NVidia has been around for a long time so I wouldn't be too suprised if Qualcomm actually did (knowingly or unknowingly) use something that NVidia invented. But those 7 patents seem very vague/weird. Maybe I have to read actual the technical descriptions but just from the non-technical descriptions I can't really see what exactly Qualcomm did wrong.

The first one seems to be about hardware transform and lighting, the idea of hard-wiring the transformation and lighting computations into the chip. No one does that anymore, everyone uses programmable hardware, which NVidia also claims Qualcomm used. So which one is it? Hard-wired or programmable? Qualcomm can't infringe both with the same devices...

Another thing that comes up a lot is the idea of using threads to hide latencies. According to wikipedia, this idea is being researched since 1968. Hardly anything that NVidia invented. Maybe they were the first to apply it to GPUs?

As for unified shading, I agree with phantom, I'm pretty sure ATI had that first.

Then there is one claim which I would guess is about early-Z and high-Z. But doesn't that work completely differently in a tiled rasterizer?

So, basically nVidia owns the idea of a GPU.
The graphics mafia want to extort protection money from all GPU vendors, and if you don't pay up, they'll intercept shipments of your devices and cut you off from the marketplace.

Legally, they're perfectly entitled to do this. Personally I'd love to see some anti-patent activism from developers, leading to activism from gamers deciding to boycott nVidia for such immoral behavior. I guess that shows where I stand on the patent debate :lol:

I guess their absence suggests that this also means that AMD and Intel did pay their protection fees.

That is what I gathered from reading this. Shame on Nvidia. I should find it so much easier to boycott Nvidia now.

After reading NVidias explanation I kinda think the suit actually makes sense.. though in general I'm against patents that remain in effect for a long time, and I think calling GPUs their invention is stretching it.. they were at most first with a particular use-case for existing technology and ideas, that they were never alone in pursuing.

I know for a fact that companies in these industries knowingly infringe on patents and for example avoid releasing open source products for the only reason that it would make their offenses easily provable. It also makes sense to sue Samsung (unless I'm mistaken about their role), since they are the ones creating the product.

For example, if I were to publish a paper on using Intel's technology for controlling automatic can-openers I would find it very far-fetched that I could be blamed for publishing my ideas, but it would be obvious that someone deciding to take those ideas to build an actual product would have to pay Intel license fees. In this case where the GPU-companies allegedly sell their designs that infringe on Nvidia patents to Samsung, they are of course also in wrong if it turns out to be true, but whether they owe Nvidia money or rather owe Samsung damages for false marketing is probably less clear legally. I guess it depends a lot on whether they outright lied to Samsung and said it was their design or not.

If Nvidia has been negotiating with Samsung for years and Samsung obviously knows about the infringement, it seems like the whole thing might be a legal question on responsibility, where in my opinion Nvidia appears to be in the right.

For example, for Nvidia to sell their GPU design to another designer to use and modify as they please, would require an entirely different agreement than a deal with Samsung that allows them to manufacture a product that incorporates Nvidias design together with other GPU-designers own designs. It's also possible that the GPU-designers can very well claim that their designs are just extensions on an existing design, and that they never meant to take ownership of Nvidias IP but just publish extensions. So suing them might be like Apple suing designers of iPhone cases, which would be ridiculous. Owning the design of an iPhone does not mean they also own the right to make a case where an iPhone can fit in. So even if Nvidia owns the GPU design they might very well not own other designs that incorporate their designs.

"The graphics mafia" I read more of the actual submitted court document. I mean it is crazy when they say they spend billions on R&D to build GPU's for the last 20 years......that is what they do. They have given us a lot. If I started my own GPU company using the same concepts Nvidia has built up to now......which is basically everything, how would I not be stealing their ideas? They have created everything.

This is not a software patent, this is much more legitimate. As for intel and processor stuff...I'm sure there probably are (or were) patents, they may be out of the date of being enforceable though. The concept of processors is a little bit older than graphics hardware.

