Nvidia Sues Qualcomm And Samsung For Infringing On Its GPU Patents
Tags:
- Qualcomm
-
Samsung
- Nvidia
Last response: in News comments
Anonymous
a
b
Ô
Samsung
September 5, 2014 7:17:58 AM
Nvidia is asserting infringement on seven of its graphics patents by Qualcomm and Nvidia and has asked both ITC and a Delaware Court to block Samsung's shipments and award it damages.
Nvidia Sues Qualcomm And Samsung For Infringing On Its GPU Patents : Read more
Nvidia Sues Qualcomm And Samsung For Infringing On Its GPU Patents : Read more
More about : nvidia sues qualcomm samsung infringing gpu patents
-
Reply to Anonymous
irish_adam
September 5, 2014 7:48:08 AM
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 7:52:24 AM
This is crazy. Nvidia is just trying to get money for nothing. All those features mentioned have been around for close to a decade now in both ATI/AMD, Nvidia, and even Intel graphics.
Qualcomm directly purchased its graphics technology from AMD many years ago and have ran with it advancing the design greatly. Nvidia is crazy.
Qualcomm directly purchased its graphics technology from AMD many years ago and have ran with it advancing the design greatly. Nvidia is crazy.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
5
l
chicofehr
September 5, 2014 7:52:26 AM
Looks like Nvidia's frustration with failing to earn the market shares they hoped for with Tegra just entered the next stage: suing the competition for royalties.
At a glance, most of those patents should never have been granted in the first place since they have tons of prior art in CPUs, older GPUs from before programmable shaders, obvious/natural technological progress, etc.
None of the summaries from Nvidia's patent struck me as genuinely original.
At a glance, most of those patents should never have been granted in the first place since they have tons of prior art in CPUs, older GPUs from before programmable shaders, obvious/natural technological progress, etc.
None of the summaries from Nvidia's patent struck me as genuinely original.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
10
l
icemunk
September 5, 2014 8:11:24 AM
silverblue
September 5, 2014 8:11:52 AM
iknowhowtofixit
September 5, 2014 8:18:10 AM
jeremy2020
September 5, 2014 8:52:00 AM
Miharu
September 5, 2014 9:01:45 AM
Why they sue Samsung? For using Qualcomm’s chips? I do not understand it at all. If your provider chip use illegal IP, you cannot be sue for that! It's like sue every single people who use those chips that currently aren't prove to infringe anything. If this go on... I lost faith in humanity.
Also if you check that from a mobile Platform point of view, they target the big part of the market that they try to get. It's really bad.
Also if you check that from a mobile Platform point of view, they target the big part of the market that they try to get. It's really bad.
-
Reply to Miharu
m
4
l
soccerplayer88
September 5, 2014 9:26:55 AM
Quote:
I use nvidia GPUs. I tried switching to AMD, but went back to Nvidia. This is the type of stunt to get me to try AMD again.So you'll go back to the other company even though you didn't like them all because the current vendor you're with has some shady business practices even though you like their products more.
Wait what? This is the first time NVIDIA (as a company) has ever filed a patent lawsuit. NVIDIA tried to negotiate with Samsung, Samsung told them to f*** off. So NVIDIA went to court.
The only thing that should raise eyebrows is that NVIDIA let this sit for two years before the injunction. That I believe only NVIDIA can answer.
AnandTech had an interesting read on the subject. They believe their going after Samsung because their the largest supplier in the US and Qualcomm being the largest SoC. It makes sense to start at the top.
-
Reply to soccerplayer88
m
1
l
sonofliberty08
September 5, 2014 9:29:03 AM
xPandaPanda
September 5, 2014 9:45:50 AM
What do you people mean "why sue Samsung?" Samsung has a long history of copying and infringing upon other companies. And apparently, they are okay with it because they are still making profit. So I guess it's part of their business model? They were the ones that signed off on it because they have a lot of R&D to get the GPU on their SoC.
I don't like the way patents are used, but if nVidia is claiming what they are, then they clearly have the upperhand. Also, Samsung is not a company that seeks innovation. They are a more of a business and they declined negotiations. I'd like to see the royalties help nVidia make better technologies. However, the price-gouging of their products is a different beast...
