Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AORUS Radeon RX 5700 XT 8G review
Endgame XM1 gaming mouse review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - December 2019
Judge rules that Samsung and Qualcomm do not violate Nvidia patents
According to a judge ruling from the International Trade Commission, Samsung and Qualcomm do not violate Nvidia patents. Nvidia released this news themselves on their blog. Nvidia will appeal this ruling.
NVIDIA:
In the latest step of our efforts to protect NVIDIA’s intellectual property, an administrative law judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled today that Samsung and Qualcomm did not violate U.S. law with respect to importing certain Samsung products into the U.S.
Judge Thomas Pender issued an initial determination that Samsung and Qualcomm didn’t infringe two NVIDIA patents, and that both did infringe a third patent but that this patent wasn’t valid.
This initial determination is one more step in a long legal process.
We now intend to ask the full commission (which is made up of six commissioners) to review this initial determination and to confirm the previous judgment of the U.S. Patent Office — that the third patent is valid. If they agree, the ITC would issue an order that would preclude Samsung from importing into the U.S. infringing Samsung mobile devices and smart TVs.
We are continuing this case by proceeding to the next step in the process because we believe our patents are valid and have been infringed.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 2243
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 2243
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5171633 Posted on: 10/12/2015 09:24 AM
it depend on where you live (50years once there, each 4year there... ), and how patent work there... it's very hard in international law (and can make lot of money).
one of the best school case is Dyson (the vacum cleaner and fan) everything is lock worldwide and let one or two step ahead to the company at each time a patent expire.
Major blow for patent troll nVidia very rare they loose a case still that patent is about to expire very soon anyway, assuming it's 20 years that they where granted rather than the typical 14 years.
it depend on where you live (50years once there, each 4year there... ), and how patent work there... it's very hard in international law (and can make lot of money).
one of the best school case is Dyson (the vacum cleaner and fan) everything is lock worldwide and let one or two step ahead to the company at each time a patent expire.
Dazz
Senior Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 2001-08-12
Senior Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 2001-08-12
#5171639 Posted on: 10/12/2015 10:02 AM
it depend on where you live (50years once there, each 4year there... ), and how patent work there... it's very hard in international law (and can make lot of money).
one of the best school case is Dyson (the vacum cleaner and fan) everything is lock worldwide and let one or two step ahead to the company at each time a patent expire.
50-100 years if it's copyright, patent is 14-20 years under US legislation anyway. Patent is consider a short term and is much easier to get hold of compared to copyright. Thats why the system is in such a mess with patents cause pretty much anyone can patent something.
it depend on where you live (50years once there, each 4year there... ), and how patent work there... it's very hard in international law (and can make lot of money).
one of the best school case is Dyson (the vacum cleaner and fan) everything is lock worldwide and let one or two step ahead to the company at each time a patent expire.
50-100 years if it's copyright, patent is 14-20 years under US legislation anyway. Patent is consider a short term and is much easier to get hold of compared to copyright. Thats why the system is in such a mess with patents cause pretty much anyone can patent something.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5171672 Posted on: 10/12/2015 01:10 PM
How is this patent trolling?
Nvidia owns the patents on a large number of basic GPU mechanisms, all of which they license out and already receive a sizable chunk of revenue from. If Samsung is infringing on that then they should also have to pay the licensing cost. If Samsung isn't, it's still Nvidia's job to protect it's patents to the best of it's ability otherwise other licenses will just claim the patents are invalid and Nvidia will lose them.
This isn't Rambus.
Major blow for patent troll nVidia very rare they loose a case still that patent is about to expire very soon anyway, assuming it's 20 years that they where granted rather than the typical 14 years.
How is this patent trolling?
Nvidia owns the patents on a large number of basic GPU mechanisms, all of which they license out and already receive a sizable chunk of revenue from. If Samsung is infringing on that then they should also have to pay the licensing cost. If Samsung isn't, it's still Nvidia's job to protect it's patents to the best of it's ability otherwise other licenses will just claim the patents are invalid and Nvidia will lose them.
This isn't Rambus.
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
#5171684 Posted on: 10/12/2015 01:45 PM
Patent laws vary very significantly between different countries. Some countries have fair, proper patent laws that protect the intellectual property of the ORIGINAL designer of a concept. Other countries (I won't mention them) seem to allow patenting of things that SHOULD NOT be allowed to be patented, or allow patenting other peoples ideas if the patent has already expired, and especially true if the patent holder is from another country.
Patent laws vary very significantly between different countries. Some countries have fair, proper patent laws that protect the intellectual property of the ORIGINAL designer of a concept. Other countries (I won't mention them) seem to allow patenting of things that SHOULD NOT be allowed to be patented, or allow patenting other peoples ideas if the patent has already expired, and especially true if the patent holder is from another country.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5171700 Posted on: 10/12/2015 02:05 PM
I mean I generally agree. But I think there is a distinct difference between Nvidia spending a great deal of R&D money on figuring out how to package Transform/Lighting; the entire GPU pipeline on a single die and Apple patenting a shape or swipe to unlock. One requires a significant amount of research, design and implementation. The other is a simple idea.
The bottom line is that Samsung was a senior design partner with Nvidia, during that time they were interested in Geforce GPU microcode. They (Samsung) eventually licensed out Mali GPU designs and then magically made them faster than other licensee. Nvidia is claiming that they used parts of their design to make that happen. Should also mention that LG was part of the group too and also claimed that Samsung engineers were trying to spy-in on their projects as well.
Patent laws vary very significantly between different countries. Some countries have fair, proper patent laws that protect the intellectual property of the ORIGINAL designer of a concept. Other countries (I won't mention them) seem to allow patenting of things that SHOULD NOT be allowed to be patented, or allow patenting other peoples ideas if the patent has already expired, and especially true if the patent holder is from another country.
I mean I generally agree. But I think there is a distinct difference between Nvidia spending a great deal of R&D money on figuring out how to package Transform/Lighting; the entire GPU pipeline on a single die and Apple patenting a shape or swipe to unlock. One requires a significant amount of research, design and implementation. The other is a simple idea.
The bottom line is that Samsung was a senior design partner with Nvidia, during that time they were interested in Geforce GPU microcode. They (Samsung) eventually licensed out Mali GPU designs and then magically made them faster than other licensee. Nvidia is claiming that they used parts of their design to make that happen. Should also mention that LG was part of the group too and also claimed that Samsung engineers were trying to spy-in on their projects as well.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 2243
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 2243
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5171768 Posted on: 10/12/2015 05:12 PM
Sadly it is a bit more complicated, this is why you can violate US Patent, in some country without having law issue... and even more now that USA loose influence.
under US legislation anyway
Sadly it is a bit more complicated, this is why you can violate US Patent, in some country without having law issue... and even more now that USA loose influence.
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2014-07-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2014-07-22
#5172185 Posted on: 10/13/2015 03:14 PM
How is this patent trolling?
Nvidia owns the patents on a large number of basic GPU mechanisms, all of which they license out and already receive a sizable chunk of revenue from. If Samsung is infringing on that then they should also have to pay the licensing cost. If Samsung isn't, it's still Nvidia's job to protect it's patents to the best of it's ability otherwise other licenses will just claim the patents are invalid and Nvidia will lose them.
This isn't Rambus.
Long before nVidia shipped it's first & failed GPU, nV1, I believe, I'd been using GPUs by ATi & Cirrus Logic, Matrox and several other companies. In those days we called them "graphics processors" because, of course, "unit" is just redundant, there being no difference between a graphics processor and a graphics processing "unit."
nVidia absolutely and categorically did not invent the graphics processing unit. The patent application is really screwy, too...
nVidia doesn't own any part of "Direct X 7," for instance (Microsoft does.) But it's mentioned in their patent. By any lights their attempt at patenting "the gpu" is utterly bogus & false. nVidia isn't alone in this kind of behavior, of course--but that doesn't justify it. Just one more big reason why patents should be dissolved. Let companies compete solely on their implementations of their ideas & concepts, the products they sell. That's what I'd like to see. Send the lawyers packing!
How is this patent trolling?
Nvidia owns the patents on a large number of basic GPU mechanisms, all of which they license out and already receive a sizable chunk of revenue from. If Samsung is infringing on that then they should also have to pay the licensing cost. If Samsung isn't, it's still Nvidia's job to protect it's patents to the best of it's ability otherwise other licenses will just claim the patents are invalid and Nvidia will lose them.
This isn't Rambus.
Long before nVidia shipped it's first & failed GPU, nV1, I believe, I'd been using GPUs by ATi & Cirrus Logic, Matrox and several other companies. In those days we called them "graphics processors" because, of course, "unit" is just redundant, there being no difference between a graphics processor and a graphics processing "unit."
nVidia absolutely and categorically did not invent the graphics processing unit. The patent application is really screwy, too...
nVidia doesn't own any part of "Direct X 7," for instance (Microsoft does.) But it's mentioned in their patent. By any lights their attempt at patenting "the gpu" is utterly bogus & false. nVidia isn't alone in this kind of behavior, of course--but that doesn't justify it. Just one more big reason why patents should be dissolved. Let companies compete solely on their implementations of their ideas & concepts, the products they sell. That's what I'd like to see. Send the lawyers packing!
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
#5172198 Posted on: 10/13/2015 03:45 PM
Long before nVidia shipped it's first & failed GPU, nV1, I believe, I'd been using GPUs by ATi & Cirrus Logic, Matrox and several other companies. In those days we called them "graphics processors" because, of course, "unit" is just redundant, there being no difference between a graphics processor and a graphics processing "unit."
nVidia absolutely and categorically did not invent the graphics processing unit. The patent application is really screwy, too... nVidia doesn't own any part of "Direct X 7," for instance (Microsoft does.) But it's mentioned in their patent. By any lights their attempt at patenting "the gpu" is utterly bogus & false. nVidia isn't alone in this kind of behavior, of course--but that doesn't justify it. Just one more big reason why patents should be dissolved. Let companies compete solely on their implementations of their ideas & concepts, the products they sell. That's what I'd like to see. Send the lawyers packing!
That's what I was mentioning earlier. It's not that patenting is broken, just the patenting system in US and the UK is broken. I know of a UK company that patented something that had its international patent expire. What makes it worse is the company didn't pay the licencing fees even when the design was covered by the patent, and the legal fees sent the Australian inventor of the product and small business they were running under. The exact same technology is also used in another Australian product who operate separately from the UK patent, but at least they didn't steal the design and patent it as their own. They basically just continued making the product after the patent and licence had expired.
Long before nVidia shipped it's first & failed GPU, nV1, I believe, I'd been using GPUs by ATi & Cirrus Logic, Matrox and several other companies. In those days we called them "graphics processors" because, of course, "unit" is just redundant, there being no difference between a graphics processor and a graphics processing "unit."
nVidia absolutely and categorically did not invent the graphics processing unit. The patent application is really screwy, too...
nVidia doesn't own any part of "Direct X 7," for instance (Microsoft does.) But it's mentioned in their patent. By any lights their attempt at patenting "the gpu" is utterly bogus & false. nVidia isn't alone in this kind of behavior, of course--but that doesn't justify it. Just one more big reason why patents should be dissolved. Let companies compete solely on their implementations of their ideas & concepts, the products they sell. That's what I'd like to see. Send the lawyers packing!
That's what I was mentioning earlier. It's not that patenting is broken, just the patenting system in US and the UK is broken. I know of a UK company that patented something that had its international patent expire. What makes it worse is the company didn't pay the licencing fees even when the design was covered by the patent, and the legal fees sent the Australian inventor of the product and small business they were running under. The exact same technology is also used in another Australian product who operate separately from the UK patent, but at least they didn't steal the design and patent it as their own. They basically just continued making the product after the patent and licence had expired.
Barry J
Senior Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: 2006-02-23
Senior Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: 2006-02-23
#5172208 Posted on: 10/13/2015 04:15 PM
I believe your confusing NVidia for apple who do patent troll
Major blow for patent troll nVidia very rare they loose a case still that patent is about to expire very soon anyway, assuming it's 20 years that they where granted rather than the typical 14 years.
I believe your confusing NVidia for apple who do patent troll
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5172217 Posted on: 10/13/2015 04:31 PM
Long before nVidia shipped it's first & failed GPU, nV1, I believe, I'd been using GPUs by ATi & Cirrus Logic, Matrox and several other companies. In those days we called them "graphics processors" because, of course, "unit" is just redundant, there being no difference between a graphics processor and a graphics processing "unit."
nVidia absolutely and categorically did not invent the graphics processing unit. The patent application is really screwy, too... nVidia doesn't own any part of "Direct X 7," for instance (Microsoft does.) But it's mentioned in their patent. By any lights their attempt at patenting "the gpu" is utterly bogus & false. nVidia isn't alone in this kind of behavior, of course--but that doesn't justify it. Just one more big reason why patents should be dissolved. Let companies compete solely on their implementations of their ideas & concepts, the products they sell. That's what I'd like to see. Send the lawyers packing!
I'm not even really sure what you are talking about.
The 3 patents Nvidia sued for are related to:
Vertex Processing; T&L integrated on a single die (This is the one everyone keeps referring to as "nvidia invented the GPU")
Multihreaded Parallel Processing of Graphics Data
Shadow Mapping Primitives
The first two were found by the judge to be valid, but Samsung did not infringe on them. The third was thrown out.
As for the first one, Nvidia was the first company to integrate Transform and Lighting on a single die with the rest of the package. Nvidia then went and labeled this a "GPU". I probably agree that it's dumb to combine two things then label it, but it doesn't change the fact that they were the first to integrate that.
