AMD files complaint against LG, Sigma, & others on gpu patent infringement

[NumLock21]

 

AMD has file a complaint against Mediatek, Sigma, LG, and Vizio for using their GPU technology without permission, and claimed those products are being imported and sold in the U.S. The gpu patents, AMD said they have infringed on are

Quote

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,633,506 (the '506 patent), 7,796,133 (the '133 patent) and 8,760,454 (the '454 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents".

The details of these patents are, 506, is the architecture of the gpu, allowing larges amount of data to be rendered to a frame buffer. Patent 133, gpu texture processing circuitry, and patent 454 is for gpu unified shader architecture. Any one of those patents being infringed is consider as a infringing product which are mostly smartphones and televisions. Now if a fridge or a range someone has a LCD screen and uses it a gpu, that might be a infringement product as well. They even went on to say, this not only hurts them but also others who had acquire the rights to use them such as Samsung. No suits has been filed yet.  AMD, only asked those infringing products, are not to be imported or sold in the U.S.

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/230260/amd-files-patent-infringement-complaint-against-lg-vizio-others

[bigneo]

Oh dear... For some reason, I want to see AMD not letting them go as easy. Given that there is actually an infringement.

[Sir Asvald]

Clearly they don't want to see the world burn.... 

[ManIkWeet]

Unless these are false claims, which I doubt (misinformed maybe?), I support AMD protecting their inventions.

 

(Yes someone could've invented the same thing without knowing about the existence of it, but as long as the patent system is there I support the use of it)

[Mira Yurizaki]

https://www.google.com/patents/US7633506

https://www.google.com/patents/US7796133

https://www.google.com/patents/US8760454

 

AMD apparently owns the idea of unified shader technology. These were filed back in 2002.

[Coaxialgamer]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

https://www.google.com/patents/US7633506

https://www.google.com/patents/US7796133

https://www.google.com/patents/US8760454

 

AMD apparently owns the idea of unified shader technology.

The gpu market is made in a way that you can't make a "display controller"  without infringing on amd's or Nvidia's patent ( or Matrox's) .  That is one of the primary reasons intel doesn't design a gpu and has to pay royalties to nvidia for every igpu they sell instead of developing completely  in house. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The gpu market is made in a way that you can't make a "display controller"  without infringing on amd's or Nvidia's patent ( or Matrox's) .  That is one of the primary reasons intel doesn't design a gpu and has to pay royalties to nvidia for every igpu they sell instead of developing in house. 

The US patent system rears its ugly head yet again.

 

And we laughed and then cried when Apple sued smartphone makers for "slide to unlock"

[NumLock21]

dp

[2FA]

30 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

And we laughed and then cried when Apple sued smartphone makers for "slide to unlock"

I'm pretty sure GPU architecture patents is a bit different from "slide to unlock", especially considering the time period they were filed during.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

I'm pretty sure GPU architecture patents is a bit different from "slide to unlock", especially considering the time period they were filed during.

The point is AMD has what I feel is a "generic idea" patent.

[2FA]

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The point is AMD has what I feel is a "generic idea" patent.

At the time it wasn't though. It's just that everyone that's big into GPU's already purchased a license for it so that they could use the technology which made it commonplace now.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

At the time it wasn't though. It's just that everyone that's big into GPU's already purchased a license for it so that they could use the technology which made it commonplace now.

However, patents can be invalidated if they can be proved that they were "obvious" in the first place:

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/02/federal-circuit-unlock-invalid.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/

[Nineshadow]

Doesn't Sigma make lenses? Or is it another company?

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Nineshadow said:

Doesn't Sigma make lenses? Or is it another company?

But but but.  If you abstract the functionality of the lens it is definitely feeding large amounts of data through a gpu circuit 

[Arc_Jester]

5 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

Doesn't Sigma make lenses? Or is it another company?

They make cameras too.

[XenosTech]

31 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

However, patents can be invalidated if they can be proved that they were "obvious" in the first place:

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/02/federal-circuit-unlock-invalid.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/

One could also argue if it was so obvious why didn't they invest the R&D and make their own instead of encroaching on someone else's patent.

[2FA]

14 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

However, patents can be invalidated if they can be proved that they were "obvious" in the first place:

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/02/federal-circuit-unlock-invalid.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/

I'm not sure how these would be "obvious" though since they are rather complex technologies.

[Nineshadow]

14 minutes ago, Arc_Jester said:

They make cameras too.

I thought they stopped making them some time ago...it's not like any of the few cameras they made were worth the while.

[Arc_Jester]

13 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

I thought they stopped making them some time ago...it's not like any of the few cameras they made were worth the while.

They released 2 or 3 last year so I assume they started making them again.

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

However, patents can be invalidated if they can be proved that they were "obvious" in the first place:

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/02/federal-circuit-unlock-invalid.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/

 

its like paper clips they seem obvious but probably not obvious at the time

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

I'm not sure how these would be "obvious" though since they are rather complex technologies.

The idea is obvious, actually putting it into practice however isn't. AMD patented the idea, which shouldn't be allowed. Actual designs yes, ideas no-the US patent system is shit.

[Dabombinable]

BTW, this is the kind of BS that prevents the amount of competition increasing in the market.

[frostburg]

2 hours ago, Nineshadow said:

I thought they stopped making them some time ago...it's not like any of the few cameras they made were worth the while.

Foveon sensors are actually great when used in their limited shooting envelope. I'm glad that they make them.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Since I didn't feel like thoroughly reading through the patents, let's assume that they can be considered "obvious" ideas. Since AMD is going after some major players in the market (MediaTek is basically the Qualcomm of SoCs outside of the US; LG is huge in South Korea, though not to the same extent as Samsung; and Vizio is a pretty popular name brand; Not sure who Sigma is though), they could all pool their resources together and countersue AMD on the grounds that they have an "obvious" patent.

 

The armchair business analyst in me thinks AMD should settle or drop the suit because they don't need a 3+ year legal battle draining their money. Or just do what Elon Musk did with his patents: make the tech freely available, just don't try to claim you made that technology. You'd think with AMD's reputation for supporting open standards, they would do something like that.

[LAwLz]

Wait, why are they suing those companies? Pretty sure none of them makes their own GPUs.

 

I hope AMD gets run over in court. I despise companies that use patents to attack and make other companies suffer.

(And before people start calling me an Nvida fanboy/AMD hater, may I remind you that I was cheering for Samsung when Nvidia tried to sue them for bullshit patents).

 

 

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Not sure who Sigma is though

They make camera lenses, and sometimes cameras.