NVIDIA winning against Samsung in court!

[LAwLz]

When I read the original filing, it laid out that they were suing Samsung for manufacturing and selling products containing their IP.  If the products Samsung manufacture or purchase had already had the royalties paid by qualcomm, then we wouldn't see Samsung in this.  But because Samsung is actually making the chips not just buying them, they are as much as guilty as qualcomm (in nvidias eyes).      Samsung can buy IP from qualcomm. but that doesn't include Nvidias IP and as such the second they manufacture a product using IP they don't have rights to they are guilty.   This doesn't sound like they want royalties from both companies for the same end product, but that neither are paying royalties at all and Samsung isn't qualcomms only customer.

No, this is not correct. If you look at the filing you will see that Samsung are being sued for using things like Snapdragon chips which they have 0 involvement in producing or developing.

Sadly Nvidia has taken their articles down from their website so I can no longer find the PDFs with all their claims. However, a quick Googling should show that they say the Galaxy S 4 is one of the infringing devices.

The galaxy S 4 in question is the Snapdragon 600 model, a chip which was completely designed by Qualcomm and manufactured by TSMC. Samsung really just bought the chip off the shelf and put it in their phones, just like HTC, Motorola, Sony and all other manufacturers does.

 

In fact, Nvidia even brought up that Intel is paying a licensing fee for using GPUs from Imagination, and now they are demanding that Samsung pay them for the same GPU.

Let me just repeat that so you understand this. They are arguing that since Intel had to pay for using Imagination's GPUs, Samsung should also have to pay for using them.

So instead of Imagination just paying a single fee, Nvidia wants everyone who uses Imagination's GPUs to pay fees.

 

If you really think that Nvidia aren't trying to double dip then you haven't looked into the case enough, because they are.

Samsung actually argued for the same things as you do, "you should ask Qualcomm for your licensing fee, we are just buying things from them" was essentially their response, and that's when Nvidia decided to sue them.

 

 

Complicating the matter is the question over who is responsible for patent violations. NVIDIA’s complaint alleges that Samsung believes this to be a supplier problem – that any patent violations are the responsibility of the company who designed the GPU, be it Qualcomm, Imagination, or ARM. As a result Samsung is unwilling to settle, and for that matter Qualcomm is no more willing to settle than Samsung is, though the complaint does not make it clear whether this is a disagreement over the patent claims or a belief that it’s the customer’s (Samsung’s) problem.

 

-snip-

 

One of the big questions of course is why NVIDIA is going after these two companies in particular, especially since they are essentially claiming that ARM Mali, Imagination PowerVR, and Qualcomm Adreno GPU families all infringe on some of these patents. The answer in turn from NVIDIA is that Samsung is the largest phone supplier in the United States, and Qualcomm in turn is the largest SoC provider while also providing the SoCs for most of those Samsung phones, so it makes sense to start at the top. NVIDIA is not talking about further legal action at this time, but the outcome of this case could have an impact on whether NVIDIA targets the suppliers (e.g. ARM and Imagination) or goes solely after additional customers and their ilk. Ultimately who is responsible for this infringement – can and should Qualcomm indemnify their customers against infringement claims like these – may be just as important as the alleged infringement itself.

Souce

 

 

So what this really boils down to is whether or not you think Nvidia should be paid multiple times for a single patent and a single product being made.

1) Do you think that Nvidia should first be paid by Qualcomm for designing the GPU, and then also get paid by everyone who uses that GPU in their products (Samsung, HTC, Motorola etc).

Or do you think that 2) Qualcomm should just pay and then everyone else who uses their GPU should be covered, since Nvidia has already gotten paid for it?

 

If you pick 1 then you are on Nvidia's side. If you pick 2 you are on Samsung's side. So far throughout the thread you have picked 2 but still insists on being on Nvidia's side, despite disagreeing with their reasoning.

[mr moose]

No, this is not correct. If you look at the filing you will see that Samsung are being sued for using things like Snapdragon chips which they have 0 involvement in producing or developing.

