Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Graphics Intel Software News

NVIDIA Countersues Intel Over License Conflict 132

Posted by kdawson
from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.
MojoKid writes "After Intel filed a lawsuit against NVIDIA late last month, alleging that a four-year-old chipset license agreement the companies signed did not extend to Intel's future generation CPUs with 'integrated memory controllers' (like Nehalem), NVIDIA decided to fight with fire. Today, NVIDIA filed a countersuit in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against Intel Corporation for breach of contract. Furthermore, the action also seeks to terminate Intel's license to NVIDIA's valuable patent portfolio, which no doubt is reverberating with some level of intensity in the halls of Intel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA Countersues Intel Over License Conflict

Comments Filter:
  • by tjstork (137384) <todd@bandrowsky.gmail@com> on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:45AM (#27355819) Homepage Journal
    This strategy doesn't make sense. If nVidia makes chipsets for new Intel parts, doesn't that bolster Intel's brand? It's like, when you go to McDonald's, and get Heinz Ketchup rather than restaurant brand, it makes the whole place seem a tad bit classier. Having an Intel chip parked on a product with a high end nVidia graphics card bolsters the reputation of that chip considerably. Attempting to block that product to try and grab a few more chipset sales seems rather short sighted. Greed and stupidity go hand in hand.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:52AM (#27355891)

      Intel just seems to be making enemies out of everyone these days. First AMD and now Nvidia. If they aren't careful, they could very well end up isolating themselves.

      It reminds me of this quote:

      "When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle"
      --Louis Veuillot

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yamamato (1513927)

        Intel just seems to be making enemies out of everyone these days. First AMD and now Nvidia. If they aren't careful, they could very well end up isolating themselves.

        Intel doesn't need either AMD or NVIDIA. You look at most notebooks today and they will have all integrated Intel stuff without anything from either of those either companies. So I doubt they are going to be hurting much. In fact, NVIDIA needs Intel far more than the other way around. AMD isn't going to use NVIDIA chipsets or graphics cards and if Intel drops them, then NVIDIA is pretty much lost from the loop.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Nvidia is the market leader when it comes to graphics, physics and GPGPU hardware. Intel might not need them in the niche market of netbooks, but they do need them and their patents when it comes to the actual desktop and laptop computers out there.

          Similarly, Intel needs AMD if they expect to be able to continue using x64 technology. Otherwise they are going to need a lot of luck trying to push Itanium as a replacement desktop product.

          • by Yamamato (1513927)

            Nvidia is the market leader when it comes to graphics, physics and GPGPU hardware. Intel might not need them in the niche market of netbooks, but they do need them and their patents when it comes to the actual desktop and laptop computers out there.

            Intel would just go back to work and develop things that wouldn't violate NVIDIA's patent and then NVIDIA would be left in the cold cause the biggest licensor of their technology dropped their asses.

            Similarly, Intel needs AMD if they expect to be able to continue using x64 technology. Otherwise they are going to need a lot of luck trying to push Itanium as a replacement desktop product.

            Actually AMD is more reliant on Intel in this case. Without a license to x86 from Intel, AMD couldn't have developed x64 and if lost they would then subsequently lose their right to license out the technology.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by scientus (1357317)

              But Intel looses their x86_64 licence if AMD looses its x86 licence. And Intel cant just cancel AMDs licence, that was part of the licencing for what would be the PC platform.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Daravon (848487)

                I think the real plan is:
                1)Prevent AMD from making x86 chips
                2)AMD goes bankrupt
                3)Buy all IP related to x86_64 at firesale prices
                4)Profit!

                And depending on how long it takes AMD to go under, Intel might have enough cash leftover to also pick up some ATI technology.

                • by scientus (1357317)

                  by that time everyone would switch to VIA or ARM or PowerPC, it would just take to long. Perhaps Windows users would be stuck with two monopolies, but Linux, and to a less degree Mac users, have other options.

                  Also, the massive hit in progress would just lead everyone to not upgrade.

                • Sounds like VIA would be the real winner here, assuming they have an x86_64 license. Both AMD and Intel would be unable to produce chips (well intel would only have 32-bit chips and their own 64-bit tech, itanium I think).

              • by hattig (47930)

                Not quite right.

                Intel Win:
                AMD loses its license but Intel can keep theirs.

                AMD Win:
                AMD keeps their license, but Intel loses theirs.

                Reality:
                These are just childish posturings prior to rewriting licensing agreements.

                • If that were truly the case, just a bunch of posturing, then why are they actually suing each other in real courts, with real people, real money, real contracts, and probably entire companies at stake?

