Thursday, September 4th 2014
NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Patent Infringement
NVIDIA today announced that it has filed complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm at the International Trade Commission and in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, alleging that the companies are both infringing NVIDIA GPU patents covering technology including programmable shading, unified shaders and multithreaded parallel processing.
The identified Samsung products include the Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S4 mobile phones; and the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro and Galaxy Tab 2 computer tablets. Most of these devices incorporate Qualcomm mobile processors -- including the Snapdragon S4, 400, 600, 800, 801 and 805. Others are powered by Samsung Exynos mobile chips, which incorporate ARM's Mali and Imagination Technologies' PowerVR GPU cores.
NVIDIA co-founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said: "As the world leader in visual computing, NVIDIA has invented technologies that are vital to mobile computing. We have the richest portfolio of computer graphics IP in the world, with 7,000 patents granted and pending, produced by the industry's best graphics engineers and backed by more than $9 billion in R&D.
"Our patented GPU inventions provide significant value to mobile devices. Samsung and Qualcomm have chosen to use these in their products without a license from us. We are asking the courts to determine infringement of NVIDIA's GPU patents by all graphics architectures used in Samsung's mobile products and to establish their licensing value."
A pioneer in computer graphics, NVIDIA invented the GPU. The graphics processing unit enables computers to generate and display images. It brings to life the beautiful graphics that shape how people enjoy their mobile devices and is fundamental to the rise of mobile computing. NVIDIA GPUs are some of the most complex processors ever created, requiring over a thousand engineering-years to create and containing more than 7 billion transistors.
The identified Samsung products include the Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S4 mobile phones; and the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro and Galaxy Tab 2 computer tablets. Most of these devices incorporate Qualcomm mobile processors -- including the Snapdragon S4, 400, 600, 800, 801 and 805. Others are powered by Samsung Exynos mobile chips, which incorporate ARM's Mali and Imagination Technologies' PowerVR GPU cores.
NVIDIA co-founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said: "As the world leader in visual computing, NVIDIA has invented technologies that are vital to mobile computing. We have the richest portfolio of computer graphics IP in the world, with 7,000 patents granted and pending, produced by the industry's best graphics engineers and backed by more than $9 billion in R&D.
"Our patented GPU inventions provide significant value to mobile devices. Samsung and Qualcomm have chosen to use these in their products without a license from us. We are asking the courts to determine infringement of NVIDIA's GPU patents by all graphics architectures used in Samsung's mobile products and to establish their licensing value."
A pioneer in computer graphics, NVIDIA invented the GPU. The graphics processing unit enables computers to generate and display images. It brings to life the beautiful graphics that shape how people enjoy their mobile devices and is fundamental to the rise of mobile computing. NVIDIA GPUs are some of the most complex processors ever created, requiring over a thousand engineering-years to create and containing more than 7 billion transistors.
108 Comments on NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Patent Infringement
Samsung's willingness to fight is pretty well known, and Qualcomm can just add Nvidia to the list that includes ParkerVision, Adaptix, and BandspeedProbably wouldn't. The contract would be between Samsung and the reference board builder (Hon Hai (Foxconn)) and the individual AIB's.
www.phonearena.com/phones/Samsung-Galaxy-S5_id8202
www.anandtech.com/show/7783/qualcomms-snapdragon-801-msm8974ac-the-new-32bit-flagship-until-805
I show a Qualcomm MSM8973AC in mine, so perhaps Nvidia is just butthurt, and trying to get a foothold in the market by trying to force their chips on phone makers? Even though their last one was utter shit, and the new one is already slower than current chips?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_%28system_on_chip%29
Looks like I have the high end variant, using essentially a AMD GPU, from assets acquired by Qualcomm from AMD, being from AMD and not from Nvidia, since its from AMD, and not Nvidia, and since they got it from AMD, and not from Nvidia, and they make the chip with the technology they got from AMD and not Nvidia, it looks like Nvidia is just useing the shotgun approach against the largest android phone maker to try and get in on some action, perhaps poor little Jim No Hung got his little pee pee hurt when they told him to screw off, since they are using AMD GPU tech and not Nvidia, being tech they legally got from AMD, being the company from which they purchased the legal designs, and not Nvidia.
In a market with only a few possible suppliers, it doesn't make business sense to alienate one of them, even if you are in a lawsuit. The more suppliers you have, the more chance you have to negotiate for the lowest prices, which in the end saves more money than a judgment can provide. It's the exact reason why when Apple added TSMC as a SoC manufaturer they still kept Samsung despite the numerous lawsuits.
Anandtech has a more substantial article;Not sure what you're driving at. The litigation centres around the GPU of the SoC, and the GPU in the links you provided clearly point to the Adreno 330. The Samsung models using the Mali GPU chip SPECIFICALLY AVOID those Samsung models using ARM's standard 400-MP. All the Samsung products on the injunction use what appears to be a Samsung-specific Mali T628MP6 (and T760 for the Galaxy Tab 2 although that is also specced for Qualcomm's Adreno 420).
