NVIDIA Launches Patent Suits Focused on Samsung Galaxy Phones, Tablets

by David Shannon

This is an important day for NVIDIA. For the first time since starting this company 21 years ago, we have initiated a patent lawsuit.

This afternoon, we filed patent infringement complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm with both the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. District Court, in Delaware. You can see our press release here, and the complaints here and here.

We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures. We are also asking the Delaware court to award damages to us for the infringement of our patents.

Initiating action after negotiation

We have spent more than $9 billion in R&D since 1993 when we began to build the best GPUs and the richest patent portfolio of graphics IP in the world.

Our IP strategy is to earn an appropriate return on our investment by licensing our graphics cores and by licensing our patents. In each case, we start with a negotiation.

With Samsung, NVIDIA’s licensing team negotiated directly with Samsung on a patent portfolio license. We had several meetings where we demonstrated how our patents apply to all of their mobile devices and to all the graphics architectures they use.

We made no progress. Samsung repeatedly said that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem.

Without licensing NVIDIA’s patented GPU technology, Samsung and Qualcomm have chosen to deploy our IP without proper compensation to us. This is inconsistent with our strategy to earn an appropriate return on our investment.

We are now seeking the courts’ judgment to confirm the validity, infringement and value of our patents so that we can reach agreement with Samsung and its graphics suppliers.

Seven infringed patents

Our 7,000 issued and pending patents include inventions vital to modern computing. We have chosen seven of those patents to assert in these cases.

Those patents include our foundational invention, the GPU, which puts onto a single chip all the functions necessary to process graphics and light up screens; our invention of programmable shading, which allows non-experts to program sophisticated graphics; our invention of unified shaders, which allow every processing unit in the GPU to be used for different purposes; and our invention of multithreaded parallel processing in GPUs, which enables processing to occur concurrently on separate threads while accessing the same memory and other resources.

I will keep you updated on our progress in the cases as we move forward.

Similar Stories

  • Mackovich

    That’s…. I’m losing my words. I just don’t know what to say. How come such a situation is unfolding??

  • Roman

    It is only companies that cannot innovate that instead choose to litigate. Instead of initiating a patent lawsuit, you should consider, perhaps, not.

  • linux user

    I wish you best luck in destroying Imagination and their crappy closed source ideology. Their GPUs have ruined the lives of innocent users since Intel Poulspo chip and all around the ARM ecosystem.

    Imagination’s PowerVR
    Imagination’s PowerVR

  • chirp147

    Sorry, it’s the other way round: Only companies that can innovate are able to enforce license payments for their own inventions.

  • kron123456789

    Whoa, that’s big)) I wish you luck))But why Samsung? They’re just using GPUs that made by Imagination Technologies and ARM.

  • Ole fra trondheim

    Does this mean Nvidia get a percentage or royality of all future ARM/CPUs with graphic part from any company? That sounds almost very broad.
    Sounds like GPUs are very indentical in hardware, like a wheel where some company cant own the patent/IP of a round wheel.

  • Roman

    A process is a mathematical algorithm. Patents are for inventions and math is not invented. Thus, litigation in the absence of innovation,.

  • http://www.binarytuberculosis.com BinaryTB

    A patent troll is someone who holds a patent, but does not put it to use (e.g. sells a product using that patent), then sues others wanting compensation.

    Nvidia, you are NOT a patent troll, you obviously have products that use those patents. All the best to you, I hope this works out in your favor.

  • Omar

    Slumped down to Apples level huh? I really like Samsung products and if you want to keep them from me then I know very well what brand my next Graphics processor will be.

  • The Dark One

    Uh, isn’t the K1 the first time that Tegra drivers weren’t proprietary binaries?

  • David Vaughan

    So wait if I buy a Qualcomm chip and put it in my computer and the company that made the chip is infringing on your patent that I either need to pay you or stop using my computer? F that, you morons can go suck eggs. Even if it is legal for you to do this, you have lost all respect from me for being money grubbing scumbags

  • Nvidia GPU user

    Why don’t you sue Apple too, since they are a chip manufacturer using ‘Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures’.

  • Robin

    “Samsung repeatedly said that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem”

    And it is. Or you intend to charge the patents twice to the same hardware?

    Now I regret purchasing a laptop with an nvidia GPU.

    repeatedly said that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem – See
    more at:
    repeatedly said that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem – See
    more at:
    repeatedly said that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem – See
    more at:

  • Jizzus

    Why is this a important day, stating that after 21 years it’s your first lawsuit?

    Is this a stage of growth that every company dreams to achieve? To exist for enough time to be able to suit other companys over IP? Is that the “Apple Stage”?

    If they are guilty or not, it’s yet to be decided by the courts. Still, patent trolling is a shamefull behavior and nothing to be proud of.

  • littlefreak3000

    “Our 7,000 issued and pending patents include inventions vital to modern computing.” This is one of the sad and scary parts about patents. I’m all for companies protecting trade secrets that are the foundation of company, but they are saying that their stuff is vital for modern computing. This means modern society (greatly based on modern computing) don’t exist without these technology. At what point does a patented tech just become main stream and public property.

  • Deepak Kaku

    An algorithm written by someone itself is an innovation. Duh

  • Deepak Kaku

    They have patents in their name since 1999. they have invented algorithms, GPUS and what not. Pixel shaders for example.The graphics you see today are because of them. And one company simply takes the innovations and produces own chipset and sells. That’s total infringing and should be banned. You would know better if someone takes your work and sell it off to earn money.

  • Pyrophosphate

    An algorithm is math, according to the US Supreme Court.

  • godutch

    Patents are just wrong period, you call it using your hard work but when you try to solve the same problems, you often end up using the same solutions. These companies did their own hard work and now nvidia is trying to extort these companies from using the fruits of their OWN hard work.

    I was looking for a new laptop and maybe buying a shield tablet but now I will make sure my laptop has an AMD card and won’t buy a shield. I hope this suit will backfire on nvidia and nvidia will go bankrupt because everyone will boycott nvidia.

  • LSX

    This is ridiculous. The concept of a GPU has been around a lot longer than nvidia has been making GPUs. Intel, S3, ATI and 3dfx were also selling GPUs in the era when nvidia first got into the business (some of those companies still are) so hopefully nvidia gets a few of it’s more general patents revoked in this spat. Happy to say I run AMD in my system.

  • danglingparticiple

    Better file suit against Intel, Apple, AMD, and the rest of them then! Shameless patent trolling. *sigh*

  • JackFrost

    I kind of agree with Samsung, shouldn’t you be going after ARM and Imagination. It seems as though you have gone for the company with the most cash instead of the ones actually infringing the patents

  • danglingparticiple

    Hopefully Samsung and Qualcomm tie them up in court for all eternity.

  • Ali

    You should be ashamed of yourself! If you decide litigate it means you have stopped innovate and it means no more NVidia equipped tablets and laptops for me

  • Adeoq

    Except there are a lot of cross-licensing agreements (between Nvidia, AMD and Intel at least) for GPU-patents, so what you’re proposing is garbage.
    Also learn what a patent troll is (hint: someone who doesn’t actually have products with those patents implemented but still decides to sue others who actually do).

