I rly did not know if I should cry or laugh at that comment.

the more i see you post...the more i like you

nVidia was trying to prove that the term "GPU" was an actual unique and original product that it alone invented...and what a load of horse-hockey that was...;) Before nVidia shipped the failed nV1, tens of millions of people were using what were commonly called "graphics processors" and made by companies like the old ATi & Matrox. I was one of them. nVidia comes along (after 3dfx began) and its marketing arm at some point starts calling nVidia graphics processors "graphics processing units" to make it sound more impressive like "cpu"--central processing unit, etc. That's fine for an acronym--GPU--but of course the word "unit" tacked on to the phrase "graphics processor" is redundant--a graphics processor is by definition a graphics processing unit. But nVidia was trying to twist reality around and claim that a "GPU" was an entirely new, never heard of before and never seen kind of graphics processor. And of course had the court ruled in nVidia's favor against Samsung then nVidia would have started trying to collect royalties from every company that makes a GPU, starting with Samsung--on account of nVidia's claim that it invented the GPU. But fortunately that didn't happen and the court slammed nVidia down hard for that load of unadulterated garbage. (RAMBUS, move over--here comes nVidia!) But ironically enough, when nVidia sued Samsung, Samsung returned the favor with a counter-suit and now it looks like things are actually going Samsung's way as nVidia has lost its original GPU suit against Samsung and Samsung looks to be prevailing in its counter-suit accusing nVidia of violating three of Samsung's patents! Poetic justice always smells so sweet, doesn't it?...;) I don't know how all of this will turn out--I'm just happy with the court affirming that GPU is an acronym that everyone uses today (like "CPU") and no one owns a patent to the acronym GPU--but it belongs to everyone. Sorry nVidia--get y'er greedy mitts off!

You keep bringing this up every thread about Samsung/Nvidia and it's not true. Nvidia owns a patent regarding T&L integration on a "a single semiconductor platform". When they were granted this patent they popularized it as calling their cards as a "GPU" where as AMD at the time was calling their devices "VPU". This is the patent that everyone refers to as "Nvidia invented the GPU". The method of integration is specific in the patent: (https://www.google.com/patents/US6992667). They definitely didn't just say "oh we own the word GPU now" you can't patent a word, nor can you patent an idea for something as vague as "GPU". Their patent was specific and they were under the assumption that Samsung was violating that patent. The court ruled that Nvidia's patent is actually valid but that Samsung wasn't infringing on it. And honestly I don't see anything wrong with that. If Nvidia didn't attempt to defend themselves and it later turned out Samsung was violating it for some time, Nvidia could potentially lose the patent. Plus it's not like Nvidia goes around suing people for patents. Their attack against Samsung is the first time Nvidia ever used their patents offensively. Samsung responded to Nvidia by suing a little mom and pop shop in VA, Velocity Micro because they wanted to fast track their response through VA's court system. That to me is much worse than what Nvidia has done here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-05/nvidia-wins-trial-brought-by-samsung-over-memory-chip-patent Apparently two of Samsung's patent suits got tossed and they just lost the third and last one. Old thread but I figured I'd update it instead of posting a new one.

Samsung was not this bad with patents before...I think the big problem is they have been burned in the past with patents, so now they just join in on the war.

nvidia started this whole mess in the first place. it wasnt just samsung mucking around for the fun of it 😀

Serious question - how does a company like Samsung figure out that Nvidia infringes on such obscure patents like this? Color me ignorant, but these infringed designs don't seem like something you can obviously spot. Samsung, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with the manufacturing or design process of nvidia products. This isn't the first time something like this has come up, so I find it real suspicious that these companies are able to know about these infringements so easily, if at all.

Electron microscopes?

Electron microscopes?

I see that as highly unlikely. I figure electron microscopes aren't something you use simply because you want to spy on your competitors' designs. Besides, I can't imagine that even an expert would be able to figure out just by looking at a group of transistors that this patent was infringed upon, and to know exactly where to look to find said group. Remember, these days the average processor die has hundreds of millions to billions of transistors. When attempting to reverse-engineer a design, that just sounds incredibly cost-ineffective, especially when you consider it doesn't guarantee a plausible lawsuit, let alone a lawsuit guaranteed to win. I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think Samsung has this much time, money, and resources to throw away on what seems to have been a hunch. But suppose they did do this, I would be interested to know if they did the same with their competitors.

I see that as highly unlikely. I figure electron microscopes aren't something you use simply because you want to spy on your competitors' designs. Besides, I can't imagine that even an expert would be able to figure out just by looking at a group of transistors that this patent was infringed upon, and to know exactly where to look to find said group. Remember, these days the average processor die has hundreds of millions to billions of transistors. When attempting to reverse-engineer a design, that just sounds incredibly cost-ineffective, especially when you consider it doesn't guarantee a plausible lawsuit, let alone a lawsuit guaranteed to win. I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think Samsung has this much time, money, and resources to throw away on what seems to have been a hunch. But suppose they did do this, I would be interested to know if they did the same with their competitors.

The only way they do it, no. But it is done. Google 'electron microscope reverse engineering'. The analysis from the layout would be done by a computer.

I see that as highly unlikely. I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think Samsung has this much time, money, and resources

based on wat? nothing? oh.

based on wat? nothing? oh.

Yeah, that attitude isn't bound to backfire... It wouldn't surprise me if you're the type of person who thinks the technology involved to in shows like CSI or House MD are used on a regular basis in real life too. Sure, maybe the vast majority of that technology actually exists, but do you know how rarely any of those things are ever actually used to investigate a problem? Do you have any idea how expensive electron microscopes are for fabrication facilities? With the exception of Intel within the past year, just about every single nano-scale semiconductor producer has bought resources like tantalum or gold from corrupt people in Congo, simply because it's a little bit cheaper. In other words, they're willing to let people get killed for the lowest bid. Does that sound like the kind of person or company who is willing to use a resource as valuable as an electron microscope for a gamble?

Yeah, that attitude isn't bound to backfire... It wouldn't surprise me if you're the type of person who thinks the technology involved to in shows like CSI or House MD are used on a regular basis in real life too.

based on wat? nothing? oh.

Yeah, that attitude isn't bound to backfire... It wouldn't surprise me if you're the type of person who thinks the technology involved to in shows like CSI or House MD are used on a regular basis in real life too. Sure, maybe the vast majority of that technology actually exists, but do you know how rarely any of those things are ever actually used to investigate a problem? Do you have any idea how expensive electron microscopes are for fabrication facilities? With the exception of Intel within the past year, just about every single nano-scale semiconductor producer has bought resources like tantalum or gold from corrupt people in Congo, simply because it's a little bit cheaper. In other words, they're willing to let people get killed for the lowest bid. Does that sound like the kind of person or company who is willing to use a resource as valuable as an electron microscope for a gamble?

Any and every chip maker has an electron microscope if not multiple. How would they check yield quality, make sure the layout happened properly, watch the chip operate in real time. There is even a machine that shave the chip down like a few atoms at a time and every layer is looked at.

Infringing on patents can be done by accident. You can't make a D pad 4 way button for a gamepad without infringing someone's patent. Some patents are the process for making something too so if you make it, you already infringed on it because there is no other way known.