                  I think the posturing you mention was probably done years or months ago behind closed doors, obviously it failed, so now we are seeing the legal battles that were threatened in those meetings. I don't much care though, if they invalidate each others patents, it just means a whole bunch of new tech comes along.

              • One word: Itanium.
              • by c0p0n (770852)

                That's just not gonna happen. It will greatly hurt both companies. Plus it will screw over the IT industry in which modern society relies on to work. I'm pretty sure there is a law or two to prevent this type of thing.

                • by scientus (1357317)

                  Yes, but this is why nothing is going to happen. Its just all a game that leads to a contract renegotiation, and no-one should think otherwise.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by c0p0n (770852)

              Intel would just go back to work and develop things that wouldn't violate NVIDIA's patent and then NVIDIA would be left in the cold cause the biggest licensor of their technology dropped their asses.

              Dude, do you realise how expensive is to do what you suggest? Why do you think Intel licensed nvidia's technology in the first place?

          • Intel might not need them in the niche market of netbooks, but they do need them and their patents when it comes to the actual desktop and laptop computers out there.

            What? Like it or not, the market leader in graphics is still Intel, because their integrated chipsets absolutely dominate BOTH netbooks and laptops.

          • by Joce640k (829181)

            Intel is the market leader in graphics (with as much market share as NVIDIA and ATI combined).

            High end graphics cards get a lot of attention in the press but they don't really sell very many.

        • by sam0vi (985269)
          Maybe this could all be due to that "rumour" about Nvidia wanting to start their own x86 CPU business. To me it looks like Intel is doing a preemptive attack on Nvidia, so that, in the future, Nvidia won't dare to ask Intel for an x86 license. What do you think?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by FrozenFOXX (1048276)

          Intel doesn't need either AMD or NVIDIA. You look at most notebooks today and they will have all integrated Intel stuff without anything from either of those either companies.

          Emphasis mine. I believe *that* is the point attempted to be made. Today they use Intel parts, but what about tomorrow? We all used to run Creative sound cards (well, most of us) and now most people just use onboard sound. We used to have floppy drives, now it's nearly impossible to find one even outside of a computer.

          If Intel doesn't have any friends left when there's a shift in the marketplace they're going to get screwed hard. With the speed that the technology marketplace moves there's no tellin

          • Yes but integrated LAN, Sound and Video are all being run through Intel chips now.

            If anyone gets phased out it's not going to be the CPU it's going to be the co-processors.

          • Intel is the *only* company with the ability to integrate Northbridge, graphics, etc. into their CPUs, thus massively lowering the cost of motherboards.

            You may not like them, but Intel's position is more than safe.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by 3vi1 (544505)

              AMD has been selling chips (AMD64) with an integrated northbridge memory controller for six years - way before Intel.

              Also, you might want to lookup 3DNow!, or some of the other graphics instruction sets that AMD has been integrating into their chips for the last 10 years.

          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            Not to mention everyone seems to be missing the big fat monkey wrench that is going to be thrown into the Intel IGP market: HD video. More and more of the videos out there are going HD. nearly every monitor sold now is a high def wide screen, and folks will want their laptops to have a decent picture like their desktops do. Nobody like video that plays like a slideshow, and Intel IGP sucks major ass on video playback.

            Add to that the fact that Nvidia has a ticking timebomb that is probably what had Intel spo

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Intel doesn't need either AMD or NVIDIA.

          I disagree. Intel is behind the 8-ball with Larrabee. They're promising things already delivered by NVidia and AMD and I'm pretty sure they had to license NVidia patents to release Larrabee.

          It's widely grokked that current Intel graphics chipsets suck for gaming or high-performance computing and the only way they are going to compete with NVidia and AMD in this arena is with Larrabee.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by poetmatt (793785)

            Please, performance figures show that Larrabee doesn't even stand up to laptop graphics, let alone desktop. Their preaching about ray tracing before we get to ray tracing is to try to take marketshare from both their competitors which is basically not a good idea. It's like threatening someone with a gun, but the gun's not loaded whereas your competitors are ready and loaded. Maybe a more appropriate term is rattling their sabres.

            I do believe intel could become competitive in this avenue, but they aren't ev

            • by ozbird (127571)
              It's like threatening someone with a gun, but the gun's not loaded whereas your competitors are ready and loaded. Maybe a more appropriate term is rattling their sabres.

              A more appropriate analogy for Larrabee is threatening someone with a banana, but it might be a gun.
        • by Splab (574204)

          Not sure why you got modded insightful, Intel very much need both AMD and NVIDIA since both competitors are sitting on key patents to their chip (and vice versa).