  • Adeoq

    >These companies did their own hard work and now nvidia is trying to extort these companies from using the fruits of their OWN hard work.

    Haha, good joke.
    Ever heard of reverse engineering? There is no way to get your IP 100 % protected against (not even with deliberate effort to obfuscate it) getting copied/imitated.

  • das

    well im gonna buy AMd now ,cya nvidia

  • das

    u oviously own a dumbphone with no GPU

  • danglingparticiple

    Whatever. Nvidia obviously isn’t interested in protecting their patents or they would have filed the suit 5+ years ago.

  • godutch

    So what about reverse engineering, this makes it right that people are forbidden to use their own inventions? Companies just need to keep innovating instead of resting on their past laurels.

  • aml

    good man

  • aml

    true mate

  • aml

    agree mate

  • Ken Gray

    Seems odd to sue only QCOM & Samsung but to also try to ban imports of products using other IP not included in the suit. Surely to ban IMG & ARM based products you need to sue them also and successfully prove they’ve infringed (extremely unlikely in the case of IMG). So if you’re not suing IMG or ARM you can’t prove infringement and you can’t ban products containing their IP.

    Honestly, lawyers can be so silly sometimes.

  • Adeoq

    If that invention was already made and a patent filed earlier by another company, then no you don’t have a right to sell products which use your own invention which is doing the exact same (only slight modifications most likely won’t avoid that) without paying proper licensing fees. Otherwise no one would invest in R&D to innovate since everything would be copied 1:1 within a few months.

    Though I’d argue that current patent duration is overall too long for the quickly moving hard- and software sector, but still – there has to be some IP-protection for a few years after the patent was granted.

  • Adeoq

    >At what point does a patented tech just become main stream and public property.
    After the patent expires, the protection it offers ceases to exist.

  • Frappenings

    Problem number 1: AMD buys ATI, this is probably the worst thing for Graphics industry since, AMD does not have any money! especially after financial crisis. They therefore can’t invest in R&D and help lift the whole industry, its been this way since 2008 (THATS 6 YEARS!). ATI should have been a independent company and by looking at AMD’s figures in their report, graphics (Old ATI) is the only thing thats profitable.

    Problem number 2: Nvidia thats been a prudent saver (and survived the financial crisis intact) has invested most of its profits in R&D.

    Now they know Samsung has been using some patents through Imagination’s POWERVR (since 2011) and asked Samsung and others to license the technology and Samsung says no

    Example: You build and design a very unique table and patent the whole process, the next day its in IKEA. When you ask if you could get a design fee since its your table and design they tell you to sod off.

    Nvidia has the high ground here and i hope the court figures that out.

    Used to love ATI and the 9700 pro during my gaming years, its sad to see that company held back by AMD and its bondholders.

  • The Calm Critic

    1st of all, I’m an anti Exynos person who hates Samsung’s ongoing craptacular open source/devs support at providing (lack thereof) Exynos sources/docs so there… but this….

    From Anandtech’s piece >>> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8492/nvidia-files-patent-infringement-complaints-against-qualcomm-samsung

    “The answer in turn from NVIDIA is that Samsung is the largest phone supplier in the United States, and Qualcomm in turn is the largest SoC provider while also providing the SoCs for most of those Samsung phones, so it makes sense to start at the top.”

    Stay classy nVIDIA… Exynos as far as real market effect goes, stopped being relevant at Galaxy Note 2 and an S4 variant for what now couple of years going to 3? While for some reason you’re being “convenient” at leaving out ImgTec + Apple out of this suit eh? What’s an Iphone profit margin PER phone again? That’s right….

    To top it all off:-
    “with some patents going as far back as the GeForce 2 era and even patents first devised by 3dfx (before NVIDIA acquired them). At first glance these appear to be technologies that are fundamental to modern GPU designs, in which case it is admittedly difficult to imagine other GPU designs not infringing on these patents.

    One such example is called the ‘063 patent, which involves on-chip tiling and early visibility testing, and was first developed by a company purchased by 3dfx. This is a technique that all modern GPUs implement in some form, though these days the methods are much more advanced.

    “The ʼ063 Patent was directed to this technology, which combined on-chip tiling with early visibility testing in the graphics pipeline. All of Samsung’s mobile products use GPUs that implement this patented invention.”

    Since GeForce 2! o.O???

    Exynos still sucks for custom AOSP ROMs but now I’m really piqued about Qualcomm’s response to this.

    Just f***ing do your Tegra line properly with an integrated radio solution already to actually make phone OEMs want to use it and play this game and fight like everyone else so that we all can move the eff on.

  • john

    I’m not sure if I’m understanding this correctly:
    Samsung uses SoC designed and manufactured by Qualcomm, ARM, and Imagination.
    Nvidia sues Samsung for using SoCs that contains infringed materials.

    I’m really not sure about this one. Nvidia never based their business models like ARM, forming partnership with vendors and earning license fee, or at least I don’t think this is the case. Another thing that baffles me is that how did companies without partnership with Nvidia obtain products that are claimed to have used patents from Nvidia?
    Are they trying to market themselves as some kind IP vendors?
    Also, I cannot imagine how Imagination technologies infringed their patents as well. Imagination is as old as Nvidia, competed in PC market before, have developed their own GPU architecture. Do not see how PowerVR series is infringing Nvidia’s patents.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Most likely Apple has a licensing agreement with NVidia.

  • youssef jbili

    that’s exactly what i thought , since samsung uses ARM mali in ther Soc .
    And even if samsung was making their own GPU , this would still be non-sense . It’s like if someone just pops up today and starts suing people over using the wheel

  • youssef jbili

    they’re suing them for using … the GPU … no seriously where is the reverse engineering here , the idea of a GPU is basically making a another processor that is dedicated to graphics to keep that load of the CPU , you don’t need reverse engineering to get this idea

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Why should NVidia get back to work if their work can be stolen by other company’s who don’t want to work themselves? If it is proved NVidia created these things and they are not getting paid for their work, they should sue.
    And no, if you buy a product that stole something from another company it is not legal to use it. Just like if you bought a stolen iPhone the original owner can take it back from you. The person that sold it to you did not have the right to do so, and therefore the original owner’s rights trump yours.
    That is not to say there is merit in this case or not. There might not be, but I suspect that NVidia being who they are, have some serious patents in regards to graphics that should be licensed.

  • Vlad

    Nvidia is gonna release the new gtx 900 series and they are also hosting a big event this month, so they need some money to cover the costs and the best way to get a lot of money is to sue Samsung.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Lets see, NVidia actually invents and uses the technology they invent to create products. Other company’s don’t feel they should have to pay for those inventions and the person who created them is annoyed and wants to be compensated.
    NVidia is not some troll. They make products and actually invent. I am sure they have serious graphics patents that should be licensed. I know Sammy doesn’t think it should have to pay for anything it uses so it can horde money itself. They do though, regardless if you like their products or not.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    NVidia is not some troll. They make products and actually invent. I am sure they have serious graphics patents that should be licensed. I know Sammy doesn’t think it should have to pay for anything it uses so it can horde money itself. They do though, regardless if you like their products or not.

