Intel files lawsuit against Nvidia

[n7]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Deep down you know he's right. First games were only CPU, then we shifted to GPU. Folding @ Home was all CPU, and now the majority of units are processed by GPU. OpenCL is in the works, and Microsoft is working on a DirectX version of OpenCL. Video coding can now be done on the GPU.

The CPU will probably never die, but it's less and less important every day. My two year old E6600 will run Fallout 3 just as well as your i7 will, and it's all because lots of tasks can be shifted to the GPU. If all floating point operations could be done by my graphics card, the CPU would almost never need upgrading. I could just use the same CPU over and over again and upgrade the graphics card. Gaming already works like this, and Intel is in serious trouble if most other tasks shifted in that direction.

Deep down i'd like to know what you're smoking.

I'm sorry, but no one cares about graphics cards.
People on AT are a tiny fraction of the market.

The general user gets a whole PC, a whole package.
That whole package includes an Intel platform (CPU/mobo w/ onboard GPU) or AMD platform. Occasionally an Intel/AMD CPU + nVidia mobo/onboard GPU.

The majority of people are quite content to watch their movies, surf Facebook & Youtube, type their Word documents & download their iTunes with their onboard video cards.

Now if by some miracle software development suddenly all switches to being optimized for the GPU, sure, the GPU might become more important.

But as far as i can see, it's more likely we'll see integration of the GPU into the CPU than vice versa, since for everyone other than the gaming market or other very specialized markets, a dedicated high end GPU is not needed.

Intel & AMD already have complete platforms...they have no need for nVidia, which is exactly why nVidia is so panicked at their [lack of] future & why they keep spewing nonsense about how necessary they are to computing.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare


Intel is going for the jugular here.

yup thats how i see it.

told you, nvidia shouldnt attempt to join the x86 market.

They pissed off a sleeping whale.

*stealing IDC's caramel popcorn now*

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Question. If. I say again "if" AMD went bankrupt and was liquidated, would Intel then suddenly become a monopoly? And, would the US govt. then force them to make available an x86 license to another receptive company? I.E. Nvidia? Or am I totally off my rocker thinking this way?

Well, if you think back to microsoft, and corel, i think were gonna see a simular battle soon.
The scales are about the same. Intel being microsoft, and Nvidia being corel. :X

then again microsoft did screw ibm and cryix over by not supporting windows 95 on the Cryix chip.

LOL...

In short, dont piss off big large companies that are about to be monopolies soon.


What im wondering is about the EU. If Intel said FU EU (which sounds like they are doing right now), and just stop distributing to EU directly and cut all tech support, which is at a bigger loss?

Because if sales in EU doesnt = greater profit from the fines they pay, cant they just kill the EU branch and file chapter 11?

EU would then have to source there chips from other countries, and i think EU would be in big trouble then.

Its not a monopoly if support and sales is ban'd in that country.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Idontcare


Intel is going for the jugular here.

yup thats how i see it.

told you, nvidia shouldnt attempt to join the x86 market.

They pissed off a sleeping whale.

*stealing IDC's caramel popcorn now*

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Question. If. I say again "if" AMD went bankrupt and was liquidated, would Intel then suddenly become a monopoly? And, would the US govt. then force them to make available an x86 license to another receptive company? I.E. Nvidia? Or am I totally off my rocker thinking this way?

Well, if you think back to microsoft, and corel, i think were gonna see a simular battle soon.
The scales are about the same. Intel being microsoft, and Nvidia being corel. :X

then again microsoft did screw ibm and cryix over by not supporting windows 95 on the Cryix chip.

LOL...

In short, dont piss off big large companies that are about to be monopolies soon.


What im wondering is about the EU. If Intel said FU EU (which sounds like they are doing right now), and just stop distributing to EU directly and cut all tech support, which is at a bigger loss?

Because if sales in EU doesnt = greater profit from the fines they pay, cant they just kill the EU branch and file chapter 11?

