Intel files lawsuit against Nvidia

[Idontcare]

Intel files lawsuit against Nvidia

We have just learned that Intel filed a lawsuit against Nvidia late last night in which it alleges that the four-year old chipset license agreement the two companies signed is not valid for Intel's current and future generation CPUs with integrated memory controllers.

This includes Nehalem - a chip that Nvidia has repeatedly claimed it holds a chipset license for. Intel, as evidenced by this lawsuit, begs to differ.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h...wsuit-against-nvidia/1

NVIDIA responds to Intel court filing regarding chipset license agreement

"We are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of NVIDIA. "At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

http://www.dvhardware.net/article33446.html

Saw this over on XS, time for fireworks. Get your popcorn, you knew it was coming.

The enemy of your enemy is your friend, NV is becoming AMD's new best friend :laugh:

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

It must be fun being delusional :laugh:

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Idontcare
"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

It must be fun being delusional :laugh:

You just know somewhere inside NV is a legal team that keeps sending him memo's saying "for the love of god, please stop opening your mouth in public! you aren't making this any easier".

 

[Denithor]

Doncha know it!

I'd like to see nVidias GPGPUs function at all without a CPU to drive the whole thing...

Decaying CPU business indeed!

 

[SunnyD]

I didn't think NVIDIA had a Nehalem chipset... which is why they pushed so hard for the NV200 SLI bridge & SLI Licensing programs on the X58.

Did I miss something in the news recently?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Doncha know it!

I'd like to see nVidias GPGPUs function at all without a CPU to drive the whole thing...

Decaying CPU business indeed!

Didn't you know? Every computer has a GPU, just not every computer has a CPU!





oh wait, maybe I have that backwards? Well, anyways, who needs a CPU. After all with a $1000 98506GTXYQZ++-7 You could almost do every calculation that a CPU does in twice the time! errr I mean, half the speed! errr, Double the threads?

 

[apoppin]

aha .. it IS metaphysical

"the battle for the soul of the PC"

just don't forget its heart and its brain when you steal its soul, nvidia

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I didn't think NVIDIA had a Nehalem chipset... which is why they pushed so hard for the NV200 SLI bridge & SLI Licensing programs on the X58.

Did I miss something in the news recently?

You might have the cart before the horse there. Nvidia probably did not develop a Nehalem chipset because they could not get Intel to give them the technical specs they needed because Intel kept insisting (behind the scenes) that Nvidia did not have a license to produce the chipsets.

If I had to guess, Nvidia said something to Intel at high-level meetings (can't imagine that, now can you) that convinced Intel they needed to take this action as a means of ultimately defending themselves against some perceived threat.

The best defense is a good offense cliche.

I'm guessing the SLI scam isn't generating the revenue they wanted it to. HardOCP kinda blew the lid on the fact you don't need hardware NV200 bridge for better SLI performance, and the licensing program really has zero credibility as anything other than a marketing gimmick given that its not required for workstation boards with SLI professional NV products as well as its not required for xfire setups.

So what's a company to do when you can't bluff your way into extracting cash flow from an existing supply chain that doesn't need you? We may never know what the straw was that broke the camels back here and convinced Intel they had no choice but to go on the offensive, but with NV we've had plenty of smoke so no doubt there's a fire somewhere.

 

[nyker96]

didn't think intel really would file a lawsuit against nvidia like this. nvidia had helped intel plenty over the years with their chipsets that are SLI enabled. it looks to me that since intel is getting into gpu business this year, fist with ps4 win then with their newer 1156 offerings that's loaded with graphics core, they probably don't need nvidia any longer and considers NV as a threat and not a friend or partner anymore thus the tough stance on license agreement or rather disagreement. Could this be a signal of a new direction for intel's future, a fusion of gpu into cpu?

 

[AmberClad]

Shocking :shocked:!

No, not really. Seems like this has been building up for quite some time now.

I would imagine that Intel has gotten enough of what they see as Nvidia stepping on their toes. The "CPU = dead" comments, the "Laughabee" insults, the refusal to open up the SLI license, Nvidia trying to force Ion upon them, the infamous "can of whoopass" threat made by Jensen, etc.

I wonder if AMD is silently cheering on from the sidelines as its two main competitors duke it out ...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Shocking :shocked:!

No, not really. Seems like this has been building up for quite some time now.

I would imagine that Intel has gotten enough of what they see as Nvidia stepping on their toes. The "CPU = dead" comments, the "Laughabee" insults, the refusal to open up the SLI license, Nvidia trying to force Ion upon them, the infamous "can of whoopass" threat made by Jensen, etc.

I wonder if AMD is silently cheering on from the sidelines as its two main competitors duke it out ...

+1

After screwing Intel over the SLI on Skulltrail situation (which the project lead Francois made very public as the situation was evolving) you can bet the directive came from on-high to "engineer out" Intel's reliance on Nvidia for anything.

Plus all the other stuff Amber says above. Who says that publicly and doesn't expect repercussions in the business relationship? If NV said that stuff and had no Plan B for the eventuality of today then they are dumber than a box of rocks.

One would assume they only said all that public BS because they had Plan B in the pipeline and it was they who no longer needed Intel.

NV is like the psycho girlfriend "you can't dump me, nobody dumps me, oh yeah will f'you, I dumping you right now then, there I did it first and that's what I'm going to tell everyone!...oh and I screwed your brother too!".

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I didn't think NVIDIA had a Nehalem chipset... which is why they pushed so hard for the NV200 SLI bridge & SLI Licensing programs on the X58.

Did I miss something in the news recently?

You might have the cart before the horse there. Nvidia probably did not develop a Nehalem chipset because they could not get Intel to give them the technical specs they needed because Intel kept insisting (behind the scenes) that Nvidia did not have a license to produce the chipsets.

If I had to guess, Nvidia said something to Intel at high-level meetings (can't imagine that, now can you) that convinced Intel they needed to take this action as a means of ultimately defending themselves against some perceived threat.

The best defense is a good offense cliche.

I'm guessing the SLI scam isn't generating the revenue they wanted it to. HardOCP kinda blew the lid on the fact you don't need hardware NV200 bridge for better SLI performance, and the licensing program really has zero credibility as anything other than a marketing gimmick given that its not required for workstation boards with SLI professional NV products as well as its not required for xfire setups.

So what's a company to do when you can't bluff your way into extracting cash flow from an existing supply chain that doesn't need you? We may never know what the straw was that broke the camels back here and convinced Intel they had no choice but to go on the offensive, but with NV we've had plenty of smoke so no doubt there's a fire somewhere.

(from the bit-tech article in the OP)
"Desai said that Nvidia isn't planning to change its roadmap and hinted that Nehalem-based chipsets are on schedule for release in the future. He couldn't confirm details of the chipsets at this time because Nvidia doesn't talk about unannounced products, but he said that the roadmap extended beyond processors that are already on the market."

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Intel files lawsuit against Nvidia

We have just learned that Intel filed a lawsuit against Nvidia late last night in which it alleges that the four-year old chipset license agreement the two companies signed is not valid for Intel's current and future generation CPUs with integrated memory controllers.

This includes Nehalem - a chip that Nvidia has repeatedly claimed it holds a chipset license for. Intel, as evidenced by this lawsuit, begs to differ.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h...wsuit-against-nvidia/1

NVIDIA responds to Intel court filing regarding chipset license agreement

"We are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of NVIDIA. "At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

http://www.dvhardware.net/article33446.html

Saw this over on XS, time for fireworks. Get your popcorn, you knew it was coming.

The enemy of your enemy is your friend, NV is becoming AMD's new best friend :laugh:

The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy, nothing more, nothing less. - schlock mercenary

 

[SickBeast]

IMO intel is simply putting the squeeze on NV and saying "Stop! Get your own sandwich!", to which the one problem is that NV can't get their own sandwich in the sense that they can't purchase an x86 license.

What's unfortunate is that by virtue of the x86 license nonsense, intel is able to control the industry, and like NV is saying, stifle innovation.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
IMO intel is simply putting the squeeze on NV and saying "Stop! Get your own sandwich!", to which the one problem is that NV can't get their own sandwich in the sense that they can't purchase an x86 license.

What's unfortunate is that by virtue of the x86 license nonsense, intel is able to control the industry, and like NV is saying, stifle innovation.

true. Considering that we are in the information age, and the computer is the very BASIS of our SOCIETY, it is ridiculous that the x86 has been allowed to stand. It should be revoked...

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: magreen
(from the bit-tech article in the OP)
"Desai said that Nvidia isn't planning to change its roadmap and hinted that Nehalem-based chipsets are on schedule for release in the future. He couldn't confirm details of the chipsets at this time because Nvidia doesn't talk about unannounced products, but he said that the roadmap extended beyond processors that are already on the market."

Right, but there are no infringing products on the market right now, let alone announced, meaning what is Intel suing for? There's no material breach. That's the part that confuses me - they're suing NVIDIA because NVIDIA says they have a license for QPI but doesn't have any actual product that uses it? There's no reason to sue!

There's got to be something more than meets the eye here.

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: SunnyDRight, but there are no infringing products on the market right now, let alone announced, meaning what is Intel suing for? There's no material breach. That's the part that confuses me - they're suing NVIDIA because NVIDIA says they have a license for QPI but doesn't have any actual product that uses it? There's no reason to sue!

There's got to be something more than meets the eye here.

Maybe Intel is just saying "sit down and shutup, you do NOT have the license and we are NOT going to let you bluff your way into the party"
With larrabee Intel is developing what AMD did by buying ATI. In doing so, they are becoming a direct competitor to nVid, putting nVid in their place is a proactive measure to keep the situation from escalating. ?

 

[MegaWorks]

nVidia seriously think the can take on Intel good luck, and knowing nVidia past business strategies they would have done the same.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: magreen
(from the bit-tech article in the OP)
"Desai said that Nvidia isn't planning to change its roadmap and hinted that Nehalem-based chipsets are on schedule for release in the future. He couldn't confirm details of the chipsets at this time because Nvidia doesn't talk about unannounced products, but he said that the roadmap extended beyond processors that are already on the market."

Right, but there are no infringing products on the market right now, let alone announced, meaning what is Intel suing for? There's no material breach. That's the part that confuses me - they're suing NVIDIA because NVIDIA says they have a license for QPI but doesn't have any actual product that uses it? There's no reason to sue!

There's got to be something more than meets the eye here.

simple, nvidia cannot AFFORD to develop it only to be barred from SELLING it due to legal proceeding. So they are now fighting over weather nvidia has the right to develop it..
Potentially, the contact might state that intel must provide nvidia with detailed information about its construction so that nvidia may create a compatible device, and intel might be averse to doing so.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Probably stretching the boundaries here, since there is a "Politics" thread here . . . somewhere. But an economist once said that going into the grocery store and buying an orange can be a "political action."

The fact is, despite all the talk-show palaver and legislator-posturing about "free-markets," there's nothing that is truly "Adam-Smith-ish" about large segments of the economy. Back in the mid-70s, Lockheed, for whom 95% of sales was with DOD or NASA, had massive cost-overruns on the C5A transport, and ultimately the government bailed them out -- at least $500 million worth -- maybe more.

So naturally, people today are asking "Why can't we just let the auto-industry go belly-up so that the market takes care of it?" In addition, nobody wants the market to "take care of" the housing crisis, either. As for Detroit, I think you could ask the Joint Chiefs what they think about it.

Then, there was the Boeing-McDonnell-Douglas merger in the 1990's. I was giving a lecture to visiting Chinese on the legal concept of "The Corporation," and the one who seemed to be the Big Brother watchdog for the rest . . . well, he "expressed his concern." Frankly, despite his being a commie, I can perfectly understand his position.

And again -- you had the interlocking directorates of oil and energy companies on Halliburton's board, with the former Pres's biggest supporter the King among Kings, and "the other guy" -- the former CEO turned US-VP -- whispering in the Pres's ear all the time. This latest spat over Scooter tells me that the Pres (to quote Cappola's movie) was just "an errand boy . . . sent by grocery clerks . . . to collect a bill." That's why Dick could be so mad about his "superior's" intransigence.

And again and again -- Microsoft -- dominant firm and near monopoly, in a market without simple barriers to entry (except for the overpowering factor of "integration") -- and the anti-trust suit that began in the 1990s.

So -- except for Sun and IBM supplying other specialty markets, this is a near-duopoly with AMD and INtel, and a nexus of contracts or wished-for contracts caught in the middle. nVidia is like one of the Indian tribes caught up in the 18th-century superpowers' French and Indian War.

I think all that is pretty objective -- and after all --we're focused on Intel here. But how are we going to straighten out this mess, if the order of the day is "Chaos, Masquerading as Order?"

Wait for an I7 model-line with 65W TDP, I guess . . .

 

[theeedude]

Interesting

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
Probably stretching the boundaries here, since there is a "Politics" thread here . . . somewhere. But an economist once said that going into the grocery store and buying an orange can be a "political action."

The fact is, despite all the talk-show palaver and legislator-posturing about "free-markets," there's nothing that is truly "Adam-Smith-ish" about large segments of the economy. Back in the mid-70s, Lockheed, for whom 95% of sales was with DOD or NASA, had massive cost-overruns on the C5A transport, and ultimately the government bailed them out -- at least $500 million worth -- maybe more.

So naturally, people today are asking "Why can't we just let the auto-industry go belly-up so that the market takes care of it?" In addition, nobody wants the market to "take care of" the housing crisis, either. As for Detroit, I think you could ask the Joint Chiefs what they think about it.

Then, there was the Boeing-McDonnell-Douglas merger in the 1990's. I was giving a lecture to visiting Chinese on the legal concept of "The Corporation," and the one who seemed to be the Big Brother watchdog for the rest . . . well, he "expressed his concern." Frankly, despite his being a commie, I can perfectly understand his position.

And again -- you had the interlocking directorates of oil and energy companies on Halliburton's board, with the former Pres's biggest supporter the King among Kings, and "the other guy" -- the former CEO turned US-VP -- whispering in the Pres's ear all the time. This latest spat over Scooter tells me that the Pres (to quote Cappola's movie) was just "an errand boy . . . sent by grocery clerks . . . to collect a bill." That's why Dick could be so mad about his "superior's" intransigence.

And again and again -- Microsoft -- dominant firm and near monopoly, in a market without simple barriers to entry (except for the overpowering factor of "integration") -- and the anti-trust suit that began in the 1990s.

So -- except for Sun and IBM supplying other specialty markets, this is a near-duopoly with AMD and INtel, and a nexus of contracts or wished-for contracts caught in the middle. nVidia is like one of the Indian tribes caught up in the 18th-century superpowers' French and Indian War.

I think all that is pretty objective -- and after all --we're focused on Intel here. But how are we going to straighten out this mess, if the order of the day is "Chaos, Masquerading as Order?"

Wait for an I7 model-line with 65W TDP, I guess . . .

BonzaiDuck you in competition with Nemesis now? I ain't got a clue where you are going with all this.

Got a cliffs version that includes a conclusion sentence or two?

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I wonder if AMD is silently cheering on from the sidelines as its two main competitors duke it out ...

Won't be much of a fight.

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SickBeast
What's unfortunate is that by virtue of the x86 license nonsense, intel is able to control the industry, and like NV is saying, stifle innovation.

true. Considering that we are in the information age, and the computer is the very BASIS of our SOCIETY, it is ridiculous that the x86 has been allowed to stand. It should be revoked...

Truth. When does the x86 patent expire? Gotta be coming up sometime.

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Right, but there are no infringing products on the market right now, let alone announced, meaning what is Intel suing for? There's no material breach. That's the part that confuses me - they're suing NVIDIA because NVIDIA says they have a license for QPI but doesn't have any actual product that uses it? There's no reason to sue!

There's got to be something more than meets the eye here.

simple, nvidia cannot AFFORD to develop it only to be barred from SELLING it due to legal proceeding. So they are now fighting over weather nvidia has the right to develop it..
Potentially, the contact might state that intel must provide nvidia with detailed information about its construction so that nvidia may create a compatible device, and intel might be averse to doing so.

Methinks nVidia has already developed a chipset for i7 and Intel is moving to block them from releasing it to the market. And that's gonna hurt, all those research dollars down the toilet...

 

[aigomorla]

see

didnt i say nvidia shouldnt be pissing off intel?

LOL...

*stealing popcorn from IDC*

 

[Duvie]

Intel should tread softly,IMO...With AMD already having anti-monopolistic lawsuits against INtel, this amounts to some of the same....Big bad INtel is muscling out the little guys and hording all of the products.

Intel may be getting too big for its own good...I would like to see better Nvidia chipset support on Intel platforms so I have the choices.


As a gpu folder if I was a cpu maker like AMD or Intel I would fear Nvidia. What a gpu processor can do versus the cpu in number crunching calculations is amounting to an extreme arse kicking.

I for one would like to see Nvidia develop a cpu....a better integrated Nb chipset with high end graphics onboard, etc.....I think we would all benefit....