  • kron123456789

    It would take couple of years before they can get some money from Samsung and Qualcomm. Not half a month.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    No, if Samsung is using technology that is in effect stolen, they have to pay for it or stop using it. Lets say you bought a stolen cell phone but you didn’t know it was stolen. The original owner see’s you with his phone. He has the right to ask for his phone back as it is legally his. The person that sold it to you did not have the right to do so.
    Now you can ask that person to let you pay them to keep the phone and they may agree. You can then turn around and sue the person that stole it and sold it to you but the original owner never lost the right to their property just because you bought the phone from a thief.

  • dan_amd

    Wow, Nvidia finally admits it is desperate!

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Learn what a patent troll is before you spout garbage. A troll is someone who does not invent, does not use the technology they have patented. Their entire existence depends on suing people over patents they have obtained from others for their “portfolio”. These are patent suing agencies not actual technology companies like NVidia. If a court decides that Samsung is using technology that it does not own then it needs to pay for it like everyone else. Just because they make pretty stuff doesn’t mean they don’t have to pay a license for it.

  • Mackovich

    I agree but nVidia never went to such great lengths… That’s a first in nVidia history. And that complaint is not simple. Many well-sold products are targeted as well as manufacturers. I am thinking about VR GPU manufactured by Imagine. Those are being used in iDevices since the first! Nvidia could very well target Apple products!

    Nvidia acting like that as if because they don’t have a good marketshare…

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Honestly, people can be so silly sometimes. Cause they think they know everything. How do you know NVidia does not have cross licenses with those companies already? Why should Samsung not have to pay for patents they are using in their phones?
    For those that bring up the fact they are going after someone with the most money, this is to be expected. If the person with the most money is selling the most phones using your technology, yeah you are going after them first.
    Samsung can afford to pay the licensing, but they rather pay lawyers it seems.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Do you think Apple already may pay or have a cross license deal with NVidia? I don’t think NVidia is denying the fact they are going after the person with the biggest market share either. If 2 people steal money from you, one takes $20 bucks and the other takes $100 who would you go after first? Only makes sense you go after the person taking the most.

  • Mackovich

    I agree, it does make sense. And perhaps they have a deal with Apple? We might know soon or later.

    But at any rate, such actions from Nvidia will take a great hit to its reputation, don’t you think so?

  • Ken Gray

    I think Samsung are a terrible company in general but in this case they already pay ARM or IMG for their GPU IP, they don’t get it for nothing. And when they use Snapdragon chips they pay for the chips containing IP from QCOM.

    If IP is being infringed I’m more than happy to see litigation and if you think otherwise you obviously didn’t read my comment. My comment was on the odd nature of this case which seems to only think Exynos and Adreno chips are infringing when they are in Samsung products. To sue QCOM implies EVERY product containing Adreno GPU infringes. I could understand them trying it on with either 1. QCOM for Adreno and Samsung for Exynos or 2. Samsung for making products containing allegedly infringing IP, but not both.

    We know Intel have a cross licensing agreement – it’s in the public domain. There’s nothing in the public domain about Apple, TI, Renesas, LG, Mediatek or pretty much anyone else in the SOC making game having licenses yet none of them are being sued and all of them use either PowerVR or MALI.

    Similarly neither Sony, Apple, LG, Motorola, Nokia Nor any other handset makers are being sued for using the same or similar SOCs containing the same allegedly infringing IP and I’m not aware of these having cross licensing agreements either.

    So, as I said before, it just seems like an odd case with an odd basis against an odd set of defendants.

  • cris levin

    Well, I can understand you suing Qualcomm, I fail to see how you can get anything out of this from Samsung.

  • Adeoq

    I just found godutch’s notion that these companies came up with their ideas all on their own (Nvidia also doesn’t think so) absurd and provided a counter example which provides easier ways to imitate/copy such innovations.

  • Jimmy

    The thing is, it’s not like your analogy. It would be more like you bought a table from someone then a random guy knocked on your door and said the leg of that table uses some of our design IP. How would you reply to that. Exactly as Samsung have replied I’d imagine. Take it up with the table maker.

  • Adeoq

    >Just f***ing do your Tegra line properly with an integrated radio
    solution already to actually make phone OEMs want to use it and play
    this game and fight like everyone else so that we all can move the eff

    Who knows, maybe Nvidia could get a cross-licensing deal for Qualcomm’s cellular modem patents (pretty much everyone else in the smart-phone business has to pay for those too) out of it.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Yes it will because real patent trolls have made everyone hyper sensitive to all lawsuits even ones with merit. NVidia doesn’t sue people normally so I will give them the benefit of the doubt to see how it plays out.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Actually your analogy is great you are just applying it wrong. Samsung would be the table maker using IP stolen to make the legs. The tables should be banned from sale unless the person with the design patents on the legs were compensated.

  • Jimy

    Samsung didn’t steal the ip of the legs , that’s the point. The people they got it from did.

    The law I’m sure has limitations to how far down the rabbit home you can sue, otherwise your saying Nvidia could sue anyone who bought a Samsung phone. I’m sure Nvidia will find these limitations exist the hard way.

  • TJ

    “… and our invention of multithreaded parallel processing in GPUs”.

    A total waste of everyone’s time.

  • cremisi1000 .

    As a share holder I am glad finally Nvidia is doing this , its really unfair for us share holders to invest Billions in RD to have people think its free .

  • n4n

    This is a sad day for me. For the first time since almost 21 years ago, I decided to stop buying products from this company again.

  • Jizzus

    I know what a patent troll is – a troll is someone who uses their IP by making vague claims to cripple the competition. NVIDIA is getting this ready for quite some time – if they can’t compete in ARM, and no manufactureres want to use our SoC – let’s go the lawsuit way.

    There is little information, but as far as know, Adreno was bought by Qualcomm – so they own all that IP that belonged to ATI Imageon.

    If a court decides that none of the patents are being violated, I just hope NVIDIA pays the ultimate price – wich is burning so much cash that will arm the growth and development of the company.

    Just because NVIDIA makes GPUs doesnt mean they own every patent.

    Samsung/Qualcomm/etc are used to fight patent trolls in court, and have the financial resources to do it. Let’s wait and see.

  • Jizzus

    Can you backup that information?

  • Petri Toivonen

    NVidia’s lawsuit is just bullshit. Adreno GPU is originally ATI tech. and PowerVR is legitimately licenced already by samsung. STOP FISHING NVidia!

  • n900mixalot

    No! You go after all of them and let them indemnify one another. This lawsuit is a media ploy. Nvidia should have asked for a ban IMMEDIATELY after they realized they were being harmed. They waited until an opportune time for THEM and are doing this.

    It’s going to come back to bite them HARD or Samsung and Qualcomm will throw money on the floor and Nvidia will lap it up like the dogs they are.

  • n900mixalot

    The law says that anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not Samsung is liable is another story. Whether or not a sales ban is warranted is yet another story.

  • torchie4269

    Considering this is the first time NVidia has ever done this, I don’t think it’s some random money-grab. They must feel they have a legitimate grievance here.

  • Petri Toivonen

    Me too.

