start paying us", NCIX would then be forced to pay Nvidia? It would make NCIX just as guilty as the guy selling pirated DVDs. The DVDs and the phones are "stolen", and they are both making a profit from selling them.

 

I think that Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination should pay a fee (assuming the patent is actually being violated) and then everyone using those designs should be completely covered and not have to pay anything. That is the only solution that makes any kind of sense in my mind. If you start saying that Samsung should have to pay as well you end up in the situation I outlined before where you got 6 different companies all paying licensing fees to Nvidia for each and every patent using in those products.

[farhanorakzai]

i guess my "keep on diggin" shirt will now apply to samsung (whenever it arrives in the mail)

[Guest Kloaked]

I like how everyone on this forum seems to know all the details about the Nvidia vs Samsung (and others) legal battle.

Didn't realize we had people who worked for Nvidia and Samsung here.

[mr moose]

@LAwLz

 

In your first paragraph, I would not expect Nvidia to contact retailers nor ask them to do anything let alone pay fee's, simply because they are not manufacturing the allegedly offending products.  What I am trying to articulate is that the concept of Samsung being a retailer is not really rational to the lawsuit as we know it.  This concept that they are a retailer seems to be an over simplified extrapolation from the limited information we have.

 

Your second paragraph is exactly what I think.  That is what I think Nvidia are aiming for. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their inclusion of Samsung in this is due to either information they have that hasn't been made public yet or simply because they have had no luck with qualcomm and now want to make a statement to all other phone manufacturers that they face potential legal action if they use infringing products without permission.

[bogus]

@mr moose

 

I think @LAwLz illustrated pretty much what I meant.

I will just take the example of Velocity Micro, wich is in the same situation as Samsung - they manufacture and resell computers using hardware that is claimed to be in violation of IP. The difference is that Velocity Micro also retails it to the consumer, while Samsung doesn't. Anyway: Just like Samsung I belive they trust their suppliers. 

Even after NVIDIA tryed to sell licensing to Samsung they told NVIDIA to take it to the suppliers - because you have the example of ARM that said, they will stick behind their IP. How can a company like Samsung stop their production, or pay random licensing when all the partys claim their IP is solid?

That's why I said NVIDIA is trolling, wich I admit it's not the correct term to be applied in this situation, but is indeed bullying without the intention of actually solving this issue. Not only they seem to be whale hunting, they are making a PR case - like they are some sort of white knight in shinning armor, and Samsung is the monster who "predictably" sued not only NVIDIA but the poor and innocent Velocity Micro... wich seem to be as innocent as Samsung, and NVIDIA was as much "predictable" as Samsung when they tryed to enforce licensing and Samsung refused it.

This situations in the tech industry are a shame, and to bring it out to the public as PR it's just ridiculous. This is the kind of stuff that should be taken care in backstage, with the intent of solving the issue. 

[Shahnewaz]

@mr moose

 

According to your point TSMC should be sued too, cause they manufacture infringing Apple and any other ARM/Imagination Tech/Qualcomm SoCs.

 

@Kloaked

 

If you have a problem with us analyzing a news then you're free to ignore the thread, rather than insulting us. We're not Samsung/Nvidia employees.

[TroubleKlef]

@Shahnewaz

 

That situation is different as TSMC is not using Apple, ARM/Imagine/Qualcomm in order to make a product of their own. They are simply a middle man which is why retailers should be unaffected by this too.

[The_Strict_Nein]

@mr moose

 

But because of this lawsuit, all the retainers know that the phones they sell might contain stolen IP. I think this fits in perfectly with your pirated DVD analogy. They are willfully selling devices which contains stolen IP and therefore they might have to pay. Or do you mean that as long as Nvidia don't directly contact each retailer they are allowed to sell stolen products? So if Nvidia sent out an email to let's say NCIX saying "hey, all products with Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination GPUs are violating our patents. Stop selling them or start paying us", NCIX would then be forced to pay Nvidia? It would make NCIX just as guilty as the guy selling pirated DVDs. The DVDs and the phones are "stolen", and they are both making a profit from selling them.

 

I think that Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination should pay a fee (assuming the patent is actually being violated) and then everyone using those designs should be completely covered and not have to pay anything. That is the only solution that makes any kind of sense in my mind. If you start saying that Samsung should have to pay as well you end up in the situation I outlined before where you got 6 different companies all paying licensing fees to Nvidia for each and every patent using in those products.

