NVIDIA winning against Samsung in court!

[Opcode]

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

I spun enough key points to start new collaboration. What do I get in return? "you're a fanboy and so start acting like one". I question the intellectual competence of people at times. Just like I question the integrity of Nvidia based on their stupid actions.

[mr moose]

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.

 

Then stop talking about AMD and discuss the topic at hand.  Suggesting that nvidia are scared because they are not going to simultaneously sue Samsung, qualcomm, AMD, Arm and every other phone maker is pointless, moot and quite frankly a childish argument that does not reflect what we are reading in the news.  

 

But to humour you:  of course Nvidia aren't suing everybody, they aren't morons.  They chose the case they have the highest probability of winning, if you want to know why that is Samsung and Qualcomm then call nvidias lawyers and ask them,  because anybody else and it is purely speculation.  If they lose they only lose a little bit,  If they win they can take that win onto larger firms (maybe apple, HTC, et al), or maybe they won't have to, with a court ruling in their favor the precedent is set. 

 

So there you have it, pointless to talk about AMD because at the moment it has nothing to do with the current case.  So please take your "AMD holds far more graphics IP than Nvidia" rhetoric away from this thread.

[Opcode]

Then stop talking about AMD and discuss the topic at hand.  Suggesting that nvidia are scared because they are not going to simultaneously sue Samsung, qualcomm, AMD, Arm and every other phone maker is pointless, moot and quite frankly a childish argument that does not reflect what we are reading in the news.  

 

But to humour you:  of course Nvidia aren't suing everybody, they aren't morons.  They chose the case they have the highest probability of winning, if you want to know why that is Samsung and Qualcomm then call nvidias lawyers and ask them,  because anybody else and it is purely speculation.  If they lose they only lose a little bit,  If they win they can take that win onto larger firms (maybe apple, HTC, et al), or maybe they won't have to, with a court ruling in their favor the precedent is set. 

 

So there you have it, pointless to talk about AMD because at the moment it has nothing to do with the current case.  So please take your "AMD holds far more graphics IP than Nvidia" rhetoric away from this thread.

I can discuss whoever and whatever I want as long as it's relevant to the thread (it is). Although your words of trying to imply that I am a child or a fanboy because I am collaborating on a subject is really borderline of acting on behalf of your very own words. As I stated above if you cannot collaborate or give me an ounce of input that's even worth acknowledging I ask you to not waste my time.

 

I actually pointed this out a few posts back. I don't see how pretty much quoting me and milking it into a paragraph is collaborating with me...

 

They aren't involved right now but at this rate all options cannot be exhausted. Yes, AMD does hold more graphics IP than Nvidia and with that being said I'm curious as to how it will all boil down once Nvidia starts flipping the script on other companies such as AMD and Apple. Companies that have IP and/or massive amounts of money at their backing. If they win and don't target any of these other company it's only going to make them look that much worse. It's interesting how people will blindly follow a company and buy into their propaganda.

[bogus]

But to humour you:  of course Nvidia aren't suing everybody, they aren't morons.  They chose the case they have the highest probability of winning, if you want to know why that is Samsung and Qualcomm then call nvidias lawyers and ask them,  because anybody else and it is purely speculation.  If they lose they only lose a little bit,  If they win they can take that win onto larger firms (maybe apple, HTC, et al), or maybe they won't have to, with a court ruling in their favor the precedent is set. 

They chose Samsung and Qualcomm because they are the most successful ones, or "the fat wales".

It's not about probabilitys, it's about the return of a possible positive outcome.

It's more then known this is no noble quest, NVIDIA proposed a ridiculous licensing deal to a phone manufacturer who is licensing other gpu vendors IP, so they could go whale hunting.

This has been talked over and over again in this forum...

[mr moose]

They aren't involved right now but at this rate all options cannot be exhausted.

 

Why speculate about things that aren't happening let alone that we have zero information on it? You may as well try to speculate on the divorce proceedings of one of the lawyers who couldn't handle the stress of the case and took it out on his wife.   Because it's just as relevant to this case, if it eventuates.