  • n900mixalot

    Blammmm EXAAACTLY!!! And especially when they’re asking for a ban on unreleased products as well as products that are nearly a year old!

  • Nvidia and Samsung user

    So Samsung got sued for buying those mobile GPU’s?
    Someone please explain me. I don’t wanna see these two companies I like start a lawsuit.

  • n900mixalot

    Buying and putting them to use, yes. They should have had an indemnity agreement with Qualcomm saying that Qualcomm is responsible if there are any patent issues that arise. But … who knows.

  • n900mixalot

    Yeah, the legitimate grievance being that they’re running out of money.

  • n900mixalot

    You should have been worried about this year’s ago, not now, after Nvidia has lost out as much as they say they have.

  • Bill

    NVidia might have invented some of these things but others might have as well – that’s the problem with inventions, more than one person can come up with the same solution.

    I don’t entirely object to NVidia going after other companies using their patented stuff but sometimes the allegations of theft or copying is not actually true even though an infringement is taking place – it is only copying or stealing if you take someone else’s idea and use it yourself. IF you do the work yourself and come up with a genuine innovation yourself then you invented it – Unfortunately if you then find that someone else has got there first and patented it then you haven’t actually stolen anything, its just bad luck and you need to pay them if you want to use the thing you invented yourself.

    This is the one thing that annoys me in patent disputes – the claim that the infringer is unfairly profiting from someone else’s hard work – Sometimes the infringer did all the work themselves as well, then just didn’t get a patent filed for it.

  • torchie4269

    Hahah, are you kidding? NVidia has billions of dollars of cash on hand.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    You are missing the point that just because someone else stole the IP doesn’t mean they get to use it! If I steal your cell phone and I sell it to my friend. Then you see my friend with it, don’t you think you should get it back? If my friend wants to keep it shouldn’t he have to pay you?
    My friend could then turn around and sue me for selling him a stolen phone but are the innocent person.
    If I took MS Office and renamed it to Mike’s Office and then I gave it to you and you sold it as Jimy’s Office don’t you think MS can sue you and me both? If you insisted hey my supplier said I could use your office suit as my own go talk to them, what do you think MS would say?

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Oh I am sure if someone threw money at you, you would be right on the floor rolling it like the pig you are.

  • n900mixalot

    Having billions on hand doesn’t mean their future revenues and growth are guaranteed or aren’t facing a downward trend. Even startups have tons of cash on hand. That’s why a lot of them go bust though. They aren’t looking at how the cash is going to last them.

  • torchie4269

    Perhaps you haven’t been keeping up with NVidia lately. They just announced earnings a few weeks ago that blew away estimates, while predicting strong revenue and growth going forward. Their stock price has jumped 15% in the last three weeks. It’s nothing both good news.

  • n900mixalot

    If my I was being really being compromised I wouldn’t wait for TWO YEARS to try to negotiate licensing. They’d have six months to one year or we’d see each other in court. Samsung shot them down two years ago and didn’t budge. But they waited too long. So, it’s not THAT serious and they don’t REALLY think they have that good of a chance to win.

  • Jonas

    I hope nvidia have long memories – Imagination (then called videologic) had a GPU in the dreamcast console 1998 (before these patents) and technology well before that date. Architecture wise it is very different to Nvidia. They also hold some very important patents themselves. Love to see how a jury will figure this all out 🙂

  • n900mixalot

    You’re right, I haven’t. But you don’t just suddenly sue out of the blue two whole years after your IP is compromised, without having some financial necessity. It just doesn’t happen. They’re suddenly afraid of something.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Don’t think they own every patent. But unless Qualcomm has an agreement with NVidia that they can resell their patented technology, then anyone using a chip by them can be sued. I just find it funny that people act like Samsung is some great shameless company. They literally try to copy other people’s successful work whenever possible instead of developing their own designs.

  • Pete

    I think you missed Jimmy’s point. He is saying there is a limitation to how far down you can be liable in his opinion. Your actually saying nvidia could sue and win against anyone with a Samsung phone. Jimmy’s point is there is limitations which prevent this. Not the suing, but the liability.

  • shm224

    @crislevin:disqus: Unlike the fashion design company Apple’s troll’sh lawsuits, nVidia is a serious tech company. Samsung is likely to settle if nVidia’s claims have merits. I’m guessing nVidia is really trying to get Samsung to pressure Qualcomm to license their patents.

  • Jizzus

    Again you have no idea if Qualcomm is violating any patent – NVIDIA sue them claiming they are, but it’s up to the court of law to say so. Not NVIDIA.

    And trust me: Samsung source of success isn’t thanks to patent violations. IMO all of this patent crap should be simply destroyed.

  • shm224

    @disqus_rje0y7brXi:disqus: Well, it’s easier to litigate a foreign company than to litigate a politically well-connected powerful domestic company (Apple). There are studies indicating that jury trials favor domestic litigants 2/3 of the time, so strategically, nVidia’s chance is much better against Samsung, a South Korean company, as demonstrated in Apple-Samsung trials in Apple’s hometown in Cal in 2012.

  • crApple H8ter

    We all know you are confused. You meant to say AMDesperate. I mean come on, it’s in their name. LOLZ


  • torchie4269

    Well if the blog post isn’t just lying, they said they had been in talks that went nowhere, and that’s why they finally sued. But we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

  • Ken Gray


    The basis of this case seems illogical though.

    If the infringement is deemed to be in the end product they they should sue Samsung (and all other handset makers who don’t have agreements with them (assuming these are enforceable patents which is debatable from reading the court filing)).

    If the infringement is in the GPU then it’s the vendor of the offending IP that should be sued. In this case they claim QCOM, but they also claim that IMG and ARM infringe, but they’re not being sued despite them being overseas companies, while QCOM are domestic !

    I just don’t see how they can try suing both ends of the stick ! Pick an end NVIDIA.

  • n900mixalot

    Check out Anand Tech if you haven’t already, they have a great breakdown. This litigation is a major business play and a media grab fueled by something other than Nvidia trying to protect its IP. Otherwise they wouldn’t have gone after the top two dogs. But I agree we will have to wait and see.

    Motorola was ruined and set back by this type of play a few years ago. It is bad for business and the tech industry to target specific top dogs instead of really trying to fix a major problem. If Samsung is really to blame so are tons of other OEMs.

    I smell Apple behind this.

  • Klinkman

    As an NVIDIA share holder I say power on. What a bunch of whiners here feeling diss’d because what, your favorite graphics provider didn’t think of it first, or NVDA has the nads to protect their property? Haters gotta hate I guess.

    There are really only two companies that invent graphics technology any more, one of them is flat on their back and one of them is changing the world. NVIDIA has every right to protect their IP, just like any other technology company. It’s business basics, not some nefarious plot.

  • Klinkman

    @LSX “a GPU has been around a lot longer than nvidia has been making GPUs”

    You are confusing a graphics chip with a graphics processor. A GPU is a programmable graphics device first introduced in the GeForce256.

  • domahman

    Microsoft didn’t go for everyone on their android patent. They all eventually paid Microsoft.

  • domahman

    good joke.

  • domahman

    within arms length. These two are in bed so it’s closer than arms length….they shutout competition.

  • torchie4269

    Thanks for the tip, that article was comprehensive.

  • domahman

    Let’s get together and copy Nvidia’s gpu and sell it for less. Thanks to Nvidia for spending billions on R&D…we won’t have to. We should hate on companies that actually spends money on research. Let’s buy AMD, they put almost no money into research. We’ll make these gpu on the hard work of nvidia and profit.

    Get real. NVIDIA spends billions on Research and Development so that you can have great game experience. Without Nvidia, you would be stuck with AMD and not much advancement at all.

    Go ahead, buy from companies that don’t innovate or spend money on research. That’ll teach them!

  • domahman

    do you have any products that I can copy? please share. Anyone else have something I can copy? can you email me how to do it? I’ll wait for the emails. I wanna make some easy money. Thanks.

  • domahman

    It’s a company that can’t innovate that steals someone’s hard work. Instead of investing in Research and Development, they just use someone else’s. Why spend money when you can just use someone else’s work…let the dumb companies spend money…the smart one copies. The smart companies shouldn’t be sued. Patents are free and shoudln’t be protected. We should look the other way. There should be no incentive to do research and development…a waste of money.

    Don’t sue anyone…let them eat cake! so that way, every company can join in and eat cake too! free for all!

  • domahman

    This is their first time going on the offense. They must have ammunition. For a company that has always been defensive, going offensive means something; I guess they are confident and agitated in order to do so.

  • vladx

    Nope, sorry but you’re wrong here the 1st modern GPU that is still used as the foundation today was the GeForce 256.

    Wether nVidia really registered it as a patent and it’s valid, that’s another issue.

  • vladx

    Well good luck to nVidia, they definitely aren’t a patent troll since they actually invested money and implemented those patents unlike others.

  • Kurama91

    Nvidia FUNDED by apple. you’re No Match For Samsung. so please don’t bother!!!

  • domahman

    Nvidia got this!

  • raul_nand

    Go for it!!!
    Why don’t you just enjoy your games and stop commenting…?

  • raul_nand

    GO NVIDIA…WE are with you!!

  • raul_nand


  • paulk

    Don’t forget Nvidia bought 3dfx along the way also, I would say they have more graphics patents than another other graphics company now.

  • pkan

    Nvidia don’t patent things like home button or shape of the phone like apple does.
    I am wondering who is the real patent trolling.

  • pkan

    Yes. They can still ship the ARM and IMG products if they can separate the gpu from the integrated core.

  • pkan

    It’s just your assumption.

  • Noami

    Totally agree,

  • domahman

    I was thinking about forming a new company and selling legos. Do you think I will get sued?

  • Mike_Hunt

    It’s fascism, using the state to enforce a monopoly.

  • Mike_Hunt

    Now I’ll be boycotting Nvidia.

    Using the state to enforce a monopoly is fascism, bad form.

  • Dimitrios Kirkos

    Why not sue ARM (for Mali), Qualcomm and PowerVR directly? How is an integrator to blame for what is essentially a licensed design they can’t change? Just because Samsung don’t have patents to fire back, like Qualcomm, ARM and PowerVR have? How would Nvidia feel if someone sued -say- Gigabyte instead of Nvidia directly?

  • Dimitrios Kirkos

    “Why should NVidia get back to work if their work can be stolen by other company’s who don’t want to work themselves?”

    Problem is, Samsung is an IP licensee, they didn’t design Mali or PowerVR, and can’t change the design even if they wanted to. Why not sue ARM or Imagination? Because they may have patents to fire back? This trend of suing IP licensees instead of IP producers, which got started by MS, is very low.

  • shm224

    @Kurama91:disqus: same Apple lawyers from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

  • shm224

    @torchie4269:disqus: nVidia’s lawyers are Apple’s lawyers from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Anybody can file a grievance in this country and their chance is fairly high if they are litigating a foreign company like Samsung.

  • shm224

    @domahman:disqus: Not sure how much nVidia is asking for, but I suspect MS’s licensing demand wasn’t as absurd as, say, Apple’s.

    The only company paying any meaningful royalty to MS is Samsung who has a substantial US sales. I think there was a perception that MS had a solid, tested patent portfolio before, but Microsoft’s lawsuits with Moto demonstrated that they aren’t what most Android makers thought they were.

  • Stephen Smith

    First infringement lawsuit nVidia has ever filed, and they’re “fishing”? I dunno, Samsung’s reputation isn’t exactly sterling when it comes to this field.

  • Petri Toivonen

    I read those accusations and NVidia is on a fishing trip. Atleast thgey should be factual about who invented those GPU technologies. Their patents should be revoked. ATI and SGI did it way earlier. Especially SGI.

  • Petri Toivonen

    But those sources i searched, every other seems to give different results about HW T&L inventor though.

  • oappi

    At least to my knowledge this is just Nv’s accusation that has not been proven in court. Thus suing Samsung for using patent it bought from somewhere else in good faith is at least premature. By your logic Nvidia could also sue anyone who sells Samsung devices such as Amazon, because they are selling item that contains stolen property. Maybe even go as far as say customers are benefiting stolen property and sue them as well. BTW well played on dragging one of the biggest patent troll for your example. That is like asking charles manson, if it is ok to kill someone.

  • oappi

    I somewhat agree, although imo patents lifetime is too long 20 years is lifetime in IT industry. Make that 10 years from the time first product using the implementation is announced and if no product is announced with in 5 years of filing patent, it would be revoked.

  • danglingparticiple

    Shut out competition? I can choose from many dozens if not hundreds of phones/tablets from any number of manufacturers. Competition abounds.

  • danglingparticiple

    By “in talks” they mean “license our tech or we’ll take you to court”.

  • youssef jbili

    you know what guys , here’s the point you’ve been all missing

    ——> .

  • handleym

    So you’re also going to boycott AMD? They sued Samsung in 2008 regarding patents:
    5,545,592; 4,737,830; 5,248,293;5,559,990; 5,377,200; and 6,784,879

    So you’ll still with Intel iGPUs? Hmm, turns out out that Intel have a rich history of patent suing, most notoriously over Patent # 4972338.

    So I guess no more video games for you, huh?

  • Piiphee Menaa

    Andan puro weando Nvidia Conchetumare!!!

  • handleym

    If we’re going to engage in crazy conspiracy theories, why not blame Intel?
    They also use Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; but more to the point they are the one company that is EXPLICITLY indemnified in the ITC filing, where there are a whole lot of words about how great Intel are, how great Atoms are, and how Atoms don’t infringe on nV.

    If anyone ELSE is going to win big in the fallout from a successful nV suit, it’s going to be Intel, not the ARM ecosystem and not Apple…

  • Neel Gupta

    1) unless you want to sell the said computer, you are only as liable as the digital pirates who download their movies and music from unauthorized sources.

    2) If you plan to sell computers with the infringing chip for profit, then it becomes an IP scandal.

    Personally, I advocate the first type of “piracy” as we should all be free to share each other’s stuff. And welcome to the world of Intellectual Property, where even Ideas can be bought off.

  • Neel Gupta

    Well, it would be nice to live in a world where Knowledge is Free !

    Unfortunately we live in a Capitalist world where Knowledge is Capitalized.

  • cremisi1000 .

    Nvidia was worried years ago and been discussing this with them for three years. just curious what do you think Nvidia should do about it ?

  • fm123

    Well Qualcomm is in that position, they get billions per year on license fees for 3g/4g technologies. The majority of the company revenue is fees.

  • fm123

    Legal efforts take years, that’s not uncommon. The 3Dfx buyout is still in court proceedings in regards to creditors.

    Allowing 2 years shows they gave reasonable time for Samsung to respond.

  • shm224

    @handleym:disqus: Sure, but what incentive is there for Intel? They don’t really compete in the same markets — though Intel’s flash memory business is quite small. Further, Samsung has products based on Intel’s Atom processor — meaning Samsung is also Intel’s customer. Intel isn’t going to win customers from Qualcomm and Samsung en masse because of this lawsuit and Intel is already paying quite dearly, or $1.5B over five years according to the complaint.

    This is in stark contrast to Apple. In addition to the recent bitter lawsuits between the two direct competitors, Apple has tried to use a third party entity like the Rockstar consortium to go after their competitors. Samsung and Apple don’t necessarily have the best supplier relationship around with Apple reportedly making numerous desperate attempts to “diversify” and “reduce” Samsung as an “OEM” supplier with their frivolous lawsuits.

  • n0vus

    Why now?? snapdragon chip has been long sold, OK lets narrow it down to snap 800 its been introduced long long ago…many of smartphone company use this chips why just samsung?? Sony , LG and many major brand use this chip

  • BobTheBuilder

    I guess Nvidia are not suing ARM because they use ARM licenses to make the CPU side of their Tegra SOCs. So Nvidia don’t want to get ARM offside.

    Here’s a scenario, say Nvidia wins against Samsung, guess what will happen then. Samsung will sue ARM for selling stolen designs. ARM wont blame Samsung though, as all this is very see through. They will be upset with Nvidia.

  • Grzesiek

    On the one hand Nvidia is really inventing stuff and using their inventions (and they aren’t known for patent lawsuits), so they can be excused.

    On the other hand in this industry patents should be valid for 5, maybe 10 years. (And software patents should not exist at all.)

  • Jose Alves

    NVidia showing it’s true colours.

    Then they go around bad mouthing AMD.

    AMD is right about NVidia though.

  • gfhgf

    amd won the deal to supply all next gen consoles for billions of dollars and then was unable to provide proper driver support for those cards, blaming nvidia for their incompetence because they were unable to steal nvidia’s drivers

  • Jose Alves

    I don’t know what you’re talking about, and makes no sense at all.

    AMD has no use at all for NVidia drivers, and AMD has supplied drivers for the consoles APU’s without any problem, and they’re working correctly.

  • Default

    John Carmack ‏@ID_AA_Carmack 15m
    WTF Nvidia? http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/04/nvidia-launches-patent-suits/

  • 3vi1

    “Samsung didn’t steal the ip of the legs , that’s the point. The people they got it from did.”

    The people they got it from *allegedly* did. Until nVidia wins a court case against the chip manufacturers, Samsung is completely right to tell them to go pound sand.

    Bad move nVidia – you just lost a bit of reputation.

  • EdisonCarter

    Also Apple is a huge NVIDIA customer.. Powers all Macs that have discrete graphics.

  • Nita-Ciurea Sorin

    Lame Nvidia, lame!

  • Carter

    Unfortunate. I will no longer purchase NVIDIA products and no longer recommend NVIDIA products to friends and colleagues.

  • EdisonCarter

    Oh my Samsung and Qualcomm caught with their pants down.. what a surprise. Couldn’t happen to any two worse companies.

  • KeyboardG

    Has business gotten that bad NVidia?

  • Jw

    Aren’t the listed inventions basically the core features of every GPU manufactured during the last decade?

  • Canol

    I remember GPUs before Nvidia, like Voodoo? And even if they invented the GPU concept, it has been 20+ years. They should be embarrassed that they still charge money from the concept of GPU. Get over it. If they find something last year and sue people stealing that technology, I might understand that but charging money for a concept that has been around for 20+ years??? This kinda means “our only goal is to make money, we don’t care if we contribute to humanity”. They should be ashamed.

  • Lycanthrope

    And this is one of the many reasons I no longer support Nvidia. Good riddance.

  • http://catfists.me/ Heidar hfinity

    A patent on the Graphics Processing Unit the item if that is possible then I’m gonna patent my Glass now no one can make glass unless I get money too…

  • abowman

    Using that logic, wouldn’t Nvidia be expecting to receive a check from you after selling the stolen Samsung Galaxy to your friend? 😉

  • Aaron

    Well, thanks for letting me know you guys can’t compete in the marketplace anymore. I just sold off my shares of Nvidia stock.

  • John Adams

    Yea, I no longer respect Nvidia like I once did. Why would any company anywhere think it would help their public image by holding back development of products? I am disappointed.
    I’m not sure If I want to upgrade my GTX 550 Ti to a GTX 780 now… Maybe I’ll go with AMD?

  • John Adams

    I’d throw their phone on the ground, in no way will I be cheated by both parties.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    That’s what you don’t get. They CAN sue anyone selling or using a Samsung product if it is deemed to be using stolen IP. Nvidia doesn’t do that because suing everyone would be expensive wouldn’t it? Suing the person who made the devices though they can extract payment for everyone of the devices they sold without having sue each customer individually.
    This is why handset makers pay Microsoft for every android device sold. Because Android does us MS patents and google does not choose to indemnify its customers using its product. They don’t because they know they would prolly lose so why bother if its customers pony up the money to MS for them?
    MS doesn’t care to sue google directly because its making a killing on android devices surprisingly. You guys all seem to think you have the right to use stolen property and guess what, you don’t. How the property owner chooses to go about getting reimbursed for their stolen property is their business though.
    If Samsung chooses to use a product they have been warned is stolen, and then a court finds as well that it is stolen, Samsung will have to pay for using it, or recall all the devices and remove the stolen IP. Betting they would pay the few dollar per device though instead of choosing the recall route.
    BTW, I am not saying Nvidia’s patents are being infringed or if they have a right to these license fees. However, they fact that Samsung seems to be saying, “hey this is a supplier issue”, they know it is and are foolish if they think they will not have to pay for using stolen IP even after being warned by the IP owner.
    Now Samsung can turn around and sue their supplier for their costs or they may choose to just keep paying the license fee the court sets up. That is, should they be found to have actually violated Nvidia patents.

  • pinkham

    maybe it’s just me but if some guy named Bob walked up to me and said the phone I bought from Steve was stolen and I owe him (Bob) a billion dollars for it I’d tell him to go see Steve.. I’d be a fool otherwise..

  • Djigurda

    Instead of adding Optimus to Linux you start patent trolling… sad.

  • Pritchard

    No, that’s not true. nVidia only released a consumer-ready GPU (ex: affordable to the average person).

    “The Nvidia GeForce 256 (also known as NV10) was the first consumer-level card on the market with hardware-accelerated T&L, while professional 3D cards already had this capability. Hardware transform and lighting, both already existing features of OpenGL, came to consumer-level hardware in the ’90s and set the precedent for later pixel shader and vertex shader units which were far more flexible and programmable.”

    Are you guys lawyers or PR agents hired by nVidia, or something? This is complete garbage.

    If nVidia had really invented the GPU, all other GPUs on the market would be subject to claims by nVidia. That is simply not the case.

    As far as people stealing technology – nVidia’s incentive to perform R&D and make better GPUs is that people will buy them. What kind of crap is this.

  • Pritchard

    nVidia only released a consumer-ready GPU (ex: affordable to the average person). They did not invent the GPU as they are claiming.

    “The Nvidia GeForce 256 (also known as NV10) was the first consumer-level card on the market with hardware-accelerated T&L, while professional 3D cards already had this capability. Hardware transform and lighting, both already existing features of OpenGL, came to consumer-level hardware in the ’90s and set the precedent for later pixel shader and vertex shader units which were far more flexible and programmable.”

    Are you guys lawyers or PR agents hired by nVidia, or something? This is complete garbage.

    If nVidia had really invented the GPU, all other GPUs on the market would be subject to claims by nVidia. That is simply not the case.

    As far as people stealing technology – nVidia’s incentive to perform R&D and make better GPUs is that people will buy them. What kind of crap is this.

  • Steve Smith

    “We are asking the ITC to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures.”

    Not asking for much. To be fair if there is a patent issue I agree with Samsung, it should be with the chip maker. Then again you wont want to upset ARM or Imagination Technologies, you use ARM for your Tegra line, and as for PowerVR, Apple have a very large share in that company and use PowerVR for most of their devices, you wouldn’t want go to court with Apple now would you?

  • Steve Smith

    Drivers for consoles? I always thought it was to the metal coding?

  • Michael J Voorhees

    I would agree actually it is low. And your right, its because they want to extract a license fee for every Samsung device sold. Just like MS extracts one for Android.

  • doodles

    Just one more company blocking tech spread and evolution through court. Disgusting.

  • Bipin Nag

    First your analogy is misleading. You claim the thieft stole it but in court you have to prove the act of stealing or in this case infringement. The burden of proving this falls between the comapany that stole it and the company that got ripped. If you purchased Mike’s Office product then the company with its patent rights is at fault. I am using the product not the patent.
    Second I don’t understand why is it wrong with settling with the supplier first. That would be the logical thing to do. Can’t go on suing every smartphone vendor that incorporates the infringed patent.

  • potpot

    why samsung? other phone maker is also using qualcomm/arm/imagination’s SoC right?

  • mill

    Well, guess I won’t be buying any more Nvidia products. This is legal bullying using patents that frankly everyone within the graphics industry violates. Seriously a patent on a GPU? is that meant to be a licence to be a monopoly? T&L on a single chip? Really? 2001 called they want their industry standard to be just that.

    You’re facing competition, deal with it. That’s called running a business, if these were recent innovations that arn’t critical to being a player in the field you’d have a case, this is horseshit and I expect your competitors to be scouring their patents to inevitably find a set of their own to counter with.

    This approach was a dumbass approach for apple with samsung, and it’s a stupid approach for you. Have fun burning money on lawyers, it certainly won’t be any of mine.

  • fm123

    Well, is it much different than when Qualcomm filed patent infringement against companies like Ericsson, Nokia, Broadcom, etc…? They did it to protect their patents, which BTW pulled them in over $7.5 billion last year (just licensing alone). Not defending IP makes patents meaningless. That’s called running a business.

  • mabuhay_2000

    No, they won’t. I imagine that Samsung are pretty smart when it comes to deals with suppliers. I expect they have clauses built in that protect them from such suits relating to components supplied by external suppliers. Something like “You, the supplier, assures Samsung that the components you supply comply with all existing patents relating to said components”, which effectively puts the blame squarely on the supplier.

  • mabuhay_2000

    You are wrong, I’m afraid. Samsung, in your analogy, did not make the legs of the table. They obtained them from a table leg maker. They played no part in the manufacture of the table legs. They cannot be at fault for breaching IP for making table legs if they play no role in making the table legs. Simple.

  • mabuhay_2000

    Your analogies are wrong. Samsung is making no claim to have designed the GPU they get from Mali or ARM. They go to the supplier and ask them to provide a GPU. In the phone specs, they openly admit the GPU is supplied by Mali or ARM. They have no claimed it is a Samsung GPU, have they? So you are way off the mark.

  • mabuhay_2000

    Anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody for anything. Whether that suit prospers in court is another matter entirely. I see no way that any claims for IP infringement by Samsung will stand up. This is just Nvidia slinging a load of mud, hoping that some of it will stick.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Sorry you have no idea how patent law works. If you have a product and any of the components in it you are using have patents that are not licensed to the person you got the component from, or to you directly, you can not use it. You have the right to have that product removed from the market if you are not compensated.
    If it did not work this way a foreign company that is outside the touch of your nations courts could copy patented technology and supply it cheap to companies even in the IP owners home nation. There is no way around a patent by saying “sorry someone else stole it, I am just using it”.
    That is not to say again that Nvidia is right here. This is just the crux of their argument because they believe their patents are being violated.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Its called indemnity, and its actually rare to have such a clause. If there is one between them you can be assured the person providing the indemnity will be joining the suit. Google does not provide it for instance for manufacturers using Android, hence why they all pay Microsoft license fees for using it.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Sorry you have no idea how patent law works. If you have a product and any of the components in it you are using have patents that are not licensed to the person you got the component from, or to you directly, you can not use it. You have the right to have that product removed from the market if you are not compensated.
    If it did not work this way a foreign company that is outside the touch of your nations courts could copy patented technology and supply it cheap to companies even in the IP owners home nation. There is no way around a patent by saying “sorry someone else stole it, I am just using it”.
    That is not to say again that Nvidia is right here. This is just the crux of their argument because they believe their patents are being violated.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    Sorry no, Nvidia has put them on notice they are using stolen technology, at least that is Nvidia’s claim. If you proceed to use that stolen product or IP you have the right to have that product blocked from being imported unless they agree to pay you a license fee. That is if you win your case in court.
    In this case Nvidia might not be able to force Samsung to pay up but they can block their product from being imported to the USA or any country they win a lawsuit in.
    Samsung would most likely pay at that point for a license. If they go after the supplier themselves they could win of course, but then they have to prove damages. This brings them back to Samsung who is using their chips and it starts to get real complicated.
    Also this is where Nvidia looks slimy. They really don’t want them to stop supplying the chips. They just want to extract a license fee for them. So they don’t go after the manufacturer directly because the chips might be taken off the market all together.
    No they would rather Samsung keep using them and just pay a fee to them as well. After all Nvidia can’t make chips as good.

  • Michael J Voorhees

    I never said Qualcomm was violating anything. I am explaining to you what Nvidia believes, not what the court is going to find. You can destroy all this patent crap and the next day China will openly be copying every piece of software and hardware currently on the market.
    Within a few years Apple, MS, Google basically any company that developed any of the technology will be out of business because China now has no R&D cost.
    Then enjoy the iPhone or Galaxy phone you are using now because it will be awhile before anyone decides to invest in R&D again.