I don't like the way patents are used, but if nVidia is claiming what they are, then they clearly have the upperhand. Also, Samsung is not a company that seeks innovation. They are a more of a business and they declined negotiations. I'd like to see the royalties help nVidia make better technologies. However, the price-gouging of their products is a different beast...
-
Reply to xPandaPanda
m
-1
l
iknowhowtofixit
September 5, 2014 10:43:44 AM
Quote:
Quote:
I use nvidia GPUs. I tried switching to AMD, but went back to Nvidia. This is the type of stunt to get me to try AMD again.So you'll go back to the other company even though you didn't like them all because the current vendor you're with has some shady business practices even though you like their products more.
Wait what? This is the first time NVIDIA (as a company) has ever filed a patent lawsuit. NVIDIA tried to negotiate with Samsung, Samsung told them to f*** off. So NVIDIA went to court.
The only thing that should raise eyebrows is that NVIDIA let this sit for two years before the injunction. That I believe only NVIDIA can answer.
AnandTech had an interesting read on the subject. They believe their going after Samsung because their the largest supplier in the US and Qualcomm being the largest SoC. It makes sense to start at the top.
Have you considered that Nvidia's outrageous terms were the reason that Samsung told them to "f*** off'? Nvidia's proposal had an insane up front fee and a multiple times more than industry standard royalty associated with individual product sales.
-
Reply to iknowhowtofixit
m
5
l
sonofliberty08 said:
Samsung had their own ARM chips as wellWhile Samsung makes the chips in their their fabs, they actually license the CPU and GPU as IP cores straight from ARM.
Nvidia should be suing ARM since Samsung and other companies using Mali IGPs did not actually design the IGP in their chips and ARM is licensing the same infringing GPUs to everyone who wants to use them.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
2
l
ZolaIII
September 5, 2014 11:27:37 AM
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 11:57:38 AM
Glad to see most people at least understand Nvidia is nuts to try this. It probably is because the Tegra SoCs just simply aren't winning any battles in the mobile world. I'm hoping this comes back to bite Nvidia fairly hard, like getting the patents in question revoked despite the time they put into bribing officials to issue the patents in the first place.
Next they will be trying to patent stuff like the tablet, or the home computer.
Next they will be trying to patent stuff like the tablet, or the home computer.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
2
l
iknowhowtofixit
September 5, 2014 12:05:18 PM
IInuyasha74 said:
Glad to see most people at least understand Nvidia is nuts to try this. It probably is because the Tegra SoCs just simply aren't winning any battles in the mobile world. I'm hoping this comes back to bite Nvidia fairly hard, like getting the patents in question revoked despite the time they put into bribing officials to issue the patents in the first place.Next they will be trying to patent stuff like the tablet, or the home computer.
Or "rectangular devices with rounded corners"...
P.S. - That one has been done already ;-)
-
Reply to iknowhowtofixit
m
2
l
nismo303
September 5, 2014 12:11:14 PM
They are going after Samsung because Samsung is the largest manufacture of non iPhone mobile devices. 60% of Androids are Samsungs.
If Qualcomm copped NVidia's Kepler architecture to replace previous Adreno architecture previous to Andreno 330, Qualcomm should definitely pay up.
What also makes this interesting, and shows NVidia isn't just patent trolling, is that the case is NOT being held in Texas, where they let you sue for anything without worry.
If Qualcomm copped NVidia's Kepler architecture to replace previous Adreno architecture previous to Andreno 330, Qualcomm should definitely pay up.
What also makes this interesting, and shows NVidia isn't just patent trolling, is that the case is NOT being held in Texas, where they let you sue for anything without worry.
-
Reply to nismo303
m
1
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 3:37:29 PM
nismo303 said:
They are going after Samsung because Samsung is the largest manufacture of non iPhone mobile devices. 60% of Androids are Samsungs. If Qualcomm copped NVidia's Kepler architecture to replace previous Adreno architecture previous to Andreno 330, Qualcomm should definitely pay up.
What also makes this interesting, and shows NVidia isn't just patent trolling, is that the case is NOT being held in Texas, where they let you sue for anything without worry.
Qualcomm didn't take anything from Nvidia. Adreno graphics are directly based on the old AMD mobile graphics which they bought years ago.