 

 

They chose Samsung and Qualcomm because they are the most successful ones, or "the fat wales".

It's not about probabilitys, it's about the return of a possible positive outcome.  But this definitely isn't the same as choosing based on likelihood of winning?  :rolleyes:

It's more then known this is no noble quest, NVIDIA proposed a ridiculous licensing deal to a phone manufacturer who is licensing other gpu vendors IP, so they could go whale hunting.

This has been talked over and over again in this forum...

 

Lot of assumptions there.  I'd say apple are more successful than Samsung, mind you they also have deeper pockets,  But as I pointed out several pages ago now, it is easier for an American company to sue a foreign company for importing infringing IP than it is to sue a foreign company on foreign soil.  That is how apple got Samsung, not for manufacturing but for importing.   Really, guys it's o.k to have an opinion but people are more likely to take you seriously if you actually make it about the case and not just try to ridicule one company over another.  It is no secret that you two are AMD fans and hate nvidia, everyone knows it, you posts rarely reflect the topic and they nearly always include an unnecessary dig at nividia.  Just stop. 

[Opcode]

Why speculate about things that aren't happening let alone that we have zero information on it? You may as well try to speculate on the divorce proceedings of one of the lawyers who couldn't handle the stress of the case and took it out on his wife.   Because it's just as relevant to this case, if it eventuates.

Welcome to the world of technology discussion. Speculation is a majority of what goes on here. Otherwise you'd have a few posts contributed to the thread with "oh that's cool" and then the thread would die immediately.

[LAwLz]

@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

Yes, Samsung is being sued for using Qualcomm processors. Yes they should be (and are) suing Qualcomm for it as well.

They are suing both Samsung and Qualcomm for a patent violation in Snapdragon chips.

 

What I have been arguing this entire thread is that Nvidia should only go after Qualcomm because Samsung is simply buying their things from Qualcomm (just like HTC, Sony, Motorola and everyone else does).

 

 

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.

Yeah I don't think this would have happened if Tegra was widely used in phones (or even tablets).

Since they are seeking import bans the entire lawsuit smells of "let's cripple the competitors because we aren't good enough to compete fair and square" to me.

[bogus]

It's not about probabilitys, it's about the return of a possible positive outcome.  But this definitely isn't the same as choosing based on likelihood of winning?   :rolleyes:

 

No... It's not the same.

For the sake of making a simple example: imagine of all the phone manufacturers and SoC (I mean the ones who manufacture GPUs) have a 50% chance of losing this case. Yet the volume of sales differs from them, putting Qualcomm and Samsung in the top of that list. <- this is what I'm saying NVIDIA based their case on.

 

Hell probably Qualcomm and Samsung have more chances of winning this case then any other manufacturers due to their financial muscle and patent portfolios.

 

Lot of assumptions there.  I'd say apple are more successful than Samsung, mind you they also have deeper pockets,  But as I pointed out several pages ago now, it is easier for an American company to sue a foreign company for importing infringing IP than it is to sue a foreign company on foreign soil.  That is how apple got Samsung, not for manufacturing but for importing.   Really, guys it's o.k to have an opinion but people are more likely to take you seriously if you actually make it about the case and not just try to ridicule one company over another.  It is no secret that you two are AMD fans and hate nvidia, everyone knows it, you posts rarely reflect the topic and they nearly always include an unnecessary dig at nividia.  Just stop. 

Assumptions when the information is outthere, isn't the right word to use IMO. Now you can question the source - but that is indeed your personal oppinion.

Well one can say Apple isn't Samsung, for obvious reasons - why would NVIDIA try to assert patents on a company that has shielded themselfs with loads of patents? In fact Apple finances a company that does only patent assertion. Still, according to Charlie from S|A it was because of a licensing deal attempt Apple went for AMD... plus I'm sure NVIDIA (I'm sorry for the expression) aims to try to get Apple as a client... they've been before, and the bed is still warm.

Actually Samsung had their devices banned in the USA before, so history is against you - at least the history of Exynos devices.

I've seen alot of missinformation in this topic, yet I think @Lawz have been covering it.

You talk about personal oppinions yet you just have to look at the tittle of this topic.

