-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
ITC judge rules Nvidia infringes Samsung patents
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Like I said. Lets come back to this when we see Nvidia's financial results and it shows no payments anywhere near your mental figures. As you couldn't resist the wall of waffle I'm going to go full 'I told you so'.
Not even the crazy Apple/Samsung case that was headline news across the world involved the numbers you are tossing about. It's far more likely (to people who don't dream up anti NV fantasies) that Samsung have forced NV to license IP that they want at very little cost.
Oh and just to correct you. Samsung had not won outright. It still had to go for review in front of the full ITC panel. Even then if an import ban had been put down, how long until the USG overturned it given NV parts are a vital component in government bound supercomputers. Plus it would have no doubt been held up by appeals by Nvidia, probably long enough for the patents to expire given their age. So, the situation was not as simplistic as you seem to believe.
It seems crazy that according to yourself Samsung were in line for a cash bonanza never seen before in the history of patent disputes, yet at the last minute they agreed to settle things behind closed doors.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I hope this is just a tongue in cheek or sarcastic remark...you gonna rub lots of people off the wrong way here
true the letige was about tablets and shields, which i dont think is a big earner for Nvidia, the worst case would have been portion of what they sold in the US from tablets /shields, and ban on future sales, pretty sure ppl could get a close figure from nvidia earning reports.
so it's probably couple hundred lmils not in billions unless Nvidia had some big plans for their tegra chip, not yet announced.
Like I said. It's far more likely Samsung have got their hands on specific IP they wanted (lets not forget, NV do have a lot of graphics IP) at a knockdown price. Probably a modest cash payment on top as well. The numbers DM is getting worked up over are nonsense.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86/2
Firstly no, the amount I suggested isn't even slightly, marginally, excessive. The apple/Samsung lawsuits were over patents but weren't licensing deals. Intel/Nvidia settled with a 'cross licensing deal' in which Intel got nothing but paid 1.5billion.
As for being crazy to settle, no I completely explained why if Samsung were in line for cash they would settle, they wouldn't unless they were to get the same or more via the settlement and Nvidia would pay more for a settlement which could be passed off as an IP agreement and avoid any potential products being withdrawn from sale.
Yes the situation is as simplistic as I believed it to be, I didn't claim no appeals, but everyone else on earth could see that Nvidia's claimed patents were ridiculous, Nvidia themselves withdrew 3 or 4 of them before proceeding with the case because they were the absolutely most ridiculous ones, the rest have iirc, been invalidated. There is little reason for Samsung to believe that on appeal Nvidia would win and if Nvidia weren't at least reasonably assured of winning or reducing the fine there is nothing to suggest they would appeal as it would be throwing money away.
You are the one in fantasy land saying Samsung will license this IP at very little cost.
Read up on the wording of the Intel deal, it was outwardly supposed to not look too bad, cross licensing, but it was completely, 100% one way. Why did Intel do this, because it was better than losing a public court case and paying a similar fee in a straight up fine.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
So Nvidia have literally been out there offering to license their GPUs.... Samsung weren't interested, Nvidia took them to court, Nvidia lost, Nvidia was found to impinge on Samsung patents. but in your world where you call me in fantasy land you think Samsung settled to get Nvidia patents they wanted and maybe a modest amount of cash on top.
Samsung would simply have licensed this IP when it was offered to them if they wanted it, they didn't. The idea that they want any IP from Nvidia is something you've conjured up from literally nothing and the idea that Nvidia will be paying a low cost for this is again flying in the face of such previous cases.
Samsung has had huge fines but not had to license IP off Apple as well... take that fine and add on a potential licensing fee and that is the numbers you're looking at for Nvidia.
From said article.
Yes so your quite right the article makes it quite clear it isn't a cross licensing deal.....er oh wait, no it actually says the exact opposite to that.
Even though NVidia were clearly stupid to start this, I'm really not sure how Samsung are the good guys.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Hmm, surely volumes come in to it. Typically courts award damages. Samsung would have still had to show that Nvidia damaged them by not licencing their IP, the value of said licence would be based on fair terms, typically on a per device basis. Nvidia revenue and volumes are an order of.magnitude less than Intel or Samsung.