Kepler, while very effective for desktops, has proven to consume too much power for smartphones. Why do you think the Nvidia Shield is so big? its to help cool the GPU inside of it. Not to mention if it was Kepler tech, they would of directly said that and would have a lot more proof than arbitrarily suing for every part of a GPU.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
1
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 3:38:56 PM
iknowhowtofixit said:
IInuyasha74 said:
Glad to see most people at least understand Nvidia is nuts to try this. It probably is because the Tegra SoCs just simply aren't winning any battles in the mobile world. I'm hoping this comes back to bite Nvidia fairly hard, like getting the patents in question revoked despite the time they put into bribing officials to issue the patents in the first place.Next they will be trying to patent stuff like the tablet, or the home computer.
Or "rectangular devices with rounded corners"...
P.S. - That one has been done already ;-)
Really? What idiot tried to patent that? I know Nintendo tried to patent "Remote" when the Nintendo Wii came out. That was another really dumb one to try for.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
1
l
alextheblue
September 5, 2014 4:01:29 PM
Quote:
I could see them getting upset about Qualcomm using proprietary GPU components derived from Kepler but the features they listed are the definition of a GPU. Kind of silly if you ask me.Quote:
Not to mention if it was Kepler tech, they would of directly said that and would have a lot more proof than arbitrarily suing for every part of a GPU.You guys don't understand. Read the article carefully.
"Nvidia claims these are the kind of patented technologies Samsung and Qualcomm infringed on:"
They weren't listing patents, it was just a general overview of the types of technologies they are claiming to infringe on. The actual patents are going to be a lot more specific and in-depth. I'm not exactly the biggest Nvidia fan, but I don't believe they're just patent trolling. I'm would give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Also, Adreno has evolved a lot from the Imageon days - they have very little in common with those old ATI designs, and so using that as a defense is silly. The current product is completely different and could very well infringe on Nvidia patents.
-
Reply to alextheblue
m
2
l
alextheblue said:
"Nvidia claims these are the kind of patented technologies Samsung and Qualcomm infringed on:"They weren't listing patents, it was just a general overview of the types of technologies they are claiming to infringe on. The actual patents are going to be a lot more specific and in-depth.
If you follow the links to Nvidia's ITC complaint, you see the following list of patents in Nvidia's filings:
6,198,488
6,992,667
7,038,685
7,015,913
6,697,063
7,209,140
6,690,372
One of those patents is merely integrating stuff together into a single chip, which CPU/chipset manufactuers have been doing for 40 years. This should never have been granted.
The unified shader patent is akin to patenting a slightly different take on the general-purpose CPU, same goes for the multi-threaded/parallel pattent. I do not think those should have been granted either since they are much too broad and overlap CPU designs principles that have been in use or demonstrated 15-20 years ago - the idea of simultaneous multi-threading has been around at least since 2000 when Intel was about to launch the P4.
So from the summary text, this is at least three patents that look to me like they should have never been granted in the first place. I do not remember what the other four were about but they did not strike me as particularly patent-worthy either.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
1
l
Quote:
Looks like Nvidia's frustration with failing to earn the market shares they hoped for with Tegra just entered the next stage: suing the competition for royalties.At a glance, most of those patents should never have been granted in the first place since they have tons of prior art in CPUs, older GPUs from before programmable shaders, obvious/natural technological progress, etc.
None of the summaries from Nvidia's patent struck me as genuinely original.
with whats been going on lately between apple and samsung, comparatively, this seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to sue.
-
Reply to iam2thecrowe
m
0
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 4:32:39 PM
Thank you InvalidError for saving me the time to have to point out the list of patents to him.
To further push on the "simultaneous multi-threading" part of this, it was first thought of in the 60s by IBM, and was developed to a working state by many companies such as DEC, Intel, MIPS Technology, and AMD to name a few. Not sure when AMD finished their work on it, cause they only make use of it in the Bulldozer FPU inside of their CPUs, not sure about GPUs. The others have all had working models of it since the late 1990s.
None of these patents are really proper to be granted. Hopefully this patent war can finish fast so Qualcomm can back to work, everyone is trying to sue them and they are one of the biggest forces innovating mobile tech. All these law suits could slow them down a little in development.
To further push on the "simultaneous multi-threading" part of this, it was first thought of in the 60s by IBM, and was developed to a working state by many companies such as DEC, Intel, MIPS Technology, and AMD to name a few. Not sure when AMD finished their work on it, cause they only make use of it in the Bulldozer FPU inside of their CPUs, not sure about GPUs. The others have all had working models of it since the late 1990s.
None of these patents are really proper to be granted. Hopefully this patent war can finish fast so Qualcomm can back to work, everyone is trying to sue them and they are one of the biggest forces innovating mobile tech. All these law suits could slow them down a little in development.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
1
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 4:34:34 PM
iam2thecrowe said:
Quote:
Looks like Nvidia's frustration with failing to earn the market shares they hoped for with Tegra just entered the next stage: suing the competition for royalties.At a glance, most of those patents should never have been granted in the first place since they have tons of prior art in CPUs, older GPUs from before programmable shaders, obvious/natural technological progress, etc.
None of the summaries from Nvidia's patent struck me as genuinely original.
with whats been going on lately between apple and samsung, comparatively, this seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to sue.
Could you elaborate more? What could be going on between Apple and Samsung that gives Nvidia any reason to launch a lawsuit?
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
0
l
IInuyasha74 said:
iam2thecrowe said:
with whats been going on lately between apple and samsung, comparatively, this seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to sue.Could you elaborate more? What could be going on between Apple and Samsung that gives Nvidia any reason to launch a lawsuit?
I am guessing much of it would be related to how Apple managed to get compensation for many of their questionable patents. Now Nvidia wants to try their luck.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
0
l
Scar89
September 5, 2014 5:45:13 PM
Booo. Screw these patent wars. If you want money Nvidia, get your SOC into some actual good phones. Live up to the image that you tried to create when you showed the first Tegra demo device off, I was so impressed, did that device ever happen? No.
This is coming from a buyer of a GTX 770 and 6 previous generations of NV cards.....
This is coming from a buyer of a GTX 770 and 6 previous generations of NV cards.....
-
Reply to Scar89
m
1
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 6:03:18 PM
Apple got Samsung for some dodge lawsuits too? Maybe Apple didn't ask for a lot so they just went ahead and payed it to get it over with or maybe they got something in return.
Honestly its kind of surprising they are trying still. I was thinking with how much power Maxwell saves Nvidia would finally manage to make its way into low enough power for smart phones. Granted money is always nice, but they managed to pretty much destroy 3dfx with pure competition in early 2000, and while I personally prefer AMD now Nvidia is still majority lead for desktop GPUs last I checked. Seems they could of just made themselves a spot in the mobile market with good old competition without resorting to such dirty dealings.
Honestly its kind of surprising they are trying still. I was thinking with how much power Maxwell saves Nvidia would finally manage to make its way into low enough power for smart phones. Granted money is always nice, but they managed to pretty much destroy 3dfx with pure competition in early 2000, and while I personally prefer AMD now Nvidia is still majority lead for desktop GPUs last I checked. Seems they could of just made themselves a spot in the mobile market with good old competition without resorting to such dirty dealings.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
0
l
IInuyasha74 said:
Apple got Samsung for some dodge lawsuits too? Maybe Apple didn't ask for a lot so they just went ahead and payed it to get it over with or maybe they got something in return.Earlier this year, Apple's second lawsuit against Samsung hit the courts, Apple was asking for over two billion dollars in damages but the jury only awarded about 120M$ after dismissing three of Apple's five patent claims, which supposedly barely covers Apple's legal fees.
My interpretation is that the jury politely told Apple to go screw themselves: their two surviving patents were just barely good enough for the jury to award legal costs but no further compensation or damages.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
0
l
iknowhowtofixit
September 5, 2014 8:10:59 PM
IInuyasha74 said:
iknowhowtofixit said:
IInuyasha74 said:
Glad to see most people at least understand Nvidia is nuts to try this. It probably is because the Tegra SoCs just simply aren't winning any battles in the mobile world. I'm hoping this comes back to bite Nvidia fairly hard, like getting the patents in question revoked despite the time they put into bribing officials to issue the patents in the first place.Next they will be trying to patent stuff like the tablet, or the home computer.
Or "rectangular devices with rounded corners"...
P.S. - That one has been done already ;-)
Really? What idiot tried to patent that? I know Nintendo tried to patent "Remote" when the Nintendo Wii came out. That was another really dumb one to try for.
Apple... who else? :-P
-
Reply to iknowhowtofixit
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
September 5, 2014 9:34:58 PM
InvalidError said:
Looks like Nvidia's frustration with failing to earn the market shares they hoped for with Tegra just entered the next stage: suing the competition for royalties.At a glance, most of those patents should never have been granted in the first place since they have tons of prior art in CPUs, older GPUs from before programmable shaders, obvious/natural technological progress, etc.
None of the summaries from Nvidia's patent struck me as genuinely original.
Attacking NV as usual. You seem to forget Intel is paying NV right now for the same stuff (shipping PC gpus, just not discrete ones) and now phones are doing the same things. Unless they have the patents for shipping these types of products, it would make sense they are violating quite a bit of stuff from either NV or AMD or heck maybe both. These two have been the only ones in this business for the better part of the last 20yrs and gobbled up IP from the rest they both dominated.
It's comic anyone would NOT think these guys will have to pay something if even INTEL had to pay for the same stuff (though in a round-about way, they licensed NV tech to not run afoul of patents in exchange for chipset ability then Intel found a way around the chipset issue, thus kind of stealing NV gpu patents without reciprocating, call it what you will). You think samsung or qcom have thousands of graphic patents? No. You don't think there is a reason Qcom has NOT shown any of their gpu tech to the world (anandtech said they are the only ones holding out info, I posted on that story they'd get sued at some point)? Meanwhile AMD/NV have been adding patents for 20+ years of gaming. Now that they are shipping things that run REAL games (phones/tablets I mean, they can do this stuff now), this lawsuit should come as no surprise (and another by AMD at some point depending on what patents they own).
I'd bet apple is next, but no point in taking them on until you've already won in court vs. Samsung/Qcom first or maybe IMG.L has some patent agreements with AMD or NV. Who knows, but it's about to get interesting for sure. Now that they are all doing WAY more in gaming, some people will be owed for how they are doing it.
If the language is the same in the patents as it is in their statements above of what is IN those patents, I don't see how anyone can get out of infringing on at least a few of them. This is not like the stupid apple rounded corner crap. These are real things that gpus use, and NV/AMD both use. This isn't patent trolling. Prior art before programmable shaders?...LOL. So not programmable shaders then right? So in your mind the creator of the light bulb has IP rights to all things oled, lcd, led etc?...ROFL. Natural evolution right, I mean the all create light, display light etc? ROFL. Your NV hate makes you blind. In your mind Qcom has no patents for cell modem tech because some guy years ago created the regular telephone over some wires? LOL. You are an invaliderror
I wonder if you claimed the same crap when AMD sued Intel. Fortunately for Nvidia, your first glance means nothing in a court of law
So if Nvidia or AMD don't own the patents to this stuff, who does in your mind? Why create the next great graphics technology if you can't patent it? Why invest at all if everything is counted as simply the natural evolution of something else? Your logic is asinine. Intel doesn't own a patent to x86 I guess either huh? I mean someone else created some really stupid (brilliant for it's time) cpu before Intel, so x86 shouldn't have been granted a patent. I mean it's just another cpu right?...LOL. Before microprocessors it was done with a bunch of circuit boards, so the cpu is just a natural evolution of a bunch of crap doing the same jobs right? WRONG. For most of the 90's gpus were NOT programmable in any way. I'm guessing when NV made it available they patented it, like any company would who got there FIRST.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8492/nvidia-files-patent-...
"In the mobile SoC space however there are a much larger number of GPU manufacturers, and overall there is still a certain “wild west” aspect to patent licensing and infringement."
I guess it's about time the wild west ended
As anandtech said, some of these patents go back to 3dfx years. It's time to pay the person who owns the tech you're stealing. It isn't patent trolling when you actually OWN and USE the patent in products. One of the patents is from a company 3dfx purchased...LOL. Thus nvidia are the OWNERS of the prior art as they bought them after 3dfx bought said company. After reading further at anandtech ARM's Mali and Imagination's PowerVR chips are named in the suit.Again this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's been watching the industry for the last 20-30yrs. I sincerely hope AMD has a few patents they're about to sue over also (NV/AMD have agreements with each other over this, but none of these other people do with these two). Time to pay the people who actually came up with this stuff and unlike patent trolls actually use it in their tech today and sell it daily.
At glance, your comment should never have been posted in the first place
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
2
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 9:58:28 PM
That is forever long post, and after the first paragraph its already enough to say you need to stop defending Nvidia. I'm not sure what Intel paid Nvidia, but Intel's GPU design is one made in-house by their own team. Its a direct continuation of the GMA graphics they slowly upgraded from the 1990s until present day. It uses a completely different type of rendering even, based on polygons instead of triangles as the most basic geometric shape, similar to how Imagination's PowerVR graphics do, and are thus much closer to PowerVR graphics than Nvidia graphics.
As for the parts of the GPU Nvidia is trying to patent, its simply unethical to do so. Its close to an attempt to be a monopoly. Its like if Intel tried to patent all CPUs both RISC and CISC, of all types because they first had the 8080. Granted they probably tried at some point, but it would be crazy. These aren't things that Nvidia developed single-handedly. These are things designed by computer scientists doing 3rd party research, and major organizations that decide what the standards are for such types of hardware. Everyone has their own implementation of it, their own design for how to do it. Every architecture does it in a completely new and unique way.
All a programmable shader is, is that. Its a piece of hardware, specialized for an operation that can be told do so something by a software code. Thats the basics of it. Nvidia can't sue Qualcomm for making computer hardware, that is compliant with OpenGL and DirectX standards for universal APIs.
As for the parts of the GPU Nvidia is trying to patent, its simply unethical to do so. Its close to an attempt to be a monopoly. Its like if Intel tried to patent all CPUs both RISC and CISC, of all types because they first had the 8080. Granted they probably tried at some point, but it would be crazy. These aren't things that Nvidia developed single-handedly. These are things designed by computer scientists doing 3rd party research, and major organizations that decide what the standards are for such types of hardware. Everyone has their own implementation of it, their own design for how to do it. Every architecture does it in a completely new and unique way.
All a programmable shader is, is that. Its a piece of hardware, specialized for an operation that can be told do so something by a software code. Thats the basics of it. Nvidia can't sue Qualcomm for making computer hardware, that is compliant with OpenGL and DirectX standards for universal APIs.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
-1
l
IInuyasha74
September 5, 2014 10:13:18 PM
Also, after reading the article on Anandtech you linked to, if they really went after everyone violating the patents they are talking about, literally everyone who makes GPUs in the entire world, including AMD, and every company that has ever made a SoC, tablet, smartphone, or similar device. Perhaps they should all get together, between ARM, AMD, Imagination, Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Allwinner, Rockchip, Broadcom, and everyone else they can probably tie this up in courts for a few hundred years. Not that any sane judge wouldn't rule in there favor after the first five minutes.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
-1
l
thequn
September 5, 2014 10:20:26 PM
Integr8d
September 5, 2014 10:35:20 PM
-
Reply to Integr8d
m
0
l
somebodyspecial said:
Attacking NV as usual. You seem to forget Intel is paying NV right now for the same stuff (shipping PC gpus, just not discrete ones) and now phones are doing the same things.I have not looked at what patents were involved in the Intel case but I have looked at those involved in this one and most of them should be revoked for being far too broad, trivial and obvious... as I said earlier, one of Nvidia's patent claims is about integrating functions into one chip and that is something every IC designer has been doing ever since the integrated circuit has been invented - that's what ICs are all about: integrating stuff. You cannot patent fundamentally obvious stuff like that.
Someday, a semiconductor manufacturer will figure out how to integrate DRAM cells in high-speed logic silicon and if this patenting integration stupidity does not stop, there will be a flood of re-patenting the same damned things just because they have integrated DRAMs... nothing new here since chip designers have been waiting for this to happen for years but since it is not happening, the next best things are on-package eDRAM (ex.: Intel Crystalwell) and TSV chip stacking. The only thing patentable here is the manufacturing breakthrough that enabled this new degree of integration.
Simple integration patents of any sort should be invalid by default since no chip manufacturer would choose to break up their design into multiple chips if they could integrate everything on a single die without worrying about die area, mask costs, TDP, defect density and other physical design constraints.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
0
l
tim1935
September 8, 2014 12:15:20 PM
anthony8989
September 10, 2014 9:35:25 AM
Quote:
The only thing patentable here is the manufacturing breakthrough that enabled this new degree of integration.Quote:
Simple integration patents of any sort should be invalid by defaultThe foundation of Nvidia's case will probably be establishing that their patented technology is not a "simple integration" or 'natural progression' of anything. Over twenty years of R&D and heavy lifting, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on engineering and patent acquisition, etc., should offer them some kind of return. Ideally through licensing.
-
Reply to anthony8989
m
0
l
!