ITC judge rules Nvidia infringes Samsung patents

Kaapstad · 5 May 2016 at 09:33

I sometimes think that these type of threads and also AMD/NVidia quarterly results threads should go in The General Discussion section as they have nothing to do with actual GPUs.

drunkenmaster · 5 May 2016 at 10:49

Stanners said:
Who said anything about anyone been best friends, people have stated the outcome. It is two corporations doing what they do best. Claim/Court/verdict/agreement, They will both do what is best for them in the circumstances. Welcome to the business world.

None of this is disputed anywhere in this thread, A claim was made that there would be a large compensation package to Samsung, From what we have seen this is not happening, but some sort of licensing agreement that no doubt suits Samsung a lot more as they won the case.

Please explain why, when Samsung won the case, it would suit Samsung a lot more rather than entirely.

Once again, a similar outcome with a complete loss and a few hours away from a ruling in Nvidia's favour a similar cross license deal was struck. That cross license deal meant Nvidia got 1.5billion and Intel got nothing at all. the winning side got everything, the losing party lost 1.5billion but as a result of the deal got to sell it to their board as a (extremely dodgy looking) win, hey we didn't lose we just licensed some IP. To be fair Intel did still win, due to how it went down and the time frames involved they basically forced Nvidia out of the chipset market for Intel boards.

There is nothing to suggest this settlement would be any different.

layte · 5 May 2016 at 11:13

Keep digging, you may eventually come out the other side. :lol:

queamin · 5 May 2016 at 11:29

What makes me laugh is that you think Samsung who won the case and are a lot larger would let Nvidia off of course not they would rake Nvidia over the coals as they won, now look at the past with bumpgate, fermi and others it is always someone else's fault not Nvidia's at the first chance they do a PR stunt to redirect the blame somewhere else to save face and this is more likely the same sort of stunt to save face.

You do not get as big and powerful as Samsung and play nice, if Samsung will go against Apple who have a lot more money than Nvidia, they will not think twice about Nvidia and to think they would throw away a win is just stupid.

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 11:31

drunkenmaster said:
Please explain why, when Samsung won the case, it would suit Samsung a lot more rather than entirely.

Once again, a similar outcome with a complete loss and a few hours away from a ruling in Nvidia's favour a similar cross license deal was struck. That cross license deal meant Nvidia got 1.5billion and Intel got nothing at all. the winning side got everything, the losing party lost 1.5billion but as a result of the deal got to sell it to their board as a (extremely dodgy looking) win, hey we didn't lose we just licensed some IP. To be fair Intel did still win, due to how it went down and the time frames involved they basically forced Nvidia out of the chipset market for Intel boards.

There is nothing to suggest this settlement would be any different.

Because I am assuming that some form of negotiation went on to reach a settlement between the party's, Nvidia will not just of agreed to what ever Samsung asked. Samsung had all the power but it does not mean Nvidia would just role over and give them anything they wanted. What do you think DM, Samsung demanded x,y and z and Nvidia just gave it to them with no negotiations?

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 11:33

queamin said:
What makes me laugh is that you think Samsung who won the case and are a lot larger would let Nvidia off of course not they would rake Nvidia over the coals as they won, now look at the past with bumpgate, fermi and others it is always someone else's fault not Nvidia's at the first chance they do a PR stunt to redirect the blame somewhere else to save face and this is more likely the same sort of stunt to save face.

You do not get as big and powerful as Samsung and play nice, if Samsung will go against Apple who have a lot more money than Nvidia, they will not think twice about Nvidia and to think they would throw away a win is just stupid.

Again, who is actually saying any of this, People are just ranting over something that has not been said.

queamin · 5 May 2016 at 11:37

Well if you look at some posts they spin them into that Nvidia did well out of it and lets be honest they are/were on their back foot and more likely forced into a big compromise from Samsung.
I am saying a large company like Samsung don't let off someone they got by the balls that is all.

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 11:40

queamin said:
Well if you look at some posts they spin them into that Nvidia did well out of it and lets be honest they are/were on their back foot and more likely forced into a big compromise from Samsung.
I am saying a large company like Samsung don't let off someone they got by the balls that is all.

Nvidia lost the case, They came to an agreement with Samsung over loosing the case. That is what I am seeing been said. Please point out to me where anyone is making out that Nvidia have come out of it well.

Marine-RX179 · 5 May 2016 at 11:44

Stanners said:
Nvidia lost the case, They came to an agreement with Samsung over loosing the case. That is what I am seeing been said. Please point out to me where anyone is making out that Nvidia have come out of it well.

