Of course NVidia would have had to give away lots of IP in exchange, but they still get that elusive bit of IP they wanted in the first place.
-
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
Of course NVidia would have had to give away lots of IP in exchange, but they still get that elusive bit of IP they wanted in the first place.
Ding Ding.
I don't understand how anyone could read it otherwise (well unless you are a crazy person wanting things to fit a tired agenda). Then again he is the same chap who was mouthing off to all and sundry about evil Nvidia forcing Async to be removed from Tomb Raider. Not only was that not the case, but it had been confirmed to not be the case by a AMD rep on this very forum. People take their choice of GFX card way too seriously, to the point they are willing to make stuff up about the opposing 'team'.
Last edited:
Nvidia have thrown billions at trying to get into Mobiles and failed, Nvidia blame a Samsung / Qualcomm duopoly.
So having failed to take some of Samsung / Qualcomm's market they decided to try and get a share of their revenues by claiming Samsung / Qualcomm were using Nvidia IP, Nvidia failed in that too.
In the end Nvidia lost the whole fight and came to an out of court settlement that is no doubt damaging to Nvidia, but Samsung are not throwing the whole book at them.
Nvidia continue on hyping up chips in Cars, poor Nvidia..... GameWorks Carma
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
Get off your high horse. I got something wrong and admitted as much. You said Samsung paid for Ip's at a knocked down price and Nvidia gave them some cash. Right or wrong?. I have said nothing different to what you said. So in your opinion Samsung are paying for Ip's yet receiving money from Nvidia. Why not just give Samsung the Ip's for a set amount time and give no money lol.
Last edited:
I have no agenda, and I read it that Samsung paid for the IP at knockdown price and gave Nvidia some cash on top as well.
How could anyone read it any other way? I would have to say that the people who read it the other way have the (tired) agenda. Seriously, how can you read it any different?
Just another thing, If Nvidia did have to pay a modest payment, then why couldn't it be 1.5 Billion Dollars? To the likes of me and you that's a massive amount of money. But to Samsung and Nvidia who are turning over billions each year, it's a modest sum of money, especially as the repayment would probably be spread out over a number of years.
How could anyone read it any other way? I would have to say that the people who read it the other way have the (tired) agenda. Seriously, how can you read it any different?
Just another thing, If Nvidia did have to pay a modest payment, then why couldn't it be 1.5 Billion Dollars? To the likes of me and you that's a massive amount of money. But to Samsung and Nvidia who are turning over billions each year, it's a modest sum of money, especially as the repayment would probably be spread out over a number of years.
NVidia's net income last year 630.59million,
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials
Pardon me, are you trying to say that I have a tired agenda?
Maybe you have the agenda and that reflects how you read it? I often see the people who state they have no agenda are in fact the ones with the agenda.
NVidia's net income last year 630.59million,
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials
Thats probably going to be a bit less this year.
Yer I think it will have dropped a bit, a lot that income will of been from the 970 at a guess.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
NVidia's net income last year 630.59million,
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials
250mil of which was pure profit from the Intel licensing deal which I believe the final payment was supposed to be early 2016. It's also precisely why I said it's likely to be a deal spread over multiple years. Intel paid Nvidia 1.5billion but at 250mil a year for 6 years. Nvidia might pay Samsung for example 100mil a year for 8 years, a hefty 'fine' but by being spread out and structured as an IP deal they spin it as positive, for IP they 'need' and doesn't cause them to drop into the red for a year. A one time hit of 500mil would hurt their share price (and chances of keeping the jobs of those who approved a plan to go after Samsung) way more than a 100mil a year IP deal.
Wow, the way you jumped to defence speaks volumes. Because in no way was my post directed at you at all. It was directed at Layte who was the one who mentioned the people with the tired agenda. Maybe you should direct your comment at him.
Well you tell me, if I wrote a sentence like this
"It's far more likely John has got his hands on the new lawnmower he wanted(lets not forget, John Deere do have a lot of lawnmowers) at a knockdown price. Probably a modest cash payment on top as well"
Now, are you seriously going to tell me that means anything other than that John got the lawnmower at a knockdown price with some cash on top?
How can you read that sentence and arrive at the conclusion that John got money??
Last edited:
Edit: I am a spanner. My apologies totally misread it.
Last edited:
I'll look forward to you correcting people with the same vigour you were telling them about evil ol' NV. Wasn't that the cornerstone of your entire argument even?
I was suggesting given what we knew at the time that Samsung had got their hands on a large amount of NV IP indeed at a knock-down price, as well as getting a cash settlement out of Nvidia. Perhaps Samsung did not perceive the value of the patents alone to cover their position. Now we know that no cash payments were involved (as far as we can given the wording.) So everyone was wrong, some about $1.5Bn more than others...
So we are comparing a traditional consumer purchase transaction with a legal dispute. Well at least nobody has done a tired car analogy.
I've explained that you were wrong, and what the intention of my post was, why the need to argue a pointless cause?
Intel deal too, now finished and was significant as drunkenmaster pointed out.
Tho i have no doubt Pascal will do well, still i think Nvidia needed this, a huge chunk of their revenue has come from licencing deals that no longer apply, Discrete GPU's are a pretty small chunk of their business.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I'll look forward to you correcting people with the same vigour you were telling them about evil ol' NV. Wasn't that the cornerstone of your entire argument even?
I was suggesting given what we knew at the time that Samsung had got their hands on a large amount of NV IP indeed at a knock-down price, as well as getting a cash settlement out of Nvidia. Perhaps Samsung did not perceive the value of the patents alone to cover their position. Now we know that no cash payments were involved (as far as we can given the wording.) So everyone was wrong, some about $1.5Bn more than others...
No we don't, you've decided that IP cross licensing deals can't involve cash, based off nothing except it suits your weak argument. What I said was that cash would go as part of licensing deal and that a specific fine called as such would be avoided, it's the primary reason for such a deal.
You are insisting that Samsung get Nvidia IP that first time you stated that they wanted, and now it's a 'large amount of Nvidia IP', both of which are based off Samsung having absolutely no interest in licensing Nvidia IP when Nvidia was out there offering their IP to license which absolutely no one was interested.
Regardless of what you think, even if in this imaginary world of yours where Nvidia had to give Samsung access to 'a large amount of Nvidia's IP', that itself has a monetary value. If Nvidia were offering Maxwell IP licensing for 500mil and anyone could then use it in any product and then Nvidia give that licensing for free as a settlement... they've handed over the equivalent of 500mil. However I suspect that is not what has happened and as I said originally and in which absolutely nothing has changed, Nvidia will be paying Samsung a fairly large amount per year for the length of this cross licensing deal while Samsung pay nothing at all to Nvidia.
You are right though, I do have an agenda, but it isn't an AMD versus Nvidia one. I was just trying to point out that it was easy to misinterpret what he said.
I am not comparing anything and stop with the condescending attitude.
Read the sentence I wrote in the post your quoted and please tell me how can you arrive at the conclusion that John was paid money.
I am not arguing the details or who won what. I am just saying the way you phrased your sentence implies that Samsung paid out money and was easy to misinterpret.
NVidia's net income last year 630.59million,
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials
Pretty good though still even if it is a bit less than 630 million!! They wouldn't be long paying a 1.5 billion settlement if they had to.