Sadly Nvidia has taken their articles down from their website so I can no longer find the PDFs with all their claims. However, a quick Googling should show that they say the Galaxy S 4 is one of the infringing devices.

The galaxy S 4 in question is the Snapdragon 600 model, a chip which was completely designed by Qualcomm and manufactured by TSMC. Samsung really just bought the chip off the shelf and put it in their phones, just like HTC, Motorola, Sony and all other manufacturers does.

 

In fact, Nvidia even brought up that Intel is paying a licensing fee for using GPUs from Imagination, and now they are demanding that Samsung pay them for the same GPU.

Let me just repeat that so you understand this. They are arguing that since Intel had to pay for using Imagination's GPUs, Samsung should also have to pay for using them.

So instead of Imagination just paying a single fee, Nvidia wants everyone who uses Imagination's GPUs to pay fees.

 

If you really think that Nvidia aren't trying to double dip then you haven't looked into the case enough, because they are.

Samsung actually argued for the same things as you do, "you should ask Qualcomm for your licensing fee, we are just buying things from them" was essentially their response, and that's when Nvidia decided to sue them.

 

Souce

 

 

So what this really boils down to is whether or not you think Nvidia should be paid multiple times for a single patent and a single product being made.

1) Do you think that Nvidia should first be paid by Qualcomm for designing the GPU, and then also get paid by everyone who uses that GPU in their products (Samsung, HTC, Motorola etc).

Or do you think that 2) Qualcomm should just pay and then everyone else who uses their GPU should be covered, since Nvidia has already gotten paid for it?

 

If you pick 1 then you are on Nvidia's side. If you pick 2 you are on Samsung's side. So far throughout the thread you have picked 2 but still insists on being on Nvidia's side, despite disagreeing with their reasoning.

 

First off I am not on a side at all, I am just saying what I am seeing. 

 

Second, no court would ever rule that a company can charge multiple times for a single product, let alone any company just pay it without industry wide consequences.

 

Here is the original complaint Nvidia filed:

 

 

The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain consumer electronics and display devices with graphics processing and graphics processing units therein that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

 

 

So I was mistaken, it wasn't because Samsung made them, it was because Samsung imported them.

 

http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2014/er1006ll219.htm

[TroubleKlef]

Pretty sure we had this same discussion awhile back. If you think retailers/manufacturers should be at fault for someone's else crime then you are straight dumb.

 

Unless the retailers/manufacturers had input in the design of said stolen product they shouldn't remotely be in discussion.

[LAwLz]

First off I am not on a side at all, I am just saying what I am seeing. 

Second, no court would ever rule that a company can charge multiple times for a single product, let alone any company just pay it without industry wide consequences.

But that is exactly what Nvidia are demanding. Again, they are evening using "Intel has to pay for it, so therefore Samsung should too" as an argument, even though it's Imagination who made the GPU.

Do we agree that that's fucked up and should not be allowed?

 

Samsung's argument as to why they haven't paid already is exactly the same argument you have been making, it's their suppliers that should pay the licensing fee, and that licensing should cover all of the supplier's customers.

 

The way I look at it is that the company at the top of the chain (in this case, ARM, Qualcomm and Imagination) should pay a licensing fee to Nvidia, and then the rest of the chain (chip manufacturers, handset manufacturers, stores and customers) should be covered under that 1 licensing fee. I think we can both agree that it's the best and most logical way of handing this, and that's what Samsung is arguing.

 

 

If you still think they don't want to double-dip, or that they are only going after chips Samsung manufacturers, here is an extract from Nvidia's own blog:

The products at issue include the Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S4 mobile phones; and the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro and Galaxy Tab 2 computer tablets. Most of these devices incorporate Qualcomm mobile processors -- including the Snapdragon S4, 400, 600, 800, 801 and 805. Others are powered by Samsung's own Exynos mobile processors

Like I said before, a lot of those chips (for example the 400) is designed by Qualcomm and manufactured by TSMC. The only way Samsung is involved is them saying "yeah I want that part" and then putting it in a handset. If Nvidia wins then that means the law says Nvidia is entitled to compensation from quite literally every single cellphone manufacturer in the world, and each of them should pay their own individual licensing fee to Nvidia.