I think some people are probably referring to post such as this?

layte said:
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.

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 11:46

Marine-RX179 said:
I think some people are probably referring to post such as this?

Well that is not saying Nvidia came out of it well, It is someones opinion of what Samsung got?

Those IP's could normally cost companies millions for all I know, So Samsung did well etc.

Or am I not seeing something.

TheRealDeal · 5 May 2016 at 11:47

Stanners said:
Well that is not saying Nvidia came out of it well, It is someones opinion of what Samsung got?

Or am I not seeing something.

The post is saying Samsung had to pay Nvidia lol. I doubt Samsung had to pay anything. So basically Nvidia lose the case but still get paid at a knocked down rate for some IP. I see that as a Nvidia win.

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 11:49

TheRealDeal said:
The post is saying Samsung had to pay Nvidia lol. I doubt Samsung had to pay anything. So basically Nvidia lose the case but still get paid at a knocked down rate for some IP. I see that as a Nvidia win.

I read it as Samsung got the modest cash payment.

Layte could maybe clarify what he meant?

TheRealDeal · 5 May 2016 at 11:52

Stanners said:
I read it as Samsung got the modest cash payment.

Layte could maybe clarify what he meant?

The top part says Samsung get ip at a knocked down rate and then Nvidia hand them a modest payout. Makes no sense really. Samsung pay for IP and Nv give them a modest payout. That's almost like a stalemate.

Tbh it's a secretive deal so we may never know what went on. Anyone of the theories could hold true but one things for sure Samsung gained and Nv lost. That's what usually happens when there is a winner and loser in business.

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 11:59

No idea, I read it as Samsung got the IP and a modest amount amount of cash. Nvidia will of been out of pocket for a large sum either way.

You are correct on the we will never know. I suppose if there was a large cash payment it would show on the end of year financials.

tommybhoy · 5 May 2016 at 12:01

Stanners said:
Samsung demanded x,y and z and Nvidia just gave it to them with no negotiations?

Samsung had Nv bent over at the end of the day as their K1 is selling like hot cakes worldwide because of its price.

Likelihood is Samsung got X, perhaps maybe even Y and didn't get Z.

Make no mistake, Nv cluster****ed it and it's now costing them.

We'll foot the bill and probably gladly pay it too as Nv's gpu products are wiping the floor of AMD.

Stanners · 5 May 2016 at 12:08

tommybhoy said:
Samsung had Nv bent over at the end of the day as their K1 is selling like hot cakes worldwide because of its price.

Likelihood is Samsung got X, perhaps maybe even Y and didn't get Z.

Make no mistake, Nv cluster****ed it and it's now costing them.

We'll foot the bill and probably gladly pay it too as Nv's gpu products are wiping the floor of AMD.

Yup about sums it up

bru · 5 May 2016 at 12:17

TheRealDeal said:
Anyone of the theories could hold true

Aha, so I reckon that right back at the beginning NVidia saw some IP that Samsung had that they wanted and concocted the whole pattern infringement case to get to this end where they could strike a deal and get this IP from Samsung.

Well it is feasible, just as a huge 1.5 billion dollar pay out is.

Marine-RX179 · 5 May 2016 at 12:20

To be frank, there has been no implication that Nvidia has anything Samsung wants. I mean Samsung was doing their own thing minding their own business doing their own designs, and then Nvidia out of the blue decided it was a good idea to try to patent troll them...

bru · 5 May 2016 at 12:26

Marine-RX179 said:
To be frank, there has been no implication that Nvidia has anything Samsung wants. I mean Samsung was doing their own thing minding their own business doing their own designs, and then Nvidia out of the blue decided it was a good idea to try to patent troll them...

Well to be fair I'm pretty sure that when NVidia decided to go after Samsung they didn't see it as patent trolling, even though that is certainly the way the rest of us see it.

Unless of course my bizarre conspiracy above is actual accurate....lol

TheRealDeal · 5 May 2016 at 12:29

bru said:
Aha, so I reckon that right back at the beginning NVidia saw some IP that Samsung had that they wanted and concocted the whole pattern infringement case to get to this end where they could strike a deal and get this IP from Samsung.

Well it is feasible, just as a huge 1.5 billion dollar pay out is.

I did say Samsung won not Nvidia. In your theory Nvidia gains which you can be sure never happened unless they took something hefty up the wrong un. All the bargaining power would have been with Samsung. Knowing Jen he probably entered negotiations wearing a Charlie sheen winning shirt.