NVIDIA winning against Samsung in court!

[LAwLz]

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.

There is already a way for Microsoft to lock people out from using their code. It's called "closed source code". We don't need software patents to keep programs closed source.

 

 

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

It already does. It's called "copyright" and "closed source".

[cesrai]

There is already a way for Microsoft to lock people out from using their code. It's called "closed source code". We don't need software patents to keep programs closed source.

 

 

It already does. It's called "copyright" and "closed source".

Define software patent then.

[mr moose]

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.

 

They are suing Samsung because Samsung are the ones importing the infringing product and selling it on American soil not Arm, TMSC, or anyone else. Intel paid because they sell their product on American soil.

You can have anything you want manufactured in china, Taiwan, Malaysia, and nobody can do anything about it, but the second you import that into a country and make profit from it when it infringes IP then you are guilty, not the manufacturer. 

 

If nvidia wins, all it means is no one is allowed to import products that infringe their IP.   If the IP in a phone has been paid for (by anyone) then it can be imported and sold and doesn't have to be paid for again.

[LAwLz]

They are suing Samsung because Samsung are the ones importing the infringing product and selling it on American soil not Arm, TMSC, or anyone else. Intel paid because they sell their product on American soil.

You can have anything you want manufactured in china, Taiwan, Malaysia, and nobody can do anything about it, but the second you import that into a country and make profit from it when it infringes IP then you are guilty, not the manufacturer. 

 

If nvidia wins, all it means is no one is allowed to import products that infringe their IP.   If the IP in a phone has been paid for (by anyone) then it can be imported and sold and doesn't have to be paid for again.

So what this means is that all phone manufacturers who sell phones in the US will all have to pay a licensing fee to Nvidia, individually. So from a single infringement in a Snapdragon SoC Nvidia will get money from:

• Qualcomm
• Samsung
• HTC
• LG
• Sony
• Motorola
• Huawei
• Intel (already paid a one time fee)
• Lenovo
• Microsoft
• OnePlus
• Oppo
• ZTE
• Acer
• Asus
• Archos
• Meizu
• Dell
• Ziaomi
• And the list goes on and on and on.

 

Personally I think it sounds far more logical that Qualcomm paid 1 licensing fee for the patent and then everyone who uses their chips are covered. But like I have said (and proven) time and time again, Nvidia is after the scenario above (although with a lot less companies involved, for now).

If they win against Samsung, then they are entitled to payments from all the companies mentioned above (and a few more) using the exact same logic and ruling.

 

If they were after the more reasonable settlement I mentioned above (Qualcomm pays and then everyone is covered) then they wouldn't have dragged Samsung into it.

 

This raises another question. If someone (like NCIX) orders phones from Samsung and they are brought into the US by NCIX, will NCIX have to pay a licensing fee to Nvidia? If you are arguing that Samsung is guilty because they are bringing the products into the state then it shouldn't matter if they are the manufacturer or not (because it is not the manufacturing that is the crime).

So all Samsung would have to do to avoid this is to stop shipping into the US and instead have the stores ship them in from China. All of a sudden Samsung no longer has to pay anything and instead Nvidia will have to sue all the stores. Do you see what a clusterfuck this is, and why only suing Qualcomm and demanding a licensing fee from them is the ONLY sensible and logical solution?

[spartaman64]

@LAwLz im confused i assumed nvidia is suing samsung because of their exynos processors but they are suing because of qualcomm processors? wtf shouldnt they be suing qualcomm instead of samsung

[CaliJL]

I hope Nvidia wins. 

[spartaman64]

I hope Nvidia wins. 

i just hope qualcomm and samsung are not bared out of the market its fine if they have to pay a fee

[dalekphalm]

I hope Nvidia wins.

Why? We don't even know if Samsung is guilty, but I see that 90% of users on this thread have already decided that they are, without seeing the facts or waiting for the results of the court battle.

Frankly, if true, it should be Qualcomm, not Samsung that has to pay.

Samsung should only be responsible for chips that they themselves have designed the architecture for, not just chips they produce from Qualcomm and the like.