Anyway, about the fans and hater part : I never owned AMD hardware in my life, just because I don't like NVIDIA shitty practices doesn't mean I'm a fan of AMD or Intel. Or because I like what Mantle brought, doesn't mean I am a fan of AMD.

[mr moose]

No... It's not the same.

For the sake of making a simple example: imagine of all the phone manufacturers and SoC (I mean the ones who manufacture GPUs) have a 50% chance of losing this case. Yet the volume of sales differs from them, putting Qualcomm and Samsung in the top of that list. <- this is what I'm saying NVIDIA based their case on.

 

Hell probably Qualcomm and Samsung have more chances of winning this case then any other manufacturers due to their financial muscle and patent portfolios.

 

Assumptions when the information is outthere, isn't the right word to use IMO. Now you can question the source - but that is indeed your personal oppinion.

Well one can say Apple isn't Samsung, for obvious reasons - why would NVIDIA try to assert patents on a company that has shielded themselfs with loads of patents? In fact Apple finances a company that does only patent assertion. Still, according to Charlie from S|A it was because of a licensing deal attempt Apple went for AMD... plus I'm sure NVIDIA (I'm sorry for the expression) aims to try to get Apple as a client... they've been before, and the bed is still warm.

Actually Samsung had their devices banned in the USA before, so history is against you - at least the history of Exynos devices.

I've seen alot of missinformation in this topic, yet I think @Lawz have been covering it.

You talk about personal oppinions yet you just have to look at the tittle of this topic.

Anyway, about the fans and hater part : I never owned AMD hardware in my life, just because I don't like NVIDIA shitty practices doesn't mean I'm a fan of AMD or Intel. Or because I like what Mantle brought, doesn't mean I am a fan of AMD.

 

Have you actually read the thread? did you even read any of my posts?  You probably haven't even read the source article, the title of the topic is what the source article has insinuated and not the OP being biased, the OP is just reporting the article. So please get educated on the topic and the thread before making yourself look even more silly.  EDIT: going over the first page he was even called on it and explained why he used the term winning.

 

None of what you posted there actually makes that much sense, and when it does it actually is the same as what I have been saying.  Except you somehow think it is different.  I have said nvidia chose this legal battle because that is what they see they have the highest chance of winning,  you however think you know better, you think they have a better chance of winning against someone else.  So you know better than nvidias legal team. I must remember that if I ever get into legal trouble.  Hell we don't even know the pertinent details of the patents that are allegedly infringing and you still think you know it's all a trolling exercise. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Can you even mention nvidia in a sentence without calling them or their practices shitty?  I have yet to see it?  please don't fool yourself.

[Opcode]

Have you actually read the thread? did you even read any of my posts?  You probably haven't even read the source article, the title of the topic is what the source article has insinuated and not the OP being biased, the OP is just reporting the article. So please get educated on the topic and the thread before making yourself look even more silly.  EDIT: going over the first page he was even called on it and explained why he used the term winning.

 

None of what you posted there actually makes that much sense, and when it does it actually is the same as what I have been saying.  Except you somehow think it is different.  I have said nvidia chose this legal battle because that is what they see they have the highest chance of winning,  you however think you know better, you think they have a better chance of winning against someone else.  So you know better than nvidias legal team. I must remember that if I ever get into legal trouble.  Hell we don't even know the pertinent details of the patents that are allegedly infringing and you still think you know it's all a trolling exercise. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Can you even mention nvidia in a sentence without calling them or their practices shitty?  I have yet to see it?  please don't fool yourself.

So you work at Nvidia? It's good to know we have an inside source.  :rolleyes:

 

They likely chose it because they cant win it outright with the big boys. The legal system is a game of jump rope there's loops and holes to jump through for a victory.

[LAwLz]

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. 

But they are trying to get money from more than one source. It boggles my mind that you fail to see this.

They even used "Intel had to pay for it, so Samsung should too" as an argument. To me it is clear as day that Nvidia are trying to double dip. If you ask me, Samsung shouldn't have to be involved in this at all since the burden should be in Qualcomm. Qualcomm are the ones who are infringing their license, not Samsung.