 

If you buy what you assume to be a legitimate DVD, from a shop that buys pirated DVDs for sale, from someone who pirates DVDs, and the police find out, the most that can happen to you is having the DVD taken away without refund. The shopkeeper and pirate are criminally liable, the consumer (or in this case retailer) isn't, unless it comes out they were aware of this before they purchased the phones

[bogus]

@The_Strict_Nein

In some countrys in Europe, in that situation you are considered a victim so you have to deliver the purchased good, as it's a evidence, and you can press charges if the seller doesn't refund you. 

[ComradeHX]

Samsung fights back against Nvidia and Apple.

 

People call Samsung the scumbags.

 

Many things wrong with this forum...

[PopReference]

@PiratedDVDsimile if you're reaching that far then you need to be more accurate, since this is just a BS idea:

Replace the Pirate part with Ripoff/fake of the movie itself, that steals the plot, character, and settings of a similar movie, then go down the line with those analogies and see how much sense your argument makes.

[LAwLz]

@TroubleKlef

"That situation is different as TSMC is not using Apple, ARM/Imagine/Qualcomm in order to make a product of their own. They are simply a middle man which is why retailers should be unaffected by this too."

 

That's like saying the driver in the get-away car is not actually doing the robbery so he is innocent. TSMC is offering to manufacture illegal products and they are profiting off it.

It is also like saying someone selling pirated DVDs is not a criminal because that person is simply a middle man.

[Guest Kloaked]

@mr moose

According to your point TSMC should be sued too, cause they manufacture infringing Apple and any other ARM/Imagination Tech/Qualcomm SoCs.

@Kloaked

If you have a problem with us analyzing a news then you're free to ignore the thread, rather than insulting us. We're not Samsung/Nvidia employees.

I have a problem with drawing conclusions when all of the facts are clearly not being brought up.

Do you watch Fox/CNN/<other mainstream news channels with an agenda> and believe every word they say?

[Shahnewaz]

@TroubleKlef

 

They are a middle man guilty of making and selling illegal products. Again according to mr moose's point.

[Theo]

Oh look people blindingly spewing bs about things they have no idea about. Very few comments in this thread are actually interesting, rest are just "defending" nvidia just because they like them more than samsung.

Never stop being classy and mature people

[Shahnewaz]

@Kloaked

Tell me where I drew conclusions without facts.

How do you know I believed something or everything?

Sounds like you know all the facts. Care to share?

 

I replied to someone's opinion. Does that make me a believer in everything without facts? Clearly it's an opinion. <_<

[Guest Kloaked]

@Kloaked

Tell me where I drew conclusions without facts.

How do you know I believed something or everything?

Sounds like you know all the facts. Care to share?

I replied to someone's opinion. Does that make me a believer in everything without facts? Clearly it's an opinion. <_<

You replied to my post (quoted me) that was directed at most of the people in this thread who are drawing conclusions based on the little information that was released to the public. I did not mention you by name at all in my first post.

I don't know all of the facts which is why I'm not drawing any conclusions. I also do not have an opinion on the matter because that generally leads to biased thinking when you don't actually know what's going on.

[TroubleKlef]

@TroubleKlef

"That situation is different as TSMC is not using Apple, ARM/Imagine/Qualcomm in order to make a product of their own. They are simply a middle man which is why retailers should be unaffected by this too."

 

That's like saying the driver in the get-away car is not actually doing the robbery so he is innocent. TSMC is offering to manufacture illegal products and they are profiting off it.

It is also like saying someone selling pirated DVDs is not a criminal because that person is simply a middle man.

 

 

In your analogy, the driver in the getaway car is part of the design, the scheme of the robbery. He knew what was going on and actively took part. If TSMC actively attempting to steal and implement proprietary technology then yes, they would be guilty. As of now, they are simply the manufacturer. 

 

A better analogy would be TSMC is the taxi driver which the robbers chose as a form of transportation. Are you saying that the taxi driver should be held responsible for the actions of the robbers? Absurd. They are just doing their job.

[Shahnewaz]

You replied to my post (quoted me) that was directed at most of the people in this thread who are drawing conclusions based on the little information that was released to the public. I did not mention you by name at all in my first post.

I don't know all of the facts which is why I'm not drawing any conclusions. I also do not have an opinion on the matter because that generally leads to biased thinking when you don't actually know what's going on.

Sounds right, as long as you don't fight with your opinion :lol:

Quoting is BACK!

It's okay to analyze with whatever information we have right now I guess. Logical conclusions which don't make claims are acceptable I guess. Just that we don't overshoot the limit and jump to absurd/flaming conclusions, cause we don't know everything. :rolleyes: