AMD wins Patent Infringement lawsuit against Vizio

[AlTech]

AMD has won a patent infringement lawsuit against the TV maker Vizio. Vizio and Sigma Designs allegedly infringed on three patents covering the basics of modern GPUs.

 

Quote

AMD has won a round in its legal battle against makers of TVs at the United States International Trade Commission (US ITC). The Commission found that Vizio and Sigma Designs have infringed one of AMD’s patents covering fundamental aspects of modern GPUs. The ITC ordered to cease imports of some of Vizio TVs to the U.S.

Back in early 2017, AMD filed a lawsuit with the US ITC against LG, MediaTek, Sigma Designs, and Vizio. The plaintiff accused the defendants of infringing three patents covering fundamental aspects of contemporary graphics processing, such unified shaders (‘133), parallel pipeline graphics system (‘506), as well as a graphics processing architecture employing unified shaders (‘454). Furthermore, the complaint referenced an in-progress patent application covering GPU architectures with unified shaders (‘967) and accused two of the said companies of infringing it as well. Meanwhile all the defendants license (or licensed) their GPU technologies from ARM and Imagination Technologies (though, as we reported back in early 2017, it looks like AMD only accuses SoCs based on ARM’s architecture of infringing its patents).

 

The patents relevant to the case feel like they are incredibly generic and so fundamental to modern graphics cards that it seems so silly for it to be patented. Honestly, the US patents system is so screwed up.

 

AMD doesn't deserve a win here because their "patents" in this case are so incredibly generic that literally any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it.

 

 

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13272/amd-wins-patent-infringement-order-against-vizio

[xriqn]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

AMD has won a patent infringement lawsuit against the TV maker Vizio. Vizio and Sigma Designs allegedly infringed on three patents covering the basics of modern GPUs.

 

 

The patents relevant to the case feel like they are incredibly generic and so fundamental to modern graphics cards that it seems so silly for it to be patented. Honestly, the US patents system is so screwed up.

 

AMD doesn't deserve a win here because their "patents" in this case are so incredibly generic that literally any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it.

 

 

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13272/amd-wins-patent-infringement-order-against-vizio

Its basically an apple vs samsung thing only it's in the GPU market instead of smartphone.

[GoldenLag]

Welcome to US courts

[ScratchCat]

AMD invested money to develop the technology so they deserve to win the lawsuit regardless of if they did it 15+ years ago.

[Drak3]

It wasn't generic, basic (relatively speaking), or fundemental when AMD patented these patents.

[2FA]

7 minutes ago, ScratchCat said:

AMD invested money to develop the technology so they deserve to win the lawsuit regardless of if they did it 15+ years ago.

The two oldest patents are just about to be 15 years old (unified shaders and parallel pipelines), one is 7 years old (graphics architecture), and the other is still pending approval but was filed in 2016 (graphics architecture). Regardless, I don't think they should be invalidated just because they are widely used in modern graphics. That defeats the purpose of the patent.

[Sauron]

58 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

AMD doesn't deserve a win here because their "patents" in this case are so incredibly generic that literally any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it.

Unlike proper patent trolls, AMD (or rather, ATI) legitimately had to come up with and implement those technologies at some point. If that then becomes a fundamental part of modern gpu architecture, that means its competitors need to license that technology - the same way AMD licenses patents from other companies. Like it or not, this is exactly how patent laws were meant to work; it's not a loophole or a vague interpretation. They invented it, they have the rights to it.

Quote

unified shaders (‘133), parallel pipeline graphics system (‘506), as well as a graphics processing architecture employing unified shaders (‘454)

These things were not trivial at some point.

[Dabombinable]

The Patent System. Where ideas are as valid for patenting as physical implementation.

[Techstorm970]

59 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

The patents relevant to the case feel like they are incredibly generic and so fundamental to modern graphics cards that it seems so silly for it to be patented. Honestly, the US patents system is so screwed up.

As many have said, they weren't generic and fundamental when they were patented.  Patents last a long time (20 years) because people want to protect their hard work and inventions.  Patents work as a way to protect creators from getting discredited and having their own stuff used against them.  If you knew that anything you invented would quickly be used to ruin you as an individual (or company), then would you even bother inventing anything?  Think about it.

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

AMD doesn't deserve a win here because their "patents" in this case are so incredibly generic that literally any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it.

You do know that there can be more than one way to solve a problem, right?  Many generations of Intel CPUs were multithreaded before Ryzen came out, but did Intel sue AMD for implementing multithreading?  No!  Why?  Because AMD found another way to multithread!  Hyperthreading and Simultaneous Multi-Threading are two different ways to do the same thing.  On the surface, they're the same thing, but below the surface, they function quite differently.  The main difference is in AMD's Infinity Fabric technology.

 

So, your argument that "any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it" is not very well thought through.  AMD, NVIDIA, Imagination, Intel, and the others all have their own approaches to graphics processing.  They can be similar, but as long as they aren't too similar, it's ok!  It's why NVIDIA has Pascal and Turing, while AMD has Polaris and Vega.  If everybody's solution was the same, then there'd at least be a lot more lawsuits.