EU would then have to source there chips from other countries, and i think EU would be in big trouble then.

Its not a monopoly if support and sales is ban'd in that country.

Then AMD would have an open market to cater to

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
They pissed off a sleeping whale.

Not exactly the most fearsome of beasts :laugh: but you've made your point nonetheless and I fully agree :thumbsup:

Or are you saying that Intel = Moby Dick and Jensen = Captain Ahab? You might be right about that.

 

[theeedude]

Sleeping whale is going to be DOJ when they finally realize Intel is acting like a monopoly and put the hurt down.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Deep down you know he's right. First games were only CPU, then we shifted to GPU. Folding @ Home was all CPU, and now the majority of units are processed by GPU. OpenCL is in the works, and Microsoft is working on a DirectX version of OpenCL. Video coding can now be done on the GPU.

The CPU will probably never die, but it's less and less important every day. My two year old E6600 will run Fallout 3 just as well as your i7 will, and it's all because lots of tasks can be shifted to the GPU. If all floating point operations could be done by my graphics card, the CPU would almost never need upgrading. I could just use the same CPU over and over again and upgrade the graphics card. Gaming already works like this, and Intel is in serious trouble if most other tasks shifted in that direction.

Deep down i'd like to know what you're smoking.

I'm sorry, but no one cares about graphics cards.
People on AT are a tiny fraction of the market.

The general user gets a whole PC, a whole package.
That whole package includes an Intel platform (CPU/mobo w/ onboard GPU) or AMD platform. Occasionally an Intel/AMD CPU + nVidia mobo/onboard GPU.

The majority of people are quite content to watch their movies, surf Facebook & Youtube, type their Word documents & download their iTunes with their onboard video cards.

Now if by some miracle software development suddenly all switches to being optimized for the GPU, sure, the GPU might become more important.

But as far as i can see, it's more likely we'll see integration of the GPU into the CPU than vice versa, since for everyone other than the gaming market or other very specialized markets, a dedicated high end GPU is not needed.

Intel & AMD already have complete platforms...they have no need for nVidia, which is exactly why nVidia is so panicked at their [lack of] future & why they keep spewing nonsense about how necessary they are to computing.

Me .. better stuff than you, clearly


He is right .. you are the old skool and swallow intel's warmed-over tech

If Nvidia can do for general computing what they already did for Gaming, intel is terrified that you NEVER have to upgrade your CPU - Just your GPU .. Jensen's vision is to transform computing away from client to cloud or at least make it as important

intel may well feel threatened if the CPU becomes less relevant and the GPU becomes more important
- they are desperate imo to stop Nvidia
- again they see Jensen battling for the soul of THEIR PC
- and Jensen only started recently to encroach on their territory .. the GPU is becoming FAR more important than it ever was

Your CPU is just the extension of a typewriter + calculator

the GPU can do SO much more
[together with the CPU, of course]

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: n7


Now if by some miracle software development suddenly all switches to being optimized for the GPU, sure, the GPU might become more important.

It might not be "suddenly", but this is indeed happening. So, you're not far from the mark saying this. I just don't know if you're ignoring it and don't wish to see it. That's fine, but it won't make it "not" happen. Because it's happening right now. Intel is pissed at Nvidia for many reasons I would suspect. Nvidia saying they have a license to produce chipsets for i7 with integrated controllers is just a small bit of it. Nothing is as it seems with these monster corporations when it comes to business moves. There are always secretive underlying motives that drive these decisions. I believe GPU encroachment on CPU territory is the big mitigating factor for Intel's actions right about now. And they'll never admit it. IMHO.

 

[imported_Asianman]

I wonder why intel sued NV for when they are the ones PREVENTING the use of their own chipsets. Interesting, maybe I should sue the cops for catching a crime next time. Still, doesn't intel have something better to do with all that resources, make even better CPUs, making a chipset videocard that doesn't die trying to render a cube, maximising their market share, making new products, actually, why do those things when you can stop your competitors doing those things by sending them constant lawsuits

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Intel is pissed at Nvidia for many reasons I would suspect. Nvidia saying they have a license to produce chipsets for i7 with integrated controllers is just a small bit of it. Nothing is as it seems with these monster corporations when it comes to business moves. There are always secretive underlying motives that drive these decisions.

I wonder if Intel needs access to critical piece of IP that NV owns before they can roll out Larrabee.

Meaning they got Larrabee off the ground internally, the arch/hardware is locked-in, and then out of nowhere someone inside found out it violates NV IP that is not covered in the existing license agreements.

Now its not exactly something you go to NV and admit, if they know you NEED the IP then the price just went up markedly. At the same time they may have realized once Larrabee is on the market it will be easy enough for NV to figure out it violates their IP, big lawsuit with injunctions ensue, etc.

I remember once (~1998) Intel sued DEC over a disagreement with an existing licensing, they settled out of court with DEC giving Intel access to IP that Intel admitted they wanted/needed all along and Intel giving DEC some $150m.

So this may be a pre-emptive move by Intel really just to get NV rolled onto their back scared so they can then get the IP they need for Larrabee on the cheap. I wouldn't be surprised, nothing surprises me when it comes to Intel.

 

[zenguy]

I think part of it may relate to NVIDIA continuing to cause problems by artificially coding their SLI drivers to check for a BIOS license before they work.

In short, NVIDIA is trying to make everyone pay them money, even if they don't want to be an NVIDIA customer or want to use any product owned or licensed to them.

They COULD try to add the cost into the price of their cards so they would only charge NVIDIA customers, but instead they want to ensure that ATI (AMD) Customers pay NVIDIA as well.

Don't think that NVIDIA is an innocent bystander here.
They are trying to "Do over" everyone who does not actually want to use SLI which is the vast majority of users and even the vast majority of NVIDIA customers.

 

[zsdersw]

Whatever the Branch-Nvidians are smoking, they probably should get their money back.

 

[Denithor]

C'mon, Lucid, launch Hydra already...

 

[magreen]

Idc, that's a fascinating, and entirely plausible, theory. But why can ati make gpus without infringing on nvidia's ip?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sleeping whale is going to be DOJ when they finally realize Intel is acting like a monopoly and put the hurt down.

I wonder how far away a decision is in the AMD vs. Intel case. If AMD wins that while Nvidia is still in litigation, I wonder if that'll play into all of this, it might help Nvidia out quite a bit.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: magreen
Idc, that's a fascinating, and entirely plausible, theory. But why can ati make gpus without infringing on nvidia's ip?

Infridgement means non-licensed use of IP.

ATi may very well make use of NV IP but it is covered in a pre-existing cross-license agreement of some kind.

I have no clue on the history of NV or ATI when it comes to any existing negotiated cross-license agreements. Someone else will have to fill in the details here if details even exist.

I'm not saying that Intel had to violate NV IP to get larrabee going, just saying maybe they honestly thought they had created their own IP in some aspect, built the hardware to be critically dependent on that IP (meaning they can't just quickly go back and remove it from the design at this point) but they discovered when they filed a patent or something that they actually re-invented a wheel already patented by NV. Maybe a patent clerk kicked it back and pointed it out. In my experience with filing patents I've seen it happen.

All this is just conjecture on my part. Speculation is entertaining and harmless so please no one take offense and blast me over it.

 

[theeedude]

I've been fine with my CPU since single core 1.3Ghz Centrino. No reason for average consumer to upgrade the CPU, Intel sees where the wind is blowing. They are not adding value for consumer, others are, but they want to continue getting their share of the pie while bringing relatively less to the table. The only way to do that is to use their monopoly to squeeze others out. Not sure how long that is going to work in consumer space since applications are migrating to the web and don't really care what OS the user's device is running. Intel is just trying to weaken the competition on turf where it's still relevant before the battles move on to places where it doesn't have the high ground.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Intel is pissed at Nvidia for many reasons I would suspect. Nvidia saying they have a license to produce chipsets for i7 with integrated controllers is just a small bit of it. Nothing is as it seems with these monster corporations when it comes to business moves. There are always secretive underlying motives that drive these decisions.

I wonder if Intel needs access to critical piece of IP that NV owns before they can roll out Larrabee.

Meaning they got Larrabee off the ground internally, the arch/hardware is locked-in, and then out of nowhere someone inside found out it violates NV IP that is not covered in the existing license agreements.

Now its not exactly something you go to NV and admit, if they know you NEED the IP then the price just went up markedly. At the same time they may have realized once Larrabee is on the market it will be easy enough for NV to figure out it violates their IP, big lawsuit with injunctions ensue, etc.

I remember once (~1998) Intel sued DEC over a disagreement with an existing licensing, they settled out of court with DEC giving Intel access to IP that Intel admitted they wanted/needed all along and Intel giving DEC some $150m.

So this may be a pre-emptive move by Intel really just to get NV rolled onto their back scared so they can then get the IP they need for Larrabee on the cheap. I wouldn't be surprised, nothing surprises me when it comes to Intel.

Possible...Intel mouthpiece Chuck Mullow had this to say:

"I wouldn't rule out a re-negotiation if we win the suit. . . . There are options available to us and re-negotiating the license is one of them."

 

[chizow]

Interesting law suit, there's so much speculation floating around but its going to come down to the language in that original licensing agreement from 2004. I couldn't find much on it, but here's a decent write-up from Extremetech in 2004. The language used there was license of "Intel's front-side bus technology."

I believe that term was used a lot during X58/Nehalem's ramp-up period where SLI status was unresolved, where news outlets were claiming Nvidia did not have an X58 license because they did not have license to QPI.

In the end it will come down to the court's interpretation of the original wording of that contract. Intel has effectively moved, or removed, the "front-side bus" so that its now technically part of their hardware.

This also seems to be a point of misunderstanding, Intel's X58 really isn't much more than a glorified PCIE controller, so I doubt there's any serious technical limitation preventing Nvidia from quickly producing their own PCIE controller, as they already have one in NF200 that serves much the same purpose. Things will get even more interesting with i5, as rumor has it Intel is marginalizing the chipset's importance even more by offloading the PCIE controller to their chip as well.

Again, hard to say which way this will go without knowing the language of the original contract, but I think Intel is going to lose this one. The suit will still serve its purpose, as it has already prevented Nvidia from producing a Nehalem chipset and will most likely delay a Lynnfield chipset as well. Nvidia might be able to get some kind of temporary injunction or ruling to allow them to sell i5/i7 chipsets but its hard to say.

 

[Idontcare]

Both companies have stated that no current Nvidia product is the subject of the dispute.

"There's no injunction and there's no damages, though if we get a decision we do want our lawyers' fees paid for," said Intel's Chuck Mulloy Wednesday.

"Our suit seeks to have the court declare that Nvidia is not licensed to produce chipsets compatible with any Intel product with an integrated memory controller, such as the recently introduced Nehalem products. We say they have breached the [four-year-old chipset license] agreement by saying that they do have that right."

Mulloy said the court filing this week in Delaware seeks a declaratory statement from the bench clarifying that under the terms of the 2004 agreement, Nvidia cannot tailor its chipsets and proprietary SLI discrete graphics technology to Intel's recently released Core i7 processors and upcoming chips classified as Nehalem under Intel's code name scheme for new products.

Asked if independent arbitration had been considered to settle the dispute, the Intel spokesman said the two companies had "multiple meetings and multiple discussions" before Intel decided to file suit in the Delaware Chancery Court, where the filing remains under seal.