          • They all need each other which is why this whole thing is so bloody stupid and only serves to highlight the flaws with the patent system. I can't imagine what any of these companies are thinking, once you start pulling the patents out none of them are left with a single marketable product they can legally manufacture (ironically NVIDIA is probably in the best overall shape in terms of patent encumbrance).

            The only thing I can figure is that all the manufacturers will agree to continue business as usual whi
            • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

              by Chyeld (713439)

              I believe this is a demonstration of the widely touted "MAD [wikipedia.org]" method of diplomacy.

              Either someone blinks, they all walk away with a renegotiated deal, or they all attempt to kill each other, with someone coming along later to pick up the pieces.

              In this respect, Intel is in the best of the three positions. Unlike AMD or nVidia, Intel is actually not struggling financially.

        • by Creepy (93888)

          Intel's integrated graphics use several nVidia patents dealing with 3D, so I seriously doubt they would want to breach that agreement.

          It is obvious that Intel is making a money grab and possibly trying to slow down competition until it gets some products to market. I think most of this is really GP-GPU related, though it may be a cash grab.

          If you don't know what the Nehelem dispute is about, what they did was add an integrated memory controller, which means they put the memory controller hardware on the CP

        • Don't be so sure. A talented (read: weaselly) lawyer can convince a judge or regulator that there are antitrust stuff going on. And deals are worked out all the time between competitors-- I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia went to broker a deal with AMD, Via, or any other aspiring chip maker looking to shave some market share from Intel. It'll be a lot tighter of a market for nVidia, but it's not like they only make chipsets for Macs.

          Intel's new graphics line may be an improvement over past generations, but

      • by scientus (1357317)

        Microsoft has been trying to commoditize Intel for years and this is the type of thing they do to try to defend themselves.

        However, Microsoft isn't their biggest enemy anymore, and performance is a commodity, although that doesn't mean its not a profitable one.

        Intel needs to stop trying to pull Microsoft-like lock-ins, things like EFI for example. Intel should focus on making their platform better, and making it suitable in more markets, rather than trying to increase switching costs from their legacy platf

        • EFI is a freely available specification, managed and developed by an independent third party. Lots of products use EFI because it is significantly better than BIOS.

          • by scientus (1357317)

            Its basically a entire operating system that runs in 16-bit mode from a ROM. It is always running, it has network stack, it is outside of your OS security model, and the OS can not tell what it is doing. All the implementations are proprietary and you cannot reverse engineer it to verify what it does.

            BIOS may be a open standard, but that does not make is a good thing. If i wanted a OS i would use one, I dont want a OS that runs outside the one I installed, one that I cannot turn off nor have any control ov

    • by 91degrees (207121)
      Heinz still expect to get paid for their Ketchup. That's essentially what this lawsuit is about. Intel want more money. There's nothing wrong with this. The whole purpose if Intel is to make money. Likewise that's the whole purpose of nVidia and they're fighting because they want to use the technology without having to pay any more than they already have.
    • Well actually I see it in another way: probably in a few years Intel will have an absolute monopoly in the X86 arena. If they would be the only manufacturer of the CPU and chipset they would stand to make a shitload of money without caring for their brand as people wouldn't really have any choice.

      • And then the government will come-in and break Intel into pieces. Intel is better off having competition (like AMD, Nvidia) than government interference.

      • by scientus (1357317)

        Then people who are not locked in, ie Linux users and to a lesser degree Mac users, will switch platforms...and Windows users would then have 2 monopolies to pay their dues to. :P

        • If it were that easy, I would have ditched x86 a long time ago and be using an UltraSPARC laptop as my workhorse. A big problem is that even today you'll have a hard time finding non-x86 laptops (or desktops) with a price tag mere mortals can afford.

          • by scientus (1357317)

            you'll have a hard time finding non-x86 laptops (or desktops) with a price tag mere mortals can afford.

            Yes, but if Intel did get a monopoly and tried to milk it prices would equalize and people would switch.

            Also, you just pointed out how consumers are really doing quite well in the x86 market right now. Despite all the talk there is a fair bit of competition and also an incredible pace of innovation, all to the benefit of consumers.

      • Well actually I see it in another way: probably in a few years Intel will have an absolute monopoly in the X86 arena. If they would be the only manufacturer of the CPU and chipset they would stand to make a shitload of money without caring for their brand as people wouldn't really have any choice.

        They can absolutely have a monopoly on the x86 architecture, they can be the captain of a sinking ship. Meanwhile the other chip manufacturers can continue making money on today's technology. I don't think Intel would be stupid enough to continue making 32-bit (x86) machines for the "next few years", that would be like Nintendo still manufacturing the NES, despite having the ps3 staring them down.