[LukaP]

But that is exactly what Nvidia are demanding. Again, they are evening using "Intel has to pay for it, so therefore Samsung should too" as an argument, even though it's Imagination who made the GPU.

Do we agree that that's fucked up and should not be allowed?

 

Samsung's argument as to why they haven't paid already is exactly the same argument you have been making, it's their suppliers that should pay the licensing fee, and that licensing should cover all of the supplier's customers.

 

The way I look at it is that the company at the top of the chain (in this case, ARM, Qualcomm and Imagination) should pay a licensing fee to Nvidia, and then the rest of the chain (chip manufacturers, handset manufacturers, stores and customers) should be covered under that 1 licensing fee. I think we can both agree that it's the best and most logical way of handing this, and that's what Samsung is arguing.

 

 

If you still think they don't want to double-dip, or that they are only going after chips Samsung manufacturers, here is an extract from Nvidia's own blog:

Like I said before, a lot of those chips (for example the 400) is designed by Qualcomm and manufactured by TSMC. The only way Samsung is involved is them saying "yeah I want that part" and then putting it in a handset. If Nvidia wins then that means the law says Nvidia is entitled to compensation from quite literally every single cellphone manufacturer in the world, and each of them should pay their own individual licensing fee to Nvidia.

Its wrong that they are suing samsung over the Snapdragon parts, but they still manufacture their own Exynos chips. Now should it be them paying, for manufacturing the products, or ARM for designing it? Id say ARM. Imagination is paying for its PowerVR design. Intel isnt paying for the Imagination parts they use in the atoms, they are paying their fees for their own in-house GPU solutions. So while i agree with you, some of your facts were wrong

[qwertywarrior]

turns out intel's new atom x3 uses mali

time to sue

 

 video

[LAwLz]

Its wrong that they are suing samsung over the Snapdragon parts, but they still manufacture their own Exynos chips. Now should it be them paying, for manufacturing the products, or ARM for designing it? Id say ARM. Imagination is paying for its PowerVR design. Intel isnt paying for the Imagination parts they use in the atoms, they are paying their fees for their own in-house GPU solutions. So while i agree with you, some of your facts were wrong

No, my facts are correct:

 

Which on that subject, as part of their claims NVIDIA also points out their existing license agreement with Intel. In this NVIDIA notes that their Intel agreement covers all SoCs and CPUs shipped by Intel, including those incorporating Imagination’s PowerVR GPUs. So in the case where the SoC integrator is responsible, their licensing agreements would seem to cover any infringement regardless of who designs the infringing GPU.

 

Intel is paying to be allowed to use GPUs from Imagination in their Atom SoCs. It is not specifically for Intel's own GPUs. Intel had to pay Nvidia 1.5 billion dollars in that lawsuit as well as access to some patents which allowed them to develop their Denver CPU architecture.

 

 

Are you sure Imagination is paying a licensing fee for their PowerVR architecture? Because Nvidia is suing Samsung for the Exynos version of the Galaxy S 4 as well, and that uses a PowerVR GPU. If what you are saying is true, then that's even more undeniable evidence that Nvidia is out to double dip.

[LukaP]

No, my facts are correct:

 

Intel is paying to be allowed to use GPUs from Imagination in their Atom SoCs. It is not specifically for Intel's own GPUs. Intel had to pay Nvidia 1.5 billion dollars in that lawsuit as well as access to some patents which allowed them to develop their Denver CPU architecture.

 

 

Are you sure Imagination is paying a licensing fee for their PowerVR architecture? Because Nvidia is suing Samsung for the Exynos version of the Galaxy S 4 as well, and that uses a PowerVR GPU. If what you are saying is true, then that's even more undeniable evidence that Nvidia is out to double dip.