"It's kind of 'He-said, she-said,' so instead of continuing this for a year or so, we said, 'Let's have court decide it,' " Mulloy said.

http://www.crn.com/hardware/214501003

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: apoppin

the GPU can do SO much more
[together with the CPU, of course]

and what if there in parallism like they are on the i5?

If anything nvidia should be worried about the i5, seeing how sony's last comment was its the best candidate for ps4.

If you guys ask me honestly, i dont think nvidia should be allowed to make chipsets.

Why? because they were ALL CRAP and EXPENSIVE on intel. Nvidia is not after the budget chipsets, seeing how the X58 is the only board for i7, the nvidia board WONT BE CHEAP.

 

[taltamir]

Crap? they were vastly superior most of the time, with a few rare exceptions... besides which, if nvidia is NOT allowed to make chipsets for intel then intel is the ONLY ONE allowed to make chipsets... a legally enforced monopolly is never good. IF nvidia makes chipsets and you CHOOSE not to buy them, fine. But saying that because you choose not to buy them nobody else should be allowed to is a bad idea. Not to mention it will result in intel hiking up the price.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Crap? they were vastly superior most of the time, .

how?

Nvidia was superior to the P35, P45, X38 and X48?
Please u best take that statement back.

No they werent vastly superior for its time.

More like problem prone compared to the other chipsets.

And yes ive owned the 680 780 and 790 for a short time. It was crap compared to my DFI LT X38 and X48 and lets not get started on how badly the UD3P will kill Nvidia boards.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: taltamir
Crap? they were vastly superior most of the time, .

how?

Nvidia was superior to the P35, P45, X38 and X48?
Please u best take that statement back.

No they werent vastly superior for its time.

More like problem prone compared to the other chipsets.

And yes ive owned the 680 780 and 790 for a short time. It was crap compared to my DFI LT X38 and X48 and lets not get started on how badly the UD3P will kill Nvidia boards.

My 680 was quite crappy relative to my P35 and X38 boards with the exact same CPU, ram, PSU, case, hard-drives, vid-card, etc. I really felt the 680 was a POS, but I had NO idea how much of a POS it was until I stepped up to X38 and P35.

In NV's defense though, at the time the 680 came out the X38 and P35 weren't an option...and at that time the 680 was considered the best option available to folks who wanted tight ram timings because Intel did not support setting the CR to 1 on the 965 and 975.

And of course we can't rule out the mobo maker, they can always take the best chipset and do a cruddy implementation. In my case though both my 680 and X38 mobos are Asus, so one would hope roughly the same quality standards went into making both boards.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
My 680 was quite crappy relative to my P35 and X38 boards with the exact same CPU, ram, PSU, case, hard-drives, vid-card, etc. I really felt the 680 was a POS, but I had NO idea how much of a POS it was until I stepped up to X38 and P35.

Funny - that's almost exactly my experience with the 965P-DS3 I used for six months with my first e6400. From the start I had nothing but headaches, first getting it to boot at all with a pair of OCZ Gold DDR2 sticks, then with pathetic overclocking (2.66GHz with voltage bump) and just generally not a solid-feeling system.

Then I upgraded to an IP35-E and everything changed. Same everything - hit 3GHz with no voltage change - stable as a freaking rock. A big rock, mind you. Pissed me off I didn't jump on the newer board sooner.

 

[taltamir]

the only nvidia chipset to actively compete with the P35+ series was the nforce 7... 1 through 6 competed with much shittier intel and AMD chipsets. For example, the 965 and 975 (which were a far cry better then intel's previous chipsets).

Nvidia also has richer feature sets and better drivers, but they suffer from bugs in the 6 and 7 series.

Granted TODAY intels chipsets are superior, mostly because they got sick of nvidia whopping them in such a manner. But banning nvidia from competing will just bring about the days where intel gave you crap and expected you to be grateful for it.