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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

under US legislation anyway

https://naturalnewstracker.files.**************/2013/05/world-police-usa.png 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.

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!

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

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?

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."

This is a more valid case than the whole phone with rounded edges nonsense Apple sued about.

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.