When is the last time you guys bought a book or GPU from Samsung or Qualcomm? Just saying, sad how many haters there are. Those people don't spend any R&D on developing the amazing stuff Nvidia has, and still does give us.

Putting aside the fact that these companies HAVE done a lot of R&D (because if you could just take ideas and vomit out a mobile GPU from them NV wouldn't be as uncompetitive in that market as they are, see K1 remark) the question becomes why these companies?

Samsung, for example, licenses it's GPUs from either ARM Holdings or Qualcomm; which begs the question why aren't NV going after the former? Maybe the latter is vaguely acceptable but even that possibly debatable given that patents were designed to advance things when progress was slower and haven't adapted.

The fact this has reared its head after Samsung apparently dropped the K1 in favour of another chip (Adreno?) smacks of nothing more than a failure to compete.

As for 'when was the last time you brought a GPU from Qualcomm' - Android handsets sell in the millions and contain GPUs from them, ARM and Imagination.

NVs problem is that every year they shout about how good their mobile platform is and every year fail to get them into any device because they turn out to be too hot, too power hungry or just slow - so when you can't compete you sue.

If you're not going to get rid of these kinds of patents, at least they could acknowledge that the software and hardware world moves way faster than other industries. Hell, even a 5 year government granted monopoly... Ehhh, I mean, a software/hardware patent with 5 years of validity on something, would work as a huge advantage for the entity holding it.

20 years of validity is simply too long for software/hardware industry.

Samsung, for example, licenses it's GPUs from either ARM Holdings or Qualcomm; which begs the question why aren't NV going after the former?

Maybe because Samsung is the one with all the money?

Yes, that's kind of my non-too-subtle point; if this was just about protecting IP then ARM Holdings would be in the firing line too and not Samsung (as they would more than likely be covered by any license agreement with ARM Holdings) and if it was just about IP protection well, depending on the terms they tried to dictate it could still be a dick move but less so.

As it stands, as you say, it's about going after the people with the money - although given this will likely take YEARS to play out with appeals and counter appeals the only ones who'll likely win, as always, are the lawyers. (and I'm pretty sure this is somewhere Samsung could outspend NV happily too...)

Yes, that's kind of my non-too-subtle point; if this was just about protecting IP then ARM Holdings would be in the firing line too and not Samsung (as they would more than likely be covered by any license agreement with ARM Holdings) and if it was just about IP protection well, depending on the terms they tried to dictate it could still be a dick move but less so.

There's also the small matter that NV license ARM's CPU technology. Presumably they'd like to be able to access any future updates to this technology - something that may become difficult to do if they sue ARM Holding themselves. If NV finds it difficult getting people to buy its mobile platform now, imaging how much harder it would be if they don't have access to the latest CPU technology.

NVidia didn't invent everything come on.

They were small on the market before, silicon graphics invented the graphic card and opengl with them, like 20 years before nvidia even existed.

They saw fame thanks to luck: they put 32 bits colors in their texture units before 3dfx did.

3dfx bet on performance rather, but it was less proof against very near future and expectations from players.

And then 3dfx did a supplementary huge strategy mistake, investing too much into complex soft shadows and multisampling, and didnt get a product out in time; eventually nvidia bought them. I hold a silent grudge against nvidia since then.

It doesnt mean I dont like a good geforce, I even buy them ever since they beat ATI, at the time of the 6800 series. I had an ATI X800XT at the time because it was much superior to the ridiculous nVidia 5000FX series, but then they made this wonderful 6800 and the wind turned.

Samsung is also very dirty on the market sometimes, when you become this kind of corporation, its because your leaders are have no qualms. They follow what I call the "Cardinal de Mazzarin"'s philosophy. (this can be read about in his manifesto, where he states how he assasinated pamphilio who was a competitor to the election to some high rank official position in the church) This kind of people just don't hesitate to play strategy and political games with strictly no sense of humanity or morals, or any sort.

http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/08/28/samsung-faces-new-child-labour-scandal-at-supplier-factory/

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2013/12/25/samsung-on-the-rocks-hurting-developers-and-knox-vulnerable/

...