 

The reason I brought up NCIX again is because Samsung are apparently being sued for importing the things to the US. So if Samsung made someone else (such as NCIX) do the shipping into the US then NCIX would become the importer, and therefore (according to Nvidia) be guilty of what Samsung are currently being sued for. It becomes even more complicated if the importation involves third parties such as shipping companies. Do they count as the importer, or do the sender/receiver count as the importer? Do all of them count and if so, should all of them pay a separate licensing fee to Nvidia?

 

I know I am making the situation more and more ridiculous but that's the point. There is only 1 rational and practical solution to this licensing and it is to have Qualcomm pay Nvidia, and then everyone else down the chain (including Samsung) are covered. However, since Nvidia did not decide to go this route (they are trying to extract money from Samsung) this is clearly not the solution they are after. If they were after this single license approach then they would have only gone after Qualcomm (remember, they did not even attempt to sue Qualcomm alone, they went after Samsung straight away).

 

 

 

 

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 chance of winning by taking Samsung to court as importers under American law than trying to get qualcomm in Tawain under international law.

But that is where you are wrong. Again, if they did they wouldn't have pointed out that Intel paid them to be able to use a GPU from the same company they demand Samsung are using (Imagination). They wouldn't have gone after Samsung at all if they only wanted to get paid once (because Qualcomm, Imagination and ARM would be the ones who would pay Nvidia in that case).

 

Nvidia want to be compensated multiple times from a single product. Both Samsung and I agree that they should only be paid once and that payment should come from the top of the chain (Qualcomm, ARM and Imagination). That is the entire reason why Samsung refused to pay anything during all the negotiations that took place before Nvidia decided to sue them.

 

 

 

Since this thread might get locked soon (getting a bit personal in here) I want to ask you this.

 

Do you agree that Nvidia should only get paid once for a single product? In this case Qualcomm pays them once for the infringement in their GPU and then everyone (Samsung, HTC, etc) gets covered.

 

If you answered yes then surely you must understand that Samsung should not be involved in this lawsuit at all. It should only be between Qualcomm and Nvidia.

By also including Samsung, and the way they bring up Intel having to pay them, and for a few other reasons, they are clearly showing that they are out to get paid multiple times for the same patent infringement. Do you agree with that?

 

Please bear in mind that if they win against Samsung then there is absolutely nothing at all stopping them from demanding the same kind of payment from other manufacturers who use Snapdragon chips (like HTC) and that would result in them getting paid multiple times for the same product.

So even if they are not out to get paid multiple times, if they win against Samsung then they have the legal right to get paid multiple times. I don't think they should be able to do that.

 

No matter how you twist and turn it, if they win against Samsung then they can get paid multiple times for a single product.

[mr moose]

snip

I'll try to keep my answer short.

 

Yes I think nvidia (if they are actually entitled) should only be paid once.  That is what is happening with intel, intel are paying once, not the intels clients or downstream product manufacturers.

 

In this case neither Samsung nor qualcomm are paying, it seems easier for nvidia to take samsung to court for importing than to to directly take qualcomm in another country (because that is where all qualcomm stuff is made and qualcomm do not import their own product).   I don;t think they are after qualcom to pay and then samsung to pay, because they haven't specified what damages they are after yet.  It is only speculation based on the fact they are taking two companies to task. 

 

Ncix is not an importer, they buy from either a distributor (likely owned or contracted by samsung is usually how it works) That is the actual importation there, If ncix where to source products from china and have them shipped then yes they would be importing, but most retailers don't do that and if they do then they run the same risks as any other importer.  

 

I am fully aware that if nvidia that opens the doors to them going to town on majority of other phone makers.  But only for a single fee from each one, not one from qualcomm then one from each manufacturer as well. Ignore the highlights below they are for opcode and bogus.

 

 

 

 

 of course Nvidia aren't suing everybody, they aren't morons.  They chose the case they have the highest probability of winning, if you want to know why that is Samsung and Qualcomm then call nvidias lawyers and ask them,  because anybody else and it is purely speculation.  If they lose they only lose a little bit,  If they win they can take that win onto larger firms (maybe apple, HTC, et al), or maybe they won't have to, with a court ruling in their favor the precedent is set. 