[aezakmi]

1 hour ago, GoldenLag said:

Welcome to US courts

Coming up in 2019 the new iCourt® by Apple™

[yian88]

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

[sazrocks]

19 minutes ago, yian88 said:

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

No.

[PlayStation 2]

26 minutes ago, yian88 said:

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

Honestly, I think copyrights and patents should be protected so the creator of said content or patents can be rewarded for it. HOWEVER, I don't think they should be extended by lobbying Congress to extend these laws into bullshit territory, like what Disney does.

[mr moose]

48 minutes ago, yian88 said:

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

If all patents/copyrights died so would tech advancements, it's economics 101, no reward = no investment.  You wouldn't be enjoying 2018 technology without 18th century patents. In fact modern life as we know it would not exist because everything you enjoy from medicine through computers to cars and food were advanced by entrepreneurs looking to make a dollar. 

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Honestly, I think copyrights and patents should be protected so the creator of said content or patents can be rewarded for it. HOWEVER, I don't think they should be extended by lobbying Congress to extend these laws into bullshit territory, like what Disney does.

Disney holds very few patents, and copyright is a very different topic.

 

Broadly speaking, I think the duration of patents is absolutely fine (perhaps even slightly too short in some cases), whereas the duration of copyright is far too long. On the other hand, a number of patent applications that should be rejected get approved. I just don't think these patents from AMD are that flimsy.

 

When it comes to this particular case, I'm just a little annoyed that AMD is going after third parties like Vizio. Vizio aren't really making GPUs that infringe on AMD patents, that stuff comes from people like Mediatek and ARM.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Disney holds very few patents, and copyright is a very different topic.

 

Broadly speaking, I think the duration of patents is absolutely fine (perhaps even slightly too short in some cases), whereas the duration of copyright is far too long. On the other hand, a number of patent applications that should be rejected get approved. I just don't think these patents from AMD are that flimsy.

 

When it comes to this particular case, I'm just a little annoyed that AMD is going after third parties like Vizio. Vizio aren't really making GPUs that infringe on AMD patents, that stuff comes from people like Mediatek and ARM.

My implication was that Disney lobbies to extend copyrights to insane lengths of time when they have no reason to other than greed.

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

My implication was that Disney lobbies to extend copyrights to insane lengths of time when they have no reason to other than greed.

I absolutely agree. Just worth noting that hasn't happened for patents.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

My implication was that Disney lobbies to extend copyrights to insane lengths of time when they have no reason to other than greed.

 

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

I absolutely agree. Just worth noting that hasn't happened for patents.

Whilst I agree some copyright laws are way too long and art should not become commodities, they are effectively patents for creative works.  I am not too sure it is possible to decide just how long someone should/shouldn't own the rights to work they created.  I would prefer if copyright was registered to the original PERSON who created that work for their natural life (unless of course they sign it over to public domain). I don't like the idea of a corporation buying up all the rights to art and then holding an indefinite monopoly on creativity (there is only so much humans can create).

 

EDIT, 50 years might also be a reasonable time for copyright too as it is deemed O.K for conventional IP.   I don;t know, I think tartists would have to have more discussions on this (not corporations).

[Guest]

9 hours ago, aezakmi said:

Coming up in 2019 the new iCourt® by Apple™

Well if people infringe on an Apple patent then they are opening up themselves for a lawsuit. If you don't infringe then you won't get sued. How the world works. 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Well if people infringe on an Apple patent then they are opening up themselves for a lawsuit. If you don't infringe then you won't get sued. How the world works. 

Sometimes apple can infringe, have the case heard and be found guilty then have the sentence overturned because... well...  apple. That's how the world works. Justice isn't always just.

[Guest]

Just now, mr moose said:

Sometimes apple can infringe, have the case heard and be found guilty then have the sentence overturned because... well...  apple. That's how the world works. Justice isn't always just.

Money to the right people helps a lot. 

[Dionyz]

10 hours ago, yian88 said:

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

How about you make a awesome product, and everyone starts to copy your idea then makes money off of it? How would you feel?

[iamdarkyoshi]

11 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Honestly, the US patents system is so screwed up.

https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month

[captain_to_fire]

10 hours ago, yian88 said:

All patents should die, its the number one killer of tech advancements and cheaper products, competition killer and so on.

All patents are tyranical in their nature.

Fuck copyrights and patents, and im very serious.

Try working on R&D and you'll get as to why they exist. Also, there's such a thing as patent cross licensing.

[asus killer]

12 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

AMD has won a patent infringement lawsuit against the TV maker Vizio. Vizio and Sigma Designs allegedly infringed on three patents covering the basics of modern GPUs.

 

 

The patents relevant to the case feel like they are incredibly generic and so fundamental to modern graphics cards that it seems so silly for it to be patented. Honestly, the US patents system is so screwed up.

 

AMD doesn't deserve a win here because their "patents" in this case are so incredibly generic that literally any GPU made in the past 10 years probably infringes upon it.

 

 

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13272/amd-wins-patent-infringement-order-against-vizio

curiously enough this is how much of the "China is stealing our tech" argument goes (i didn't said always!) 

 

Tech imperialism