I work for one of those companies, although it has no relevance at all I believe Xerox first used a mouse on pc ( not sure if they invented it ) and helped invent the www. and ibm helped invent the Internet and indeed had the first multicore cpu.
-
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
I work for one of those companies, although it has no relevance at all I believe Xerox first used a mouse on pc ( not sure if they invented it ) and helped invent the www. and ibm helped invent the Internet and indeed had the first multicore cpu.
the hammer was supposed to be droped yesterday by the ITC on Nvidia's head, but they managed to find an agreement with samsung ( terms not disclosed, but apparently it wasn't about money ), judging by the position Nvidia was in, it musn't have been fun.
more info on the full (translated) article by Hardware.fr
more info on the full (translated) article by Hardware.fr
So Nvidia lost their legal challenge while Samsung won their counter challenge which was only made because Nvidia started this whole thing.
A hard lesson learned, Nvidia. in the end it looks like Samsung let Nvidia off the hook.
Last edited:
Its what happens when you take a competitive policy that is disruptive to your competitors and its successful, you get too confident and arrogant until you inevitably try to take a bite out a fish bigger than you and it retaliates leaving you wounded.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Samsung almost certainly didn't let Nvidia off the hook, Samsung got paid one way or another, just that it wasn't a straight up fine payment. I suspect that in the same way Nvidia was patent trolling trying to get people to licence their IP that Nvidia will all of a sudden be paying Samsung a couple hundred mil a year for 5-10 years for using said infringed upon IP.
I suspect nothing of the sort. Seems they have worked out a cross licensing agreement. I'd imagine Samsung got the better end of that one, but to think NV would agree to such ridiculous payments without more of a fight is up there with some of your classics.
Feel free to wall-o-text me, but if you do. I'll be back in a few months when Nvidia's financial results show no such huge payments and I'll have my best 'I told you so' hat on.
Feel free to wall-o-text me, but if you do. I'll be back in a few months when Nvidia's financial results show no such huge payments and I'll have my best 'I told you so' hat on.
That's about as close as you will get to saynig Nvidia tried to patent troll Samsung and failed abysmally. Samsung won this and will most certainly have only called off the attack dogs because Nvidia bent over and spread their cheeks wide enough. I would say the end of the stick Samsung held onto didn't have pooh on it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Now all we need is for Samsung to buy AMD 
Patent troll this, patent troll that. We can call NVidia patent trolls all we like (and yes I think they were stupid to start this just the same as a lot of others here) but they must have thought they had a case right at the start, as no sane company starts something like this just for gits and shiggles.
Anyway it is all resolved now and we will never know the detail of who gave who what and you can be certain that it isn't just NVidia giving to Samsung, else it wouldn't be announced as a cross licensing deal.
Anyway it is all resolved now and we will never know the detail of who gave who what and you can be certain that it isn't just NVidia giving to Samsung, else it wouldn't be announced as a cross licensing deal.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I suggest you read up on other lawsuits involving patent cases between big companies and the fines or IP deals that went down after them.
Nvidia themselves have been getting around 200mil a year from Intel for the past 5 years to settle a vaguely similar case. In fact it's fairly standard, Nvidia lost this hands down, completely, Samsung HAD WON the case already, how much Nvidia was to be fined was the only thing left to settle and when the case goes out of court it's usually a saving face situation. Samsung had nothing to lose by going to court, the only way it benefited Samsung to settle out of court is to get more than they thought they'd get from letting the judge hand out a fine. The thing Nvidia had to gain was the non public loss of such a massive case, a potentially huge fine and how that would look to their shareholders. A IP licensing deal is far easier to sell to their shareholders as a good deal even if it costs more. IE hey, we entered a IP deal with Samsung for 1.5billion dollars over 5 years, looks eleventy billion times better than hey, we got fined 1 billion for that stupid court battle we started. There is also the fact that a fine may be asked to be paid in one go meaning one quarter you get horrific numbers, paying a little more but over an extended period of time makes the loss look much smaller.
Ask yourself this, if you were a company who had won outright and were looking forward to a big sum being paid as a fine... what would persuade you to agree to a settlement, taking less money, or more? If you were going to lose said case, would you pay a bit more to actually licence said IP and not publicly take a huge fine that will hit your share price?
Again I'd urge you to look up similar patent cases, hell all the ones involving Samsung themselves previously. It's likely that a huge number of Nvidia products shipped in the past 5-10 years violated the Samsung patents, but you think they paid 5mil out of court to make it go away? These companies work on billions of dollars a year, they shift huge volume and these cases rarely go for small sums.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
For starters the numbers usually show up in financial records somewhere as you could find Intel's payments to Nvidia. Second, yeah you can be pretty sure it is one way. Companies pay to look good or less bad in these situations so the name of said deal well, Intel and Nvidia have a 'cross licensing' deal in which Intel pay Nvidia and Nvidia have no access to any Intel IP nor pay Intel anything.... hint, hint.
The case was already decided, Samsung broke a grand total of zero patents from Nvidia.... if they didn't settle they'd get a fat cheque from Nvidia for whatever fine the court determined. How do you go from big fat cheque one way because only Nvidia was remotely at fault to a cross licensing deal where Samsung are paying Nvidia, where is the logical step there, what would Samsung pay Nvidia for exactly, the patents the judge invalidated or the ones he threw out, the ones Samsung didn't break?
Now all we need is for Samsung to buy AMD
That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
The article makes it clear there is no cross licencing deal.
Samsung had Nvidia over a barrel, it could have resulted in the courts ordering Nvidia to cease trading whatever product was infringing Samsungs patents, it was entirely upto Nvidia to avoid that.
The chances are Nvidia bent over somewhat, but i still think Samsung would have let them off lightly when considering what they could have done.
Samsung had Nvidia over a barrel, it could have resulted in the courts ordering Nvidia to cease trading whatever product was infringing Samsungs patents, it was entirely upto Nvidia to avoid that.
The chances are Nvidia bent over somewhat, but i still think Samsung would have let them off lightly when considering what they could have done.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,410
- Location
- Rugby
Now all we need is for Samsung to buy AMD
Never going to happen AMD have very little samsung want
lol, you don't know what IP AMD have and certainly no idea what Samsung want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,410
- Location
- Rugby
That is true but I just don't see it happening, Company only buy smaller company's there they have something they want. I don't see samsung wanting to get into the discreet CPU or GPU business considering there tech and how little market share AMD have. The only thing I see Samsung wanting is some of there patent maybe.
Samsung already have great mobile CPU business and if the rumour and true a mobile GPU as well, as well as all the rest like Ram and NAND designs etc backed by cutting edge fabs.
Just my opinion I just don't see it personally.