 

 

 

So you work at Nvidia? It's good to know we have an inside source.  :rolleyes:

 

They likely chose it because they cant win it outright with the big boys. The legal system is a game of jump rope there's loops and holes to jump through for a victory.

 

You'd better re-read what I said too,  I've highlighted the bit you missed. Asking anybody else why nvidia went after samsung and qualcomm is asking for speculation.  My statement that they are the easiest target is based on the premise that nvidia know who they want to go after and why,  not that I know why they are chasing samsung or qualcomm.  

[Victorious Secret]

Then stop talking about AMD and discuss the topic at hand.  Suggesting that nvidia are scared because they are not going to simultaneously sue Samsung, qualcomm, AMD, Arm and every other phone maker is pointless, moot and quite frankly a childish argument that does not reflect what we are reading in the news.  

 

But to humour you:  of course Nvidia aren't suing everybody, they aren't morons.  They chose the case they have the highest probability of winning, if you want to know why that is Samsung and Qualcomm then call nvidias lawyers and ask them,  because anybody else and it is purely speculation.  If they lose they only lose a little bit,  If they win they can take that win onto larger firms (maybe apple, HTC, et al), or maybe they won't have to, with a court ruling in their favor the precedent is set. 

 

So there you have it, pointless to talk about AMD because at the moment it has nothing to do with the current case.  So please take your "AMD holds far more graphics IP than Nvidia" rhetoric away from this thread.

 

I'm just going to leave this here as I've worked with lawyers before. 

 

They don't always go after what pays the most, but rather what has the highest chance of success that lets them set a PRECEDENT. Once you set precedent in a successful ruling, you can use that ruling to steamroll everyone else and THEN rake in whatever monetary losses you think you are owed. 

 

Nvidia going after Samsung is calculated for success to set precedent. Once you bullrun Samsung, every other company will stand down. Samsung might not have the deep pockets that Apple has, but thats not the sole reason to sue. Not at the corporate level that these companies play at. 

 

Not shocking the turn this thread has taken. Don't know what AMD has to do with this specific thread. Damn, do people get paid based off how many times they say AMD? 

 

Oh and for the record, unlike a couple of people here, I can admit who I work for. Samsung. So you can see my bias (or lack of bias) up front. Cause I have nothing to hide nor am I getting paycheques under the table to spout pro-Samsung crap on the internet. 

[LAwLz]

Yes I think nvidia (if they are actually entitled) should only be paid once.  That is what is happening with intel, intel are paying once, not the intels clients or downstream product manufacturers.

Okay good. Then you agree that Samsung should not have to pay. If Samsung has to pay, then HTC and all other manufacturers will have to pay, and then we end up in a situation where Nvidia gets paid multiple times.

This is what I have been trying to tell you throughout the entire thread. If Nvidia wins against Samsung, then they can get paid multiple times. Therefore, Nvidia should not win. I don't think they should have dragged Samsung into this to begin with.

 

It really is as simple as that. If Samsung loses then Nvidia gains the rights to be paid multiple times for a single product.

Nvidia must have known that when they dragged Samsung into this.

 

So when you say that Nvidia should only be paid once, you are also saying that you are on Samsung's side because that is Samsung's argument as well. Qualcomm should be the one paying, and then everyone else under Qualcomm in the chain should be covered. How many times do I have to tell you this before you realize that you are on Samsung's side?

 

 

In this case neither Samsung nor qualcomm are paying, it seems easier for nvidia to take samsung to court for importing than to to directly take qualcomm in another country (because that is where all qualcomm stuff is made and qualcomm do not import their own product).   I don;t think they are after qualcom to pay and then samsung to pay, because they haven't specified what damages they are after yet.  It is only speculation based on the fact they are taking two companies to task.

They have specified what damages they are after. They want a sales ban on Samsung products until an agreement has been reached, and they have asked for monetary compensation (as well as a licensing agreement) from Samsung and Qualcomm. The want the court to decide how much they should be paid.

 

 

I am fully aware that if nvidia that opens the doors to them going to town on majority of other phone makers.  But only for a single fee from each one, not one from qualcomm then one from each manufacturer as well.

How the hell is "a single fee from 20 or more companies which use the same product" just a single fee? Like I said a few posts earlier, if Nvidia gets paid by Samsung then they have the legal right to demand payments from ~20 other companies as well, even though we are talking about a single product (the Snapdragon SoC is the product).

 

If 1 company has 1 product that infringes on your patent, and that product is used in 100 products, then you should not get paid 100 times. The first company should pay you and that's it. Anything else is ludicrous.

[mr moose]

Okay good. Then you agree that Samsung should not have to pay. If Samsung has to pay, then HTC and all other manufacturers will have to pay, and then we end up in a situation where Nvidia gets paid multiple times.

This is what I have been trying to tell you throughout the entire thread. If Nvidia wins against Samsung, then they can get paid multiple times. Therefore, Nvidia should not win. I don't think they should have dragged Samsung into this to begin with.

 

I don't actually have a position on whether Samsung should pay or not because I don't know what the specific IP complaint is nor the damages they are seeking.  For all we know Samsung might be as guilty as hell of something here.    But I see the confusion,   Lets assume nvidia win, and they go on to demand payment from everyone else (HTC, nokia, motorola, blackberry etc).  IF they do not receive any payment from qualcomm then they are not being paid twice.  each company is only paying once for the product they are using.    IP licence fees are usually based on profit, potential revenue loss or value invested into the IP.  So the amount all the individual companies would pay should equal the amount qualcomm would pay if they paid it instead. do you see how what I mean?

 

 

They have specified what damages they are after. They want a sales ban on Samsung products until an agreement has been reached, and they have asked for monetary compensation (as well as a licensing agreement) from Samsung and Qualcomm. The want the court to decide how much they should be paid.

 

 

How the hell is "a single fee from 20 or more companies which use the same product" just a single fee? Like I said a few posts earlier, if Nvidia gets paid by Samsung then they have the legal right to demand payments from ~20 other companies as well, even though we are talking about a single product (the Snapdragon SoC is the product).

 

If 1 company has 1 product that infringes on your patent, and that product is used in 100 products, then you should not get paid 100 times. The first company should pay you and that's it. Anything else is ludicrous.

 

They have asked for a ban, but I read that that was interim, the actual complaint hasn't specified damages yet.

 

Because we are not communicating, I am talking about total fee amount you are talking about individual transactions.  If nvidia win Samsung will have to pay regardless if it is through qualcomm or directly to nvidia.  Same with every other company.  so there will be a single fee on each product. just because Samsung only pays for theirs and HTC only pays for theirs doesn't mean nvidia is getting more fees, just more transactions, they are still charging the same amount.  So it doesn't matter who pays it,  Nvidia aren't charging twice for the same end product. 

 

To put this as clearly as I can,  lets say the licensing is set to 3% of product sale value.  Lets say qualcomm produces 100 units a year.

 

Now either qualcomm can pay $3 to nvidia and the IP is paid for so it doesn't matter who they sell it to.

 

OR

 

Samsung buy 30 of them so Samsung have to pay Nvidia 90c

HTC by 30 so they pay Nvidia 90c

and Blackberry feeling lucky buy 40 and have to pay nvidia $1.20

 

In both cases nvidia gets the same amount ($3), they are not charging twice for the product just multiple manufacturers instead of one supplier.

 

 

 

Again, I don't have a position on whether I think Nvidia should win or not, mainly because I don't feel I have enough information to make that call, However I do feel that should they win they won't be getting paid twice for each product and that should they win I can't see it having a major effect on the industry.  The apple/Samsung lawsuits are a lot larger than this and the effects to the end consumer have gone largely unnoticed.

[LukaP]

(s)nip(ple).

Came here to say this, since i saw yall were still arguing Hope this clears it up @LAwLz

 

As for the AMD/Apple not being sued. OFC NV wont try to set a precedent with a suit against an american company, in an american court... They went for US company versus Foreign company on US ground because its easier.