EDIT: After reading through the suit, the actual GPUs involved (see sections 95-98 in the pdf link that Maban posted) affects Qualcomm's Adreno and Imagination's SGX540/544 and ONLY the one Samsung-specific semi-custom T628 - NOT any of ARM's off the shelf designs.
Or should I say HTC
The worst fallout from the Apple v Samsung thing is retarded stuff like this. Some patents are stupid, therefore I will crap all over the internet every single time patents are mentioned, no matter what I know of the subject!
That's why I am just reading. So far HumanSmoke and Maban has proved to be most useful with Steevo being the catalyst in the discussion (by throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks :D - too much Suits watching).
As a result of their conversation I am now convinced the nVidia lawsuit is rightful and hope they can win something out of it.
blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/12/a-timeline-of-intel-and-amds-legal-battles/Not in this solar system, troll.www.androidcentral.com/50000-units-xiaomis-mipad-sold-just-under-four-minutes
blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/08/20/green-and-mean-nvidia-powered-bmw-i8-hits-streets-6-million-cars-now-running-nvidia-processors/AMD is red=rage how they want $700 for free FreeSync.Nvidia must learned this from industry leader AMD?
www.cnet.com/news/intel-to-pay-amd-1-25-billion-in-antitrust-settlement/
About why nvidia should go bankrupt.
Well, simply because I don't see their value in the market whatsoever and without them there will be the better situation. I believe they will bankrupt in the future. ;)
come to think of it dell computers still mostly only come with Intel CPUs. would explain why AMD failed so hard in sales. they've always had issue with R&D budget, had this not happened in the first place AMD quite possibly could have had more for R&D by now.
and of course nvidia is "butthurt". Someone has blatantly ripped off their ideas and used them in their own products (which happen to be better) and with Samsung's capability to make stuff in-house its no wonder their stuff is more popular, even if they more or less copy-paste from someone elses ideas. nVidia has to pay someone else to make their Tegra chips, whereas Samsung can just make theirs themselves, which cuts their costs and increases their profits. In fact... nVidia actually had to go to Samsung to make their Tegra chips in the first place!
www.brightsideofnews.com/2012/03/14/exclusive-nvidia-tapes-out-tegra-at-samsung-fab2c-ibm2c-globalfoundries-next/
would explain how Samsung got their hands on the tech.
oh... and before i'm labeled as a fanboy... look at my system specs.
And I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for them to go bankrupt... actually scratch that, I hope you are. :P
Decreased R&D? Quite possible - Intel gave Dell about a billion dollars to remain Intel exclusive, but you'd need to factor in a few other things, such as
1. While Dell wasn't an AMD customer, Hewlett-Packard was and AMD couldn't keep them or their other OEMs supplied with chips (at least not the better binned ones) - for example1998.....2004....2005
2. When Dell signed on to sell AMD procs in 2006 - initially Opteron servers and a couple of months later desktop, AMD basically diverted H-P's chips to Dell...Dell then went into their famous nosediveand H-P became the number one supplier of computer systems. Oops!
3. AMD's cash supply and fortunes were directly related to the cash they borrowed to buy ATI. Write downs of over half the amount AMD paid out and debt servicing directly led to selling off the cable TV business to Broadcom, the mobile IP business to Qualcomm (which is what is being discussed here), their foundry business to ATIC/Mubadala, and also led directly to AMD narrowing its R&D focus to a modular CPU architecture at the expense of jettisoning the mobile and smartphone processor development in 2008Without Nvidia, we'd have a single discrete graphics maker. Some people might find this attractive, but I'm guessing that prices wouldn't remain at present levels. Some people it seems put fanboyism ahead of monetary consideration - an odd stance since the same people tend to level the same criticism at people that buy Nvidia products.
Last I checked, nVidia actually does R&D. Last I checked, they actually sell physical hardware, in stores.
I really wish people would understand exactly what a patent trolls is. Even Apple, as much as most people disagree with their litigious nature (myself included), are not patent trolls. They actually produce real products.
You want to see what a real patent troll looks like, look up Intellectual Ventures.You people never seem to cease to amaze me just how fricken' short-sighted you all are. You really think we'd be better off with a GPU landscape of just AMD? There's only two companies that make dedicated GPUs for system builders and OEMs, and that's AMD and nVidia. Only two that make professional graphics cards for CAD work in the form of FirePros and Quadros. And that's AMD and nVidia.
But you, in your infinite wisdom believe that in such a hotly contested field with only two competitors to keep prices in check....would be better off with one of them going bankrupt?
Jesus H. Christ....
AMD and Intel would be perfectly fine as a remaining companies, and of course, nvidia can be replaced by someone better than them.
Should I list you the reasons why I am so unhappy with nvidia and their practices? :rolleyes:
What competitor does AMD have besides nVidia in selling to OEMs and system builders? If you're still wondering, the answer is none. No one cares why you don't like nVidia. We're better off with two competitors than one that rules the entire market. Competition helps keep prices down and forces innovation, it's as simple as that. If you disagree, you're wrong. This has nothing to do with opinions, these are facts and it doesn't matter if you disagree; you're just wrong.