Well that makes it seem like NV-Intel licence is made to cover every GPU based on NV patents Intel makes. so perhaps they also modified the PVR architecture in some way, or their licence of it is different from standard, such that it doesnt include the fees that go back to nvidia. Because from my perspective, it would be completly irrational from NVIDIA to sue Samsung for their use of PowerVR and not sue Apple for theirs, especially since Apple are their main Tegra competitor with the A8X.

 

The different licence would also explain them suing samsung. Samsung takes a cheaper licence from Imagination, that doesnt include fees to NVIDIA. Nvidia notices, tells them, they do nothing, they get sued. (this is all speculation)

 

And yes i am sure ive read an AT article that explicitly stated Imagination are paying fees for NV graphics IP. might have been a quarter analysis of either them, NV or Intel

[patrickjp93]

No, my facts are correct:

Intel is paying to be allowed to use GPUs from Imagination in their Atom SoCs. It is not specifically for Intel's own GPUs. Intel had to pay Nvidia 1.5 billion dollars in that lawsuit as well as access to some patents which allowed them to develop their Denver CPU architecture.

Are you sure Imagination is paying a licensing fee for their PowerVR architecture? Because Nvidia is suing Samsung for the Exynos version of the Galaxy S 4 as well, and that uses a PowerVR GPU. If what you are saying is true, then that's even more undeniable evidence that Nvidia is out to double dip.

Intel stopped using Imagination solutions back in 2013. Everything from 2014 and beyond is Intel's in-house design. Furthermore, Nvidia is also suing over the Exynos GPU. Furthermore Nvidia may have proof it was Samsung who snuck it's GPU tech into ARM's designs, which would make for a pretty damn good reason to sue.

[LAwLz]

Well that makes it seem like NV-Intel licence is made to cover every GPU based on NV patents Intel makes. so perhaps they also modified the PVR architecture in some way, or their licence of it is different from standard, such that it doesnt include the fees that go back to nvidia. Because from my perspective, it would be completly irrational from NVIDIA to sue Samsung for their use of PowerVR and not sue Apple for theirs, especially since Apple are their main Tegra competitor with the A8X.

 

The different licence would also explain them suing samsung. Samsung takes a cheaper licence from Imagination, that doesnt include fees to NVIDIA. Nvidia notices, tells them, they do nothing, they get sued. (this is all speculation)

No, Intel did not modify PowerVR for their Atom chips. The licensing agreement between Intel and Nvidia just specifies that Intel are allowed to use Nvidia's graphics patents. Even if Imagination are infringing Nvidia's patents (which Nvidia claims they are, since they are including the Exynos version of the Galaxy S 4 in the lawsuit), Intel's and Nvidia's licensing agreement covers Intel from any legal action against them. That was part of the 1.5 billion dollar agreement.

 

Apple are not protected by the same licensing agreement (for the same reason Samsung aren't) but Nvidia are most likely not suing Apple because they would lose against their army of lawyers and bias of the US courts. They are also not going after for example HTC or Sony because it would be bad to go after too many at once.

Apple isn't Nvidia's main competitor in the ARM space, it's Qualcomm. They have far more to win from forcing Qualcomm and all manufacturers who use Qualcomm GPUs to pay, than to make Apple pay (and the bigger risk of losing against Apple in court).

 

I haven't looked up if Imagination are paying Nvidia or not but if they are, why isn't Samsung being covered by that fee? Surely it is double dipping if both Imagination and Samsung has to pay a fee to Nvidia for the same GPU architecture and patents.

 

 

Intel stopped using Imagination solutions back in 2013. Everything from 2014 and beyond is Intel's in-house design. Furthermore, Nvidia is also suing over the Exynos GPU. Furthermore Nvidia may have proof it was Samsung who snuck it's GPU tech into ARM's designs, which would make for a pretty damn good reason to sue.

It is completely irrelevant that Intel stopped using PowerVR back in 2013, because this lawsuit dates back several years (to before Intel stopped using it). Even if Intel still used PowerVR they would still be covered by their licensing agreement with Nvidia.

 

There is no such thing as a "the Exynos GPU". Samsung uses GPUs from Qualcomm, Imagination and ARM. Nvidia is claiming that all 3 are infringing on their patents.