The same patents came up in the 2011 lawsuit where Intel settled for $1.5B over Six years + access to Intel patents. So obviously they had a case back then that was worth quite a bit of money to them. In this case Nvidia went to Samsung numerous times asking for a licensing agreement, each time Samsung said it wasn't their problem but their partners. Nvidia sued, Samsung counter-sued a random family owned PC company in Virgina in order to fast track their lawsuit through the court system, which is kinda ****ed up in it's own way.
And while I agree that the current patent system is a problem that needs to be addressed, it definitely should not be dissolved. How would you prevent large companies from from stealing smaller companies/individual inventors idea's and mass manufacturing them at a fraction of the cost?
Long before nVidia shipped it's first & failed GPU, nV1, I believe, I'd been using GPUs by ATi & Cirrus Logic, Matrox and several other companies. In those days we called them "graphics processors" because, of course, "unit" is just redundant, there being no difference between a graphics processor and a graphics processing "unit."
nVidia absolutely and categorically did not invent the graphics processing unit. The patent application is really screwy, too...
nVidia doesn't own any part of "Direct X 7," for instance (Microsoft does.) But it's mentioned in their patent. By any lights their attempt at patenting "the gpu" is utterly bogus & false. nVidia isn't alone in this kind of behavior, of course--but that doesn't justify it. Just one more big reason why patents should be dissolved. Let companies compete solely on their implementations of their ideas & concepts, the products they sell. That's what I'd like to see. Send the lawyers packing!
I'm not even really sure what you are talking about.
The 3 patents Nvidia sued for are related to:
Vertex Processing; T&L integrated on a single die (This is the one everyone keeps referring to as "nvidia invented the GPU")
Multihreaded Parallel Processing of Graphics Data
Shadow Mapping Primitives
The first two were found by the judge to be valid, but Samsung did not infringe on them. The third was thrown out.
As for the first one, Nvidia was the first company to integrate Transform and Lighting on a single die with the rest of the package. Nvidia then went and labeled this a "GPU". I probably agree that it's dumb to combine two things then label it, but it doesn't change the fact that they were the first to integrate that.
The same patents came up in the 2011 lawsuit where Intel settled for $1.5B over Six years + access to Intel patents. So obviously they had a case back then that was worth quite a bit of money to them. In this case Nvidia went to Samsung numerous times asking for a licensing agreement, each time Samsung said it wasn't their problem but their partners. Nvidia sued, Samsung counter-sued a random family owned PC company in Virgina in order to fast track their lawsuit through the court system, which is kinda ****ed up in it's own way.
And while I agree that the current patent system is a problem that needs to be addressed, it definitely should not be dissolved. How would you prevent large companies from from stealing smaller companies/individual inventors idea's and mass manufacturing them at a fraction of the cost?
Turanis
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 2014-08-15
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 2014-08-15
#5206397 Posted on: 12/16/2015 05:35 PM
U.S. trade body declines Nvidia's review petition against Samsung
"The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) decided not to review an initial order by an administrative law judge on Oct. 9 as it found no violation of Nvidia's patents related to graphics-processing chips.
Judge Thomas Pender had said Samsung did not infringe two Nvidia patents, and while it did infringe a third, he ruled that the patent was invalid because it was not a new invention compared with previously known patents."
U.S. trade body declines Nvidia's review petition against Samsung
"The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) decided not to review an initial order by an administrative law judge on Oct. 9 as it found no violation of Nvidia's patents related to graphics-processing chips.
Judge Thomas Pender had said Samsung did not infringe two Nvidia patents, and while it did infringe a third, he ruled that the patent was invalid because it was not a new invention compared with previously known patents."
nhlkoho
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Joined: 2005-12-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Joined: 2005-12-06
#5206403 Posted on: 12/16/2015 05:42 PM
This is a more valid case than the whole phone with rounded edges nonsense Apple sued about.
This is a more valid case than the whole phone with rounded edges nonsense Apple sued about.
Turanis
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 2014-08-15
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 2014-08-15
#5206453 Posted on: 12/16/2015 08:14 PM
In Apple vs Samsung case was more about to not touch Apple monopoly on US market.
Thats why competition is always a good thing for any market.
In Apple vs Samsung case was more about to not touch Apple monopoly on US market.
Thats why competition is always a good thing for any market.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 2001-08-12
Major blow for patent troll nVidia very rare they loose a case still that patent is about to expire very soon anyway, assuming it's 20 years that they where granted rather than the typical 14 years.