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

[Dackzy]

I don't think AMD should win, because they had the idea a long time ago, but some part of me thinks that it would be funny to see AMD win (and see hell break loose)

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

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.

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

I don't think AMD should win, because they had the idea a long time ago, but some part of me thinks that it would be funny to see AMD win (and see hell break loose)

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

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).

Not a lawsuit, a complaint that these companies are using AMD's patents without proper licensing, which would constitute unlawful sale in the US. They stand to lose money if evidence of infringement isn't found, and make money if it is, but not due to lawsuit. Right now, AMD is just saying "we think they're not licensing our stuff, could we have an investigation into that, and tell us if we're right and what can/should be done."

 

AMD's all for open standards, but they also want credit where credit is due, as well as proper compensation if R&D cash was spent on something.

 

Also, these companies might not manufacturer their own GPUs, but they do design some GPU/APUs for their products where higher end OEM ARM chips (Qualcomm SD, Samsung Exynos, etc.) are not necessarily the best option. The Vizio V8 octocore is a prime example.

[Doobeedoo]

If it's actually unacceptable patent infringement what's the problem.

[Clanscorpia]

3 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Oh wow they are filing a complain to stop those companies from having fair chance at competing in the GPU market. This way AMD can run a monopoly and continue overpricing their products. What a selfish, greedy corporation. 

 

This is why I stick to Nvidia they are much less stingy and make affordable stuff. 

IS this sarcasim or....

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, Abdul201588 said:

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

You say that, then they go ahead and break the PCI Express power limits

Spoiler

Yeah I know Nvidia too, just a joke.

 

[Suika]

9 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Oh wow they are filing a complain to stop those companies from having fair chance at competing in the GPU market. This way AMD can run a monopoly and continue overpricing their products. What a selfish, greedy corporation. 

 

This is why I stick to Nvidia they are much less stingy and make affordable stuff. 

Wait, weren't people saying this about NVIDIA when they attempted to sue Qualcomm and Samsung? Or is that the joke going over my head?

[Citadelen]

21 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

-snip-

These aren't ideas, these are ways of employing ideas. R&D was invested in these, to ask a royalty isn't asking much. I'm pretty sure even Nvidia licences the Unified Shader Model from AMD. 

[spartaman64]

23 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

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.

 

 

In the field of 3D computer graphics, the Unified Shader Model (known in Direct3D 10 as "Shader Model 4.0") refers to a form of shader hardware in a graphical processing unit (GPU) where all of the shader stages in the rendering pipeline (geometry, vertex, pixel, etc.) have the same capabilities. They can all read textures and buffers, and they use instruction sets that are almost identical.[1]

Earlier GPUs generally included two types of shader hardware, with the vertex shaders having considerably more instructions than the simpler pixel shaders. This lowered the cost of implementation of the GPU as a whole, and allowed more shaders in total on a single unit. This was at the cost of making the system less flexible, and sometimes leaving one set of shaders idle if the workload used one more than the other. As improvements in fabrication continued, this distinction became less useful. ATI Technologies introduced a unified architecture on the hardware they developed for the Xbox 360, and then introduced this in card form in the TeraScale line. Nvidia quickly followed with their Tesla design. The concept has been universal since then.

 

i feel like this isn't as obvious without foresight like the way staples, shaving razors or filament light bulbs seem obvious to us now but probably not before they were made.