Nvidia Did Not Invent The (Modern) GPU – ITC Court Rules In Samsung’s Favor

[Raviolay]

I wonder if this will have a effect on the value of the company? Also if it will effect the negotiations with Samsung, in the future when trying to procure components for products.

 

[Pottsey]

The difference is when Apple gets a 6 month ban on products for Samsung people buy the Ipad by the millions and add millions.... when Nvidia do it they'd block Samsung products being sold, Nvidia would continue to sell 10's or even 100's of of Shield's, while everyone just again goes and buys Apple products.

It's a bit nuts to spend potentially 10s of millions in lawyer fees on multi year long cases when your initial selling volume is rubbish, when blocking some imports would really at best move sales from one competitor to another and not improve your bottom line.

I mean it's been described by certain analysis of the situation as making a big show, if you're willing to spend money going after a Samsung sized company then you hope all the smaller companies you go after throw money at you to obtain licenses to prevent being sued. Somehow this is legal, it's pretty much extortion, even blackmail... pay this license fee or we'll spend millions taking you to court and bankrupt you. Can't bankrupt Samsung nor really win, but could intimidate much smaller companies into playing ball.

It makes no sense, looking at the numbers Tegra lost them 100million in the past 6 months which isn't even counting the 10's of millions spent on returns due to the fire hazard. Add on the court cases and we are talking well over 200million operating loss a year.

 

[Steampunk]

The difference is when Apple gets a 6 month ban on products for Samsung people buy the Ipad by the millions and add millions.... when Nvidia do it they'd block Samsung products being sold, Nvidia would continue to sell 10's or even 100's of of Shield's, while everyone just again goes and buys Apple products.

Nvidia obviously thought patent trolling could become a new revenue stream - after all, they actually have the patents, granted to them by the USPO. Like you said, if they could get someone massive to pay up, the others would follow suit.

The fact that this sort of thing ended up in court proves once again that the USPO is broken.

 

[LambChop]

And breathe Samsung, you got off lucky that time.

 

[spikerules]

Hang on wasn't 3dfx Voodoo out before the Geforce 256?

Edit - Ah, just found out Nvidia acquired most of 3dfx Interactive's intellectual property...

 

[Marine-RX179]

And breathe Samsung, you got off lucky that time.

I bet you say that to all the victims of wrongly accused crime

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Hang on wasn't 3dfx Voodoo out before the Geforce 256?

That is true but the Geforce 256 was the first chip with hardware Transform and Lightning (know in the short hand as TnL) It was then nVidia coined the term "GPU". Such things where called 3D accelerators or just 3D cards up to that point.

Its all words on that front but considering the poorly worded first part of the thread title I though it was worth mentioning.

 

[spikerules]

That is true but the Geforce 256 was the first chip with hardware Transform and Lightning (know in the short hand as TnL) It was then nVidia coined the term "GPU". Such things where called 3D accelerators or just 3D cards up to that point.

Its all words on that front but considering the poorly worded first part of the thread title I though it was worth mentioning.

I remember buying my first Voodoo graphics card from GAME in Watford... those were the days

 

[FoxEye]

I remember buying my first Voodoo graphics card from GAME in Watford... those were the days

Had to go 60 miles by train to a Virgin Megastore to buy mine

 

[Pottsey]

That is true but the Geforce 256 was the first chip with hardware Transform and Lightning (know in the short hand as TnL) It was then nVidia coined the term "GPU". Such things where called 3D accelerators or just 3D cards up to that point.

Its all words on that front but considering the poorly worded first part of the thread title I though it was worth mentioning.

Not sure it was even the first GPU with T&L. PowerVR had T&L at the same time and I am sure others did. Perhaps not in the desktop market but that doesn't matter. PowerVR used T&L in the arcade chips. All NVidia did was copy what the arcades did as back then the arcades where ahead of the desktop GPU's.

 

[layte]

Nvidia had the first chip that had T&L and everything integrated in the same piece of Silicon, and they were the first to sell it as a consumer part. The likes of 3dLabs had cards with dedicated but separate T&L hardware before the original GeForce256, but they were frightfully expensive professional cards. PowerVR cards certainly did not have the same functionality during that time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR#Series_3_.28STMicro.29

 

[Pottsey]

Nvidia had the first chip that had T&L and everything integrated in the same piece of Silicon, and they were the first to sell it as a consumer part. The likes of 3dLabs had cards with dedicated but separate T&L hardware before the original GeForce256, but they were frightfully expensive professional cards. PowerVR cards certainly did not have the same functionality during that time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR#Series_3_.28STMicro.29

Yes NVidia was the first with a consumer part but that's not the same as being first or inventing hardware T&L. For example PowerVR hard a hardware T&L board with series 2 it wasn't used in the desktop market but that doesn't matter. NVidia didn't invent anything. EDIT: Neither did PowerVR I was just using that as an example.

 

[bru]

Yes NVidia was the first with a consumer part but that's not the same as being first or inventing hardware T&L. For example PowerVR hard a hardware T&L board with series 2 it wasn't used in the desktop market but that doesn't matter. NVidia didn't invent anything. EDIT: Neither did PowerVR I was just using that as an example.

Yes but it is the same as AMD was first with an APU even though Intel had the westmere chips out before hand, because they had two dies under the heat spreader. So AMD were first to do it all on one die. The same with the Geforce 256 it was the first graphics card to have all the parts of a modern GPU on one die.

 

[Pottsey]

Yes but it is the same as AMD was first with an APU even though Intel had the westmere chips out before hand, because they had two dies under the heat spreader. So AMD were first to do it all on one die. The same with the Geforce 256 it was the first graphics card to have all the parts of a modern GPU on one die.

That doesn’t matter as NVidia was not the first to come up with the idea and integrating the hardware T&L chip into the GPU chip is basic graphics evolution not something you can invent or patent.

Lots of people had hardware T&L and graphics on the same board before NVidia. All NVidia did was follow the same evolution everyone else was following at the same time and integrated the two. What did NVidia invent with this? nothing really all they did was integrate two chips into one.

 

[bru]

So following that logic AMD didn't invent the APU then.

 

[Gerard]

That is true but the Geforce 256 was the first chip with hardware Transform and Lightning (know in the short hand as TnL) It was then nVidia coined the term "GPU". Such things where called 3D accelerators or just 3D cards up to that point.

Its all words on that front but considering the poorly worded first part of the thread title I though it was worth mentioning.

So they say, i remember people calling the voodoo 2 a gpu, to say that nvidia coined the term is debatable to say the least.

 

[arc@css]

Before Nvidia there was only darkness.

You have tickled me, sir, & not for the first time either.

 

[FoxEye]

So following that logic AMD didn't invent the APU then.

I do not think such concepts should be patentable.

The "invention" of an APU, by combining a CPU plus a GPU is not an invention at all. It should no more be patentable than mixing flour, yeast and water.

HOWEVER there may be legitimate inventions in your implementation of an APU; some specific tech you invented to solve a problem inherent in combining them, that could be the basis of a valid patent.

However just having a patent on "an APU" is ridiculous.

Thus nVidia's patent on "a modern GPU" is obvious, and thankfully has been rejected. Considering what the USPO has allowed in the past, it's a minor miracle that they came to this result.

 

[bru]

I do not think such concepts should be patentable.

The "invention" of an APU, by combining a CPU plus a GPU is not an invention at all. It should no more be patentable than mixing flour, yeast and water.

HOWEVER there may be legitimate inventions in your implementation of an APU; some specific tech you invented to solve a problem inherent in combining them, that could be the basis of a valid patent.

However just having a patent on "an APU" is ridiculous.

Thus nVidia's patent on "a modern GPU" is obvious, and thankfully has been rejected. Considering what the USPO has allowed in the past, it's a minor miracle that they came to this result.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, although others may share it, being the first to build something, inventing it and patenting it are three completely different things in this modern world we live in.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

LOL,Samsung is the alternate source for HBM2 too.