 

I want a citation on that last part as well, because it seems like Nvidia's patents are very fundamental to GPUs in general, which is why they are getting paid left and right for them.

[patrickjp93]

No, Intel did not modify PowerVR for their Atom chips. The licensing agreement between Intel and Nvidia just specifies that Intel are allowed to use Nvidia's graphics patents. Even if Imagination are infringing Nvidia's patents (which Nvidia claims they are, since they are including the Exynos version of the Galaxy S 4 in the lawsuit), Intel's and Nvidia's licensing agreement covers Intel from any legal action against them. That was part of the 1.5 billion dollar agreement.

Apple are not protected by the same licensing agreement (for the same reason Samsung aren't) but Nvidia are most likely not suing Apple because they would lose against their army of lawyers and bias of the US courts. They are also not going after for example HTC or Sony because it would be bad to go after too many at once.

Apple isn't Nvidia's main competitor in the ARM space, it's Qualcomm. They have far more to win from forcing Qualcomm and all manufacturers who use Qualcomm GPUs to pay, than to make Apple pay (and the bigger risk of losing against Apple in court).

It is completely irrelevant that Intel stopped using PowerVR back in 2013, because this lawsuit dates back several years (to before Intel stopped using it). Even if Intel still used PowerVR they would still be covered by their licensing agreement with Nvidia.

There is no such thing as a "the Exynos GPU". Samsung uses GPUs from Qualcomm, Imagination and ARM. Nvidia is claiming that all 3 are infringing on their patents.

I want a citation on that last part as well, because it seems like Nvidia's patents are very fundamental to GPUs in general, which is why they are getting paid left and right for them.

Please note that last part is speculation. Furthermore this lawsuit is barely a year old. What are you smoking?

If you think Samsung tweaks nothing about the blocks on its chipsets you're quite naive.

[thekeemo]

Why can't patents just be a thing of the past...

[LAwLz]

Please note that last part is speculation. Furthermore this lawsuit is barely a year old. What are you smoking?

If you think Samsung tweaks nothing about the blocks on its chipsets you're quite naive.

The lawsuit is barely a year, but Nvidia said that they have been talking to both Samsung and Qualcomm about a licensing agreement since 2012. It was because of their inability to come to an agreement (Samsung saying it should be Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination paying the fees, and Qualcomm just refusing to pay) that Nvidia decided to sue them.

 

I am not even sure why you are trying to argue against here. The Intel and Nvidia settlement clearly states that Intel will be free to use Nvidia's GPU patents. Intel is protected even if Imagination is infringing on Nvidia's patents.

 

If you're wondering about the specific PowerVR GPU Samsung is being sued for then it's the PowerVR SGX544 MP3. Feel free to prove that Samsung modified the architecture of it if you want, but I have seen 0 evidence that supports that claim. Call me naive if you want but I only believe in things that are backed up by evidence.

[Notional]

I want a citation on that last part as well, because it seems like Nvidia's patents are very fundamental to GPUs in general, which is why they are getting paid left and right for them.

 

I linked to an article, that shows, and explains the patents in question here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/343274-nvidia-winning-against-samsung-in-court/page-3#entry4678604

 

There are stupidly fundamental, hence patent trolling.

[cesrai]

Why can't patents just be a thing of the past...

Why would they ?? I may have researched and worked hard for a long time to invent something and I don't want people to use it without my permission - they may get my permission by paying for a royalty or a license -.

[patrickjp93]

The lawsuit is barely a year, but Nvidia said that they have been talking to both Samsung and Qualcomm about a licensing agreement since 2012. It was because of their inability to come to an agreement (Samsung saying it should be Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination paying the fees, and Qualcomm just refusing to pay) that Nvidia decided to sue them.

 

I am not even sure why you are trying to argue against here. The Intel and Nvidia settlement clearly states that Intel will be free to use Nvidia's GPU patents. Intel is protected even if Imagination is infringing on Nvidia's patents.

