Nvidia Initiates Patent Lawsuit Against Samsung and Qualcomm

19

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

donut

flame war below.

avatar

Opm2

If the wheel had been invented in the last ten years. The patent office would give some douche bag corp the rights to it.

avatar

MrHasselblad

Remember how not all that long ago hydrogen power was supposed to take over the world; especially for transportation?

Now a very small amount of fortune fifty companies control nearly all of the patents regarding nearly anything having to do with hydrogen. It's that next step in getting the wheel moving

avatar

Impulseman48

OK here is my 2 cents. Nvidia was the first company to "invent/use" the term GPU, that was back in the 2000 I believe when they launched the very first GeForce chip on the market. ATI soon started to use the tern as well, but Nvidia didn't do anything about that.
And as far as them not going after anyone else other than Samsung and Qualcomm lets think about this. Qualcomm is most likely breaking IP in the chip maker supplier route while Samsung is doing it in the licensing of that tech after the fact. The reason you don't see Nvidia going after anyone else is that most likely have licensing agreements with all those other companies and Samsung is a hold out, so they don't need to. Samsung is notorious for not paying out on licensing fees. They are in a big suit right now with Microsoft over patents they were paying them for, but as soon as Microsoft bought up Nokia they stopped paying and refused to even talk with them., but they keep on using the tech even without that license. That is Samsung's whole history and modus operandi. They do what they want, and dam anyone get in there way. Its time for them to start playing fair and be an upright company or get put out of business for being the thieving asses they are. Oh and I will not buy or own anything from Samsung because of there flagrant theft of IP from many companies. And I am not an Apple fan-boy, PC master race here, so don't even try to go down that road.

avatar

Joji

Call me racist or whatever, but is this what we consider "Korean mentality?" Like is it because they're Korean so that's why they're notorious for whatever they're doing? Or is this Nvidia just being an asshole?

avatar

tetris42

It's still retarded though, because at that time ATI, Matrox, 3dfx, and S3 were also making "GPUs" they just weren't using that exact term.

It would be like claiming Resident Evil was the first survival horror game because it was the first to use the term "survival horror"

With that logic, all Samsung would have to do to be fair is change the name of GPU to "3D accelerator." It's possible the licensing thing has some weight to it for some specific technology, but just claiming ownership of GPUs is pretty weak.

avatar

dgrmouse

It seems that the issue is that patents were awarded, rather than NVidia's decision to defend them. Either way, can anyone educate me on why they might've chosen to file in Delaware?

avatar

don2041

In the mean time all the blood sucking lawyers are wringing their hands in anticipation.

avatar

aarcane

Real dick move nVidia. I love your products, but if you're going to start pulling this Apple BS, I may have to jump ship and switch to AMD, despite their inferior visuals. Knock it off :(

avatar

tetris42

My experience has been their visuals are identical with Nvidia's until you get to antialiasing, and then it's a case by case basis. Do you have any evidence showing they're actually lower quality?

avatar

Mediziner

No, he's just an Nvidia fanboi. :d

avatar

aarcane

Mediziner isn't technically incorrect. However, every time I'm walking around Frys or Best Buy and I see graphics rendered, almost invariably if I think they look good, they're rendered on nVidia graphics, and if I think they look shitty they're rendered on AMD graphics. I haven't so much evidence as years of experience backing up my strong opinion.

avatar

tetris42

Wow, well that kind of explains it all. It sounds like you're comparing the processing power of integrated AMD graphics against discrete Nvidia cards displayed on a TN panel most likely at Best Buy. For what it's worth, I can pretty much guarantee you're mistaking graphics quality for processing power. If a game is automatically configured to scale itself to the slower hardware, it will look worse, but that has nothing to do with its image quality capability of any card. You might be surprised how "poor" the graphics quality on a Geforce 730 is with that kind of logic.

Short version: It sounds like you're misunderstanding multiple variables that go into your perception of image quality. Stick with Nvidia if you like, but try to get your facts straight.

avatar

aarcane

I'd like to suggest that Somebody ( *Ahem* MaxPC ) Sets up a booth at a couple local malls, and run some games in demo mode on identically configured systems with the only difference being graphics chips of comparable performance points, and ask passers by which they prefer.

Of course noting that identical visual settings should be enabled on each system. 6 Demo PCs set up with low, mid, and high end graphics would be enough to ask them to rate which is better on each of three comparisons.

avatar

Chad727

Didn't Intel make the first graphics controller? Like back in the eighties?

avatar

dgrmouse

No.

avatar

Autocon

I would guess nVidia is making these claims because they inherited all of 3DFX's patents when they bought them out.
Still, it is ridiculous to claim they "invented" the GPU. And even if they did, and could prove it, Samsung owes them nothing. It would fall on the supplier of the chip (in this case, Qualcomm), not the end user of the chip.
And why go after Samsung, and not HTC, LG, Apple, and all the others who also have a GPU in all their mobile products?

avatar

AFDozerman

What the hell did I just read? They're suing for someone shipping GPUs because their marketing team think they invented them?

avatar

LatiosXT

NVIDIA you so funny. Your rival made those GPU technologies.

EDIT: As much as I like NVIDIA, I really do hope this case falls flat. Everything the VP said is just flat-out too generic to patentize (then again Apple did patent rounded corners and slide to unlock).

Plus... they really didn't invent all that to begin with.

Programmable shaders? I'm pretty sure Reality Coprocessor in the N64 forced devs to create microcode to make the GPU do things they wanted it to do (especially since Nintendo wouldn't give up the secret sauce on how to do something beyond the bare basics).

Unified shaders appeared on the Xbox 360's GPU made by ATI. Albeit not in the same sense as scalar unified shaders we see today, but the 360's GPU did the idea first. And before NVIDIA pulls out their GPGPU card, GPGPU-like tasks were possible before the GeForce 8 and Radeon HD2000

And uh... I'm pretty sure they can't win the multi-threaded argument. That's a computing staple regardless of final hardware since multitasking was a thing.