The press releases from Samsung and Nvidia say its a cross licencing deal with an exchange of patents only and with no "other compensation".
knowing the small market nvidia tablets and shields have , it's no surprise that a company like samsung making like 30bill revenue a year wouldn't be interested in cash, thats a drop in bucket for them.
i dont see samsung interested in gpu ip from nvidia, but i see them interested in VR IPs or like the thing Nvidia is working on for high refresh rate panels, samsung have gearVR afterall, and are rumored to be working on a New high end VR headset to compete with Vive and oculus.
i dont see samsung interested in gpu ip from nvidia, but i see them interested in VR IPs or like the thing Nvidia is working on for high refresh rate panels, samsung have gearVR afterall, and are rumored to be working on a New high end VR headset to compete with Vive and oculus.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Samsung make more like 300bn revenue per year
a quarter a year who cares, so much money it isn't even funny
Last edited:
Lets be honest here, no matter who sued whom and what was agreed between them, you can bet that part of this settlement was
"Okay we will give you this, this and this as long as you tone down the statements in the media as to the details of this deal"
A companies public status, integrity and reputation are worth more than money and things of this nature can bring companies to their knees if the eyes of the world lose faith in that company.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a toning down of any deal in the eyes of the media was a part of that deal.
"Okay we will give you this, this and this as long as you tone down the statements in the media as to the details of this deal"
A companies public status, integrity and reputation are worth more than money and things of this nature can bring companies to their knees if the eyes of the world lose faith in that company.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a toning down of any deal in the eyes of the media was a part of that deal.
No, they have obviously got it at a fraction of what NV were touting it at originally, perhaps along with IP they were not offering. If it involved the kind of numbers your imagination is getting all worked up over NV would have fought this in the courts for years. Those kind of numbers would be a critical blow. Even Samsung themselves fought tooth and nail against the record breaking Apple settlement, which was for hundreds of millions less than you are hilariously touting.
It'll be interesting to see how long you ignore the thread when NV post future financial results and they don't show anything even close to your fantasy figures. As you do every single time you are proven wrong.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Lets be honest here, no matter who sued whom and what was agreed between them, you can bet that part of this settlement was
"Okay we will give you this, this and this as long as you tone down the statements in the media as to the details of this deal"
A companies public status, integrity and reputation are worth more than money and things of this nature can bring companies to their knees if the eyes of the world lose faith in that company.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a toning down of any deal in the eyes of the media was a part of that deal.
Exactly, it's happened multiple times before. As I've said previously, to share holders and your own board it sounds much better to pay 1.5billion for an IP licensing deal over 5 years than to pay 1billion fine in one go which will put your entire year in the red and one quarter a complete disaster. This is even more important when you probably persuaded/lied to your board about the chances of success of trying to patent troll an international giant of a corporation.
Every single source I can find which currently isn't a statement by Samsung or Nvidia directly says some variation of...
Not a single source states no other compensation, just that everything else is secret, which in these cases screams they paid to hide how badly they got screwed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's quite amazing you keep using Apple/Samsung lawsuit as a reference but keep point blank refusing to acknowledge the Nvidia/Intel cross licensing settlement which is a more direct comparison.
One 1.5billion settlement isn't a critical blow, that you think so again suggests you have no idea of the figures and values involved. It's not actually similar to the Apple/Samsung cases at all, being that those didn't involve licensing IP nor did either company settle.
$1.5Bn You are utterly mental. That would be the largest tech based IP settlement in history. (Edit: Second to correct myself, after this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/business/marvell-ordered-to-pay-1-54-billion-in-patent-suit.html)
Thankfully as a publicly traded company it will be easy to see from their financial results if they are suddenly having to pay out large amounts. Then we can all come back to this thread and laugh at you when it doesn't happen.
Thankfully as a publicly traded company it will be easy to see from their financial results if they are suddenly having to pay out large amounts. Then we can all come back to this thread and laugh at you when it doesn't happen.
Last edited:
It would be a third of their entire annual revenue you loon. No company on the planet would lie down over numbers like that. Stop being so ridiculous.