If a snapdragon is breaching NVIDIA IP, then Qualcomm should pay the license fee, which should then cover Samsung as a client.

[patrickjp93]

There is already a way for Microsoft to lock people out from using their code. It's called "closed source code". We don't need software patents to keep programs closed source.

 

 

It already does. It's called "copyright" and "closed source".

There's no such thing as closed-source code. If it exists as an executable, it can be reverse-engineered simply by disassembling and decompiling it.

 

You do in fact need patents to defend intellectual property in the form of computer code.

[mr moose]

So what this means is that all phone manufacturers who sell phones in the US will all have to pay a licensing fee to Nvidia, individually. So from a single infringement in a Snapdragon SoC Nvidia will get money from:

• Qualcomm
• Samsung
• HTC
• LG
• Sony
• Motorola
• Huawei
• Intel (already paid a one time fee)
• Lenovo
• Microsoft
• OnePlus
• Oppo
• ZTE
• Acer
• Asus
• Archos
• Meizu
• Dell
• Ziaomi
• And the list goes on and on and on.

 

Personally I think it sounds far more logical that Qualcomm paid 1 licensing fee for the patent and then everyone who uses their chips are covered. But like I have said (and proven) time and time again, Nvidia is after the scenario above (although with a lot less companies involved, for now).

If they win against Samsung, then they are entitled to payments from all the companies mentioned above (and a few more) using the exact same logic and ruling.

 

If they were after the more reasonable settlement I mentioned above (Qualcomm pays and then everyone is covered) then they wouldn't have dragged Samsung into it.

 

This raises another question. If someone (like NCIX) orders phones from Samsung and they are brought into the US by NCIX, will NCIX have to pay a licensing fee to Nvidia? If you are arguing that Samsung is guilty because they are bringing the products into the state then it shouldn't matter if they are the manufacturer or not (because it is not the manufacturing that is the crime).

So all Samsung would have to do to avoid this is to stop shipping into the US and instead have the stores ship them in from China. All of a sudden Samsung no longer has to pay anything and instead Nvidia will have to sue all the stores. Do you see what a clusterfuck this is, and why only suing Qualcomm and demanding a licensing fee from them is the ONLY sensible and logical solution?

 

your not getting it, sorry, but you keep trying to come back to nvidia getting money from more than one source, they are not asking to get money from qualcomm as well as Samsung, both have refused to pay licenses, One as the manufacturer and one as the importer, so nvidia are taking both to court for settlement.    As has already been said, NCIX or any other retailer are not being sued because they are not the ones importing or manufacturing a product with infringing IP.  I don't know why you keep coming back to that as it has nothing to do with what is going on.  Retailers have never been sued for selling products infringing IP before as far as I know. 

 

Why they are not suing HTC or anyone else is anyone's guess.   Maybe after this case qualcomm will be forced to pay the license fee and nvidia won't have to take anyone else to court.  Maybe the court will decide that Samsung being the importing entity is legally bound to paying that license, in which case you can bet that nvidia would probably go after the others after a win like that.  In either case Nvidia can and are only asking for the licensing fees for a single product, I don't think they care who it comes from. suffice to say looking at all the articles they have a better chjance of winning by taking Samsung to court as importers under American law than trying to get qualcomm in Tawain under international law.

[Sharkyx1]

This is just like the Microsoft lawsuit against android and Android phone makers, they cant get thier own market shat, just like nvidia,so they are going after a licensing fee to make up for it.

[Opcode]

There's no such thing as closed-source code. If it exists as an executable, it can be reverse-engineered simply by disassembling and decompiling it.

 

You do in fact need patents to defend intellectual property in the form of computer code.

Not entirely. Certainly anything can be reverse engineered but that doesn't mean everyone has the skill set in doing so. There are ways to keep most people at bay from reverse engineering your code. Some of which make the generated code entirely different from the actual source code regardless of what you do. You also can run into trouble with decompiling software as in the U.S. it's considered illegal unless ruled otherwise by a judge. Closed source does exist it's a terminology we programmers use for software that's simply not open source. The software I've published here on LTT for the community is closed source.