 

If you're wondering about the specific PowerVR GPU Samsung is being sued for then it's the PowerVR SGX544 MP3. Feel free to prove that Samsung modified the architecture of it if you want, but I have seen 0 evidence that supports that claim. Call me naive if you want but I only believe in things that are backed up by evidence.

I'm simply saying Samsung is no saint and Nvidia doesn't just sue people for the Hell of it. 

 

Let's see this play out. I have a sneaking suspicion Nvidia wouldn't have tried to sue someone with 4x the monetary resources over a licensing dispute which really goes to Qualcomm and ARM.

[patrickjp93]

I linked to an article, that shows, and explains the patents in question here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/343274-nvidia-winning-against-samsung-in-court/page-3#entry4678604

 

There are stupidly fundamental, hence patent trolling.

Hence why we really don't have a 3rd graphics competitor either. Nvidia gave Intel enough to build one, but not enough to build one that could compete post-2010 with anything above their x50 chips.

[LukaP]

Hence why we really don't have a 3rd graphics competitor either. Nvidia gave Intel enough to build one, but not enough to build one that could compete post-2010 with anything above their x50 chips.

May i just add that intel basically owns desktop CPU space as well, with their x86 patents? they and NV are in exactly the same position in their respective markets at the moment. both are owners of all desktop, trying to fight their way into mobile, just that one is doing it through superior design (and kinda not yet gaining traction) and the other is doing it with an equivalent design, but relying on their patents to force their way in. both are completly legal tactics, but the one NV are choosing is kinda shitty in other ways

[thekeemo]

Why would they ?? I may have researched and worked hard for a long time to invent something and I don't want people to use it without my permission - they may get my permission by paying for a royalty or a license -.

because they hinder advancements and are anti-competition and are a selfish way to think.

[cesrai]

because they hinder advancements and are anti-competition and are a selfish way to think.

Will shit then I'm selfish, but I won't let my hard work go away for free cause it won't hinder the advancements.

[BuckGup]

GO NVIDIA!

[LAwLz]

Will shit then I'm selfish, but I won't let my hard work go away for free cause it won't hinder the advancements.

I hate our current patent system but we do need some protection. No patents at all would be as bad or maybe even worse than what we got today.

What really needs to disappear are software patents (you shouldn't be allowed to patent math, which is what they are). 20 years is also way too long. Make it 5 or maybe even shorter. We can have some special cases where they last longer, but 20 years in the tech world is an eternity.

 

 

 

 

GO NVIDIA!

Are you just saying that because it is Samsung being sued, or do you fully understand what the lawsuit is about and what implications it will have?

[cesrai]

I hate our current patent system but we do need some protection. No patents at all would be as bad or maybe even worse than what we got today.

What really needs to disappear are:

1) Software patents (you shouldn't be allowed to patent math, which is what they are)

2) 25 years is way too long, make it 5 or maybe even shorter. We can have some special cases where they last longer, but 25 years in the tech world is an eternity.

1. I disagree it maybe math but still you expect MS to allow people to use it's code just because it's math or even why would Hashcat code be open just because it's math ?? that isn't a reason, people work in their lives to create these programs and code and you just expect them to make it ope cause it's math, it being a math isn't a valid reason.

2. I can't comment here. 

[AxelRantila]

I hate our current patent system but we do need some protection. No patents at all would be as bad or maybe even worse than what we got today.

What really needs to disappear are software patents (you shouldn't be allowed to patent math, which is what they are). 20 years is also way too long. Make it 5 or maybe even shorter. We can have some special cases where they last longer, but 20 years in the tech world is an eternity.

While I agree with that software patents needs to go away, some form of software protection still needs to exist.

[thekeemo]

I hate our current patent system but we do need some protection. No patents at all would be as bad or maybe even worse than what we got today.

What really needs to disappear are software patents (you shouldn't be allowed to patent math, which is what they are). 20 years is also way too long. Make it 5 or maybe even shorter. We can have some special cases where they last longer, but 20 years in the tech world is an eternity.

not to mention by the time other companies figure out how to use your tech

1. you would have something newer and better

2. they wont be able to use it as good because they dont have all the info