When you can't sell your hardware on its own merits...

[Pottsey]

“And you don't think that if they had developed and patented the technology before Nvidia that it would have made it into an end product sooner?”

No because that’s not how it works. PowerVR produce technology but don’t for the most part produce the products themselves. A 3rd party company has to see an interest in the technology and licence it. Take ray tracing it took around 4 years after development to get put in a product. 4 to 6 year is the average cycle time from PowerVR creating technology to ending up in products. What’s important for the NV court case is when the technology was created not when consumed had products in there hands.

As for T&L not being in end products well the companies who licence technology from PowerVR decided T&L wasn’t worth it rightly or wrongly but that’s what they decided. We know PowerVR had the hardware T&L technology so it was there choice not to implant it.

For the Kyro 1 I think they were right T&L was a waste of time. For Kyro 2 it’s a bit of a pointless debate on rather Kyro 2 should or shouldn’t have had full hardware T&L. There are arguments for both sides.

“Oh and despite being an IP company they never took any issue with Nvidia gaining market dominance via the use of one of their patents... right...”

For the past 20 years all the major companies have been following similar paths and not suing each other over shared features. Some of these features have been in GPU’s for 15 to 18 years. Why sue now? Why not all those years ago? This is going be a hard question for NV to explain. PowerVR had graphic chips out before NV should PowerVR sue NV over producing graphics?

“Series 2 didn't have an option for HW T&L, that's the whole reason the NAOMI 2 needed to have an additional T&L co-processor, because its series 2 GPU's couldn't do it!”

Series 2 was designed to work alongside a module co-processor for hardware T&L. The impotent part is this proves PowerVR had hardware T&L technology.

 

[ubersonic]

What’s important for the NV court case is when the technology was created not when consumed had products in there hands.

We know PowerVR had the hardware T&L technology so it was there choice not to implant it.

The problem with that though is that it's entirely your opinion, and the is no evidence to back it up, just more of your opinion on how long it takes to get something to market (which was waaay off with the SEGA NAOMI 2).

Why sue now? Why not all those years ago? This is going be a hard question for NV to explain.

According to their statement (which was posted a while back) this lawsuit is the culmination of years and years of attempted diplomacy and failed negotiation.

Series 2 was designed to work alongside a module co-processor for hardware T&L. The impotent part is this proves PowerVR had hardware T&L technology.

Impotent is actually not a typo there because as has already been said that's irrelevant in relation to this lawsuit/patent as they pertain to HW T&L done by the GPU, something PowerVR didn't have until years after Nvidia (and ATi).

 

[Pottsey]

The problem with that though is that it's entirely your opinion, and the is no evidence to back it up, just more of your opinion on how long it takes to get something to market (which was waaay off with the SEGA NAOMI 2).

No it’s not my opinion. I took those timeframes from what PowerVR said in the meetings and roadmaps which anyone is free to download from the investor page on there website (audio link). What is opinion is your point of view which you have so far shown no evidence to back you self-up. 4 to 6 years is the timeframe on average given by the CEO of PowerVR.

According to their statement (which was posted a while back) this lawsuit is the culmination of years and years of attempted diplomacy and failed negotiation.

Only 2 years dating back to 2012. Why wait 13 years?

impotent is actually not a typo there because as has already been said that's irrelevant in relation to this lawsuit/patent as they pertain to HW T&L done by the GPU, something PowerVR didn't have until years after Nvidia (and ATi).

As I read the patent its not T&L done by the GPU it T&L don't on a hardware platform which counts co processors. Even if I am wrong on that I don’t see how it’s irrelevant. You cannot patent against progression of a technology. Moving a co processer on board a single GPU chip is progression and does not break patent rules. NVidia cannot patent the development of a technology that pre dates them.



EDIT:
http://www.imgtec.com/investors/results-presentations.asp
half year results 11 dec 2013 page 15 one of the many times they talk about development cycles. The audio feeds go into more detail but there is no quick search for them.

IP cores take 2 to 3 years to develop, hardware development 2+ years, product development 1+ year. Total timeframe 5 to 7 years on average.

 

[layte]

It always amazes me that when ever patent cases like this. Armchair experts can pick it apart in moments for free. Rather than earning big bucks as patent lawyers.

All this prior art, why did nobody pick up on it before.

 

[Pottsey]

It always amazes me that when ever patent cases like this. Armchair experts can pick it apart in moments for free. Rather than earning big bucks as patent lawyers.

All this prior art, why did nobody pick up on it before.

That's why so many are calling NV patent trolling it makes no sense to wait 15 to 18 years and ignore what is clearly prior art. None of this makes any sense when you don't even need to be an expert to see the flaws.

EDIT: I am only talking about the point of view from PowerVR. ARM could well not have the older patents to protect themselves.

 

[FoxEye]

It always amazes me that when ever patent cases like this. Armchair experts can pick it apart in moments for free. Rather than earning big bucks as patent lawyers.

All this prior art, why did nobody pick up on it before.

I think for most people the idea that you can "invent" something, by combining two existing separate chips into one, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It's like saying cheesy chips is a new invention, because before you had cheese and chips, but nobody would have thought about combining them unless you had done it, so it's clearly a new invention that you have the exclusive rights to.

I mean, whilst none of us are patent lawyers, the system clearly allows things to be patented which are obvious. And indeed many patents are thrown out when they get to the higher courts.

 

[ubersonic]

What is opinion is your point of view which you have so far shown no evidence to back you self-up

What aside from the links/etc that myself and other have provided

As I read the patent its not T&L done by the GPU it T&L don't on a hardware platform which counts co processors.

Yes but myself and others have already explained to you that's wrong. A co-processor is by definition not the same processor/semiconductor. (Again completely ignoring the fact that those systems with co-processors were made after the Geforce cards with inbuilt T&L)

 

[Pottsey]

What aside from the links/etc that myself and other have provided

Yes but myself and others have already explained to you that's wrong. A co-processor is by definition not the same processor/semiconductor. (Again completely ignoring the fact that those systems with co-processors were made after the Geforce cards with inbuilt T&L)

What links from you? I just checked back and don’t see any links or evidence, just false information. Please give me the post number in case I missed it.

You both told me I was wrong but skipped over the platform wording. I never disagreed that a co-processor is by definition not the same as a single chip processor/semiconductor. But a co-processor is part of the hardware platform and the patent is about the entire device platform not a single chip as I understand it. The key word is platform which is the entire device. All of which doesn’t matter anyway. A co-processor that pre dates NV is all that matters as merging a co processer into a single chip is perfectly valid under continued technology development. The patent system covers the use of continued technology development

As for dates I already pointed out the date the product was made doesn’t matter. What matters is when PowerVR developed and sold/license the technology. I then linked the average time this takes which places us pre NVidia. Your the one that keep saying it takes less then 1 year or less then 6 months despite all the links saying IP takes longer.

EDIT: What about patent 6697063 Prior use here as well as screen space tiling is predated by PowerVR PCX1. Also predated by SGI GPUs (like in the N64)

 

[jonny512379]

scum tactics that everyone is at at present. what they dont realise (or maybe they do) is that the tech they come up with is invented by people not companies, and all these people are taught the same things and have similar knowladge; they will all eventually come up with similar soulutions to solve similar problems based on current tech.
Patent laws need changing so that this kind of action can not be taken against things that are more common knowladge or progerrssion than real inventions.
Imagine if someone had patented the wheel...

I vote with my feet and will never buy anything Apple for this very reason (i dont care how good Apple may be, i dont like their ethics. I may now add Nvidia to my list of NOT TO BUY).

We should all let the Nvidia rep on this forum (of there is one) know what we think of them!