[The Crazed Child]

I don't care about the outcome, both companies have never had my support and never will

[mr moose]

I don't care about the outcome, both companies have never had my support and never will

 

Not that I think the end user is even really going to notice the outcome, but what if it pushed the price of every android phone up?

[Opcode]

Not that I think the end user is even really going to notice the outcome, but what if it pushed the price of every android phone up?

Why would it? What does Samsung or Nvidia have to do with a free open source mobile operating system?

[mr moose]

Why would it? What does Samsung or Nvidia have to do with a free open source mobile operating system?

because most of them are running on snapdragon processors that currently haven't paid licensing to nvidia. 

[Opcode]

because most of them are running on snapdragon processors that currently haven't paid licensing to nvidia. 

That would just come out of pocket and the company would turn to another source for graphics. AMD is launching mobile SoC's so it's only a matter of time until Nvidia tries suing them too while AMD holds far more graphics IP than Nvidia. The company has been a straight up big shit hole lately.

[Nup]

I hope you realize that Samsung are not the ones who start the fights. They are being bombarded left and right with lawsuits and they are merely defending themselves.

Blaming Samsung for this is like saying "wow I can't believe guy X hit guy Y. All guy Y was doing was throwing rocks at him. Why the hell would he fight back?"

 

The lawsuit is stupid anyway. They are suing Samsung for using an architecture ARM developed and sold them.

I hope people realize that if Nvidia wins, they could sue HTC, Apple, LG, Sony, Sharp, Huawei or any other smartphone manufacturer.

 

For some cases yes, that is more then true, but there are other times when they just seem to be doing it for the hell of it on smaller companies. There was a case of this a while back (can't remember who was involved now). 

 

Wow that'd be fairly disastrous... I should probably look more into this. Thanks for telling me though. Regardless, lawsuits remain annoying. 

[mr moose]

That would just come out of pocket and the company would turn to another source for graphics. AMD is launching mobile SoC's so it's only a matter of time until Nvidia tries suing them too while AMD holds far more graphics IP than Nvidia. The company has been a straight up big shit hole lately.

This thread has nothing to do with AMD.  If you look back over the last few pages your assertions have already been addressed.

[Opcode]

This thread has nothing to do with AMD.  If you look back over the last few pages your assertions have already been addressed.

It's directly related as if Nvidia is going to push this with Qualcomm (who bought Imageon) then they will try pushing this with AMD soon.

[mr moose]

It's directly related as if Nvidia is going to push this with Qualcomm (who bought Imageon) then they will try pushing this with AMD soon.

are you just posting for the sake of posting?   This thread has nothing to do with AMD and the mere suggestion that nvidia is going to sue AMD because a phone company used a qualcomm chip is laughable.

[Opcode]

are you just posting for the sake of posting?   This thread has nothing to do with AMD and the mere suggestion that nvidia is going to sue AMD because a phone company used a qualcomm chip is laughable.

I'm not sure if you're understanding the circumstances in its entirety. Apple even uses Imagination graphics in their products yet Nvidia is too scared to even lift a finger against the big dog aren't they? It seems like they want to use this case as a buffer to attack Apple afterwards.

[mr moose]

I'm not sure if you're understanding the circumstances in its entirety. Apple even uses Imagination graphics in their products yet Nvidia is too scared to even lift a finger against the big dog aren't they? It seems like they want to use this case as a buffer to attack Apple afterwards.

 

Yep, the OP should rename this thread to "what opcode thinks the future holds because AMD are so great  and Nvidia are scared."

[Opcode]

Yep, the OP should rename this thread to "what opcode thinks the future holds because AMD are so great  and Nvidia are scared."

I'm entirely unbiased so I fail to see your point. You do seem to dodge around my discussion. If you're not going to collaborate with me then stop quoting me.

[Dabombinable]

I'm entirely unbiased so I fail to see your point. You do seem to dodge around my discussion. If you're not going to collaborate with me then stop quoting me.

You of all people are accusing someone of dodging the question  :huh: