Nvidia's patent war on Samsung is a wreck – what you need to know A US judge has just made a ruling that will somewhat simplify the saga of graphics chip patent-infringement allegations between Nvidia and Samsung. Judge Robert Payne of the Eastern Virginia District Court upheld a motion put forth by Nvidia (and unopposed by Samsung) removing Samsung Electronics of America from the case due …
Spouting without reading the article or are you a PR flak?
Samsung won. Nvidia was the one at fault, according to the verdicts.
As for the article saying: "And, as always, there's the chance that sense will prevail, the two companies will agree to a licensing deal, and all of this will end."...
I hope not. A licensing deal papers over the fact that the patent system is broken for its purpose (protecting inventions) in the IT field and it harms smaller companies by excluding those unable to spend on lawyers or who don't have an existing large patent pool with which to threaten legal shenanigans.
excluding those unable to spend on lawyers
This is a failing of the legal system itself, not of the patent system. It applies throughout all arms of the legal system in both the US and here in the UK (and most of the world): If you can afford an expensive lawyer, you have a better chance of winning. This makes a mockery of justice.
As a brief example, a friend of mine has been charged with a fairly serious crime (it is definitely a false accusation). Luckily, he is able to raise the huge amount of money needed for a good legal team to defend him (albeit by making huge sacrifices). This will give him good legal advice on the matter, and skilled barrister in court, and a team looking over the facts of the case to produce the defence with the best chance of a favourable outcome.
In turn, had I been the one charged, I would likely have had to rely on a court-appointed defence. I would have to make do with whatever quality of lawyer I had been assigned/were willing to accept legal aid fees. My chances of winning would be substantially lower, whether I had done what they say or not.
My chances in a civil suit would be even lower, as I would probably not be able to get help defending the case, although at least I would be able to claim costs if I managed to win (something you cannot do against the CPS in the UK).
>1) Make products that people want to buy and sell them at a price that they can afford.
>2) Profit.
>It's not that friggin' difficult.
You're still thinking in 19th Century terms where the market is effectively infinite in size compared to production facilities. Today's large companies can saturate the market in a couple of years so the only way of growing is to destroy the competition, removing other companies' products (unit growth) from the market and increasing monopoly power (income growth). Look how Apple flips between suppliers like ATI and Nvidia. Apple knows that if ATI disappears, Nvidia's prices will rise, so it has a vested interest in keeping competition alive.
It's not complex, but it is difficult. Many simple things are difficult, otherwise we'd all be retired by now.
In general I thought the modern business plan was:
1. Obtain cartel/monopoly position in market, ideally by legislation.
2. Reduce tax bill
3. Prevent new market entrants
4. Profit
That way you get something like the big 6 energy companies, water companies, retial banking, crapita, camelot etc where there is no real competitive pressure on the market.
Making widgets is very risky in comparison. You have the whole process of making and marketing them, and you cant really stop other widget makers.
But if a homeowner has no choice between utility companies, that's much better from the perspective of business.
That is generally how things go. It is like nuclear war, each large company hold many patents that have been slipped through the crazy murican patent system. Every company will infringe "something" according to the crazy system so unless one company REALLY annoys another you don't push the litigate button.
When you do then both set out for annihilation until one backs down (you don't really want your patents scrutinised in court as you might get a judge that sees sense/isn't favourable to someone and invalidates them)
October 2015: Nvidia loses against Samsung, Qualcomm at the ITC... an ITC judge ruled in favor of Samsung and Qualcomm, finding no infringement.
Jan 2015: Register suggests that the "two companies will agree to a licensing deal, and all of this will end. We can only hope."
I don't understand why, if the courts are finding no infringement, Samsung and Qualcomm should agree to pay licensing to Nvidia in perpetuity rather than defending themselves now?
There is one thing both Nvidia and Samsung value far more than this patent squabble: retention of the broken and perverted patent mechanism itself. It is a vey effective means they have to preclude large scale competition from upstarts. Neither wants all their patents invalidated. Thus I believe a cross license deal is the likely outcome. This will validates the patent system rather than weaken it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