  • Bipin Nag

    That is ridiculous. Why does Samsung have to prove that the chips or whatever they use from their suppliers uses patents which belong to nVidia. They probably already have a purchase agreement/license from their supplier which is perfectly legal.

    As for the damages you are jumping the gun, first prove in court the infringment and then ask to compensate damages. That is the way it should be. You think Samsung wont incur losses if it stops the sales and what if nVidia can’t prove infringment at all ?

  • Jizzus

    I’m sorry but in what NVIDIA belives is kinda irrelevant – because the closest thing you will get close to the reality is what is decided by the courts, not by NVIDIA belifs.

    What about China copying? They do it anyway – you know there are other things besides holding patents, and patents doesn’t asure you anything except that no one will use what is in your patent, it doesn’t tell the success of the product.

    I bet with you if in China there was the exact same phone as any iPhone it wouldn’t make in impact on Apple sales, because it’s more then just the phone. It’s the services it delivers, the support, inovation, etc… that is what create value around hardware, not the hardware itself.

    If you belive otherwise, then I don’t know what to tell you.

  • mill

    Well, it is when the patents are so generic to the point that they’re required to be in the industry, and it is when the company that developed the allegedly offending IP has a whole range of vague patents with all sorts of prior art to fire back with.

    By bringing suit against their customers, it may have the appearance of asymmetry, but it’s just indirectly stupid. Img and Arm could choose not to get too drawn in, they’re not being targeted, but it is impacting their customers and thus their bottom line.

    Fundamentally Nvidia has no case, at least in my opinion from the perspective of a technologist.

    Patents should defend innovation, not be used to legally bully. Maybe nvidia thinks that they hold more patents, and/or perhaps more defendable patents than Img/Arm do, I’m not intimately familiar with them, they may be right, but the ones they’ve highlighted on this blog don’t seem like they’d do.

    Besides, they all apply to things that these companies have been doing for literally 15-17 years. It’s corporate politics and bullying, and I lose respect for any firm that goes in for it, not even ethically, though I don’t think highly of it, It’s just a stupid thing to do.

    Why not sue Sega for selling the Dreamcast? They’re not a competitor right now, there’s no point in bulling them.

  • Benjamin Tharin

    Bad move, wether you are right or not won’t matter people will keepin mind that it was you who blocked them from getting their phones.
    Not sure if this hurts you more than anything.

  • Brandon Quintela

    Well NVidia just became virtual realitys #1 enemy. You’d think they would want to promote it and allow things such as the Gear VR to succeed BEFORE they pull such childish moves. HORRIBLE TIMING BTW, could of sued years ago, or instead years from now.

  • Fingerpusher

    Time to go back to ATI I guess. This is a horrible idea Nvidia.

  • JCat_NY

    Nvidia: Don’t blame Samsung for “The Shield”.

  • Green Grimace

    and then you would either pay up or go to jail. That is the law. If you are dumb enough to not understand that I have some prime property in the Sahara desert for ya…. In my younger days I bought and sold stereos/ speakers/ band equipment. I ended up getting stolen goods. options were as follows. Make a plea deal and roll on the guy I bought them from and give the stuff back or give the stuff back and pay fines, have a record and jail time. There was no keep the goods and walk away from it. I lost money and the instruments. I could have sued the guy who stole the stuff and then sold to me but guess what? He was in jail and had no money anyways…….That is the law here in USA. If you believe otherwise again I got that land for sale…..

  • Green Grimace

    doesn’t work that way……

  • Green Grimace

    You say that now……but spend 20 years creating something unique that will finally earn you the dividends you worked so hard for to only have another person/company copy/steal your design and put you down before you could get a leg up. You would be pissed. If you say no, then please forward any money you make to me from no on.

  • Jizzus

    If you let someone put you down with tech you invented and you wanted to bring it to the market – then you diserve to be put down.

    A patent isn’t a business – but behaviors like Apple and NVIDIA try to make it into business.

    Now you go tell that to Tesla that openly said they aren’t suing anyone for using their patents for the most advanced electric car.

  • pinkham

    so what you are saying is the cops have evidence that samsung has stolen equipment.. it’s already proven.. I didn’t read that part of the article.. all I read was 1 party says to the other.. you have my stolen stuff.. pay up.. btw.. the Sahara is nice this time of year..

  • fm123

    If the concepts were so generic then why did the patent office grant them all the patents? Ultimately, the validity of a patent is going to be based on if it can be held up in court. Having a general programmable highly parallel computation architecture for general purpose computing is a big deal. Otherwise why would you see them in supercomputers? They continue to show up in more and more high performance computing devices and not a different architecture but Nvidia’s. If there was something out there better wouldn’t those be used instead?

    BTW many of Qualcomm’s patent licenses are required by the industry, it’s called an essential patent without which the technology cannot exist. That’s why Qualcomm gets money for basically every mobile device even without their hardware in it.

  • Empathetic

    Boycotting Nvidia from now on, ex Nvidia Linux fanboy here, these sort of things disgust me and reek of Apple having some sort of involvement with this.

  • Empathetic

    I don’t even care if the AMD binary drivers are garbage anymore, I will be
    buying AMD from now on for my Linux PCs, even if I have to rely only on
    the open source drivers.

  • domahman

    beat up qualconn

  • fm123

    Of course it’s a business, that’s where Qualcomm makes most of it’s profit.

    Many companies have large departments for IP licensing. Philips and Qualcomm in particular. If you want to make a CD, DVD, BD, VCD device, you have to license from Philips and the other members that hold patents. You want HDMI on your device you have to license that too. What about MPEG codec, you have to license that for MP3 players, DVD playback, etc…

    Here are some of the links to the royalty rates and IP licensing info for some product types.

  • AluminumHaste

    Weird, do a google search for who invented unified shaders, comes up with a patent by ATi


  • R Valencia

    Mac Pros are powered by AMD.

  • Hal

    my nvida graphics card on centos 6.4 with nvidia cuda packages delivering the drivers really, really, really sucks. It doesn’t redraw the screen half the time.

    Why not focus on fixing that crap rather than this nonsense.

  • Vlad Rose

    If you can’t beat them, sue them…

  • Lars

    Yeah, I stopped buying nVidia cards for my Linux desktop and laptop computers a while ago – but do go on; you’re “big” now.

  • shaun walsh

    The problem with that is arm doesn’t actually manufacture chips, they just create blueprints. You then have to manufacture the chips and obtain all the materials for it. Guess arm never mentioned that materials includes patents lol

  • shaun walsh

    Samsung did m manufacturer the GPUs, they have there own fab. Arm just sells designs, not actual chips

  • shaun walsh

    After looking up patents, it shows ati having the patent for unified shaders…

  • http://www.floridatechno.com Ben Murk

    The wheel has been a lot longer than 71 years which is what parents allow you. Also you can’t patent the wheel but you CAN patent special kind of tires. Learn the difference son.

  • http://www.floridatechno.com Ben Murk

    And someone with a brain joins the discussion!!!!

  • http://www.floridatechno.com Ben Murk

    And we are back to stupid square one!!!! Congrats David Vaughan and the 42 idiots that cannot comprehend pattent laws.