        Intel tried to do their own 64-bit Itanium that fell flat on it's face, so now they're using AMD's 64-bit ins

    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:23AM (#27356173) Homepage

      I think INTC is scared. They have never been able to replicate or even come close to producing an NVDA GPU. People need faster and faster GPUs; but CPUs? Many are fine with the weak Atom. Any suggestion of NVDA producing CPUs must scare INTC witless.

      • People need faster and faster GPUs; but CPUs? Many are fine with the weak Atom.

        So what? Many people are fine with basic graphics cards, too. Heck, my current computer is running a 64MB GeForce 2, and the only reason it isn't going into my new Core i7 machine is because of a lack of AGP slots. I do very little that would benefit from a powerful GPU. It doesn't help with compiling code. Adobe Lightroom doesn't yet make use of it. Photoshop CS4 is just starting to make use of it in limited form (via plugins f

      • by Joce640k (829181)

        Makes no difference. Intel will always be able to compete with NVIDIA on price and NVIDIA CPUs don't have the brand name to gain more than minority share (except among gamers, where NVIDIA won't be able to compete on performance).

      • So. You think there is a market for products that have low end ATOM CPU's and high end graphics?? That is absurd. It is true that many people can get by with just an Atom processor, but those same people are most definitely NOT going to be buying an nVidia GPU to go with that processor either.

        Intel isn't nearly as afraid of nVidia making CPUs as you seem to think. No microprocessor manufacturer (not even AMD) is even capable of meeting the demands of the high volume segments of the PC market the way tha

        • Don't put words into my mouth. The Atom's success shows that gains in CPU speed are becoming less important. Gains in GPU speed are not anywhere near done. They won't be until 3D software is photorealistic in real time.

          • i didn't put words in your mouth. the point is that no machine which uses an atom is going to have a high end gpu in it. hence saying that the success of the atom is proof that cpu speed increases are over while pretending it doesn't imply anything negative for gpu speed increases is silly. the success of atom based cpu's shows that there is now a market in which both cpu speed AND gpu speed are irrelevant.

            netbooks which have small processors like the atom or some arm based processor in them, mean lower

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Because when I think "classy restaurant", I think of ketchup in foil packets

    • If nVidia makes chipsets for new Intel parts, doesn't that bolster Intel's brand?

      nVidia also make chipsets for AMD processors (I have one such motherboard). Intel also makes their own chipsets (I have one of those, too). There are also other players in the chipset field and (to a lesser degree) the processor field, so, really, neither of these two companies actually needs the other to survive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by s_p_oneil (795792)

      I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Intel started this law suit because nVidia has plans to make their own x86 chip. Combined with products like the Tegra on the hand-held side, it looks like nVidia is trying to cut Intel out of the loop entirely, which may cut into Intel's sales even more heavily than AMD has managed so far. If that's the case, Intel will try to slow them down every step of the way. Of course, Intel has been trying to cut nVidia out of the loop for years, but that'

    • If you think that Nvidia is the stronger player here you are sadly mistaken. Granted ATI is now a part of AMD but don't be suprised if Intel doesn't further their support for ATI Crossfire in upcoming motherboard and chipset implementations.

  • I submitted this post this morning and one of the slashdot editors must have replaced the source link with the Reuters release. Here's the real source of this post: http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Countersues-Intel-Over-License-Conflict/ [hothardware.com]
    • by Rufus211 (221883)

      How is a random writeup on a tech blog the "real source"? The true real source is the NV press release and court filing they're hosting on their page. A good secondary source would be a mainstream writeup (Reuters, WSJ, etc). Random blogs like yours are a dime a dozen.

      • by MojoKid (1002251) *
        Perhaps, in your opinion but take a look at the text of the post and then the post on my "blog"... (it's not a blog by the way). The text is the same, exactly. We're a news and reviews site that has been on the net for over 10 years - well before the word blog was hip.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ScuttleMonkey (55) * Works for Slashdot
        By "real source" Mojo is of course referring to the fact that this submission was originally authored by him and submitted with the link to his own site, a link everyone can still see in the "related articles" which shows his original submission via the firehose. We aren't hiding the fact that we changed it, there was just a better link to be had. The unfortunate part of all this is a submission to Slashdot is merely a "heads up", we are not licensing your content, we are not purchasing an article. Ultim
  • Petulent children (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clickclickdrone (964164) on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:54AM (#27355897)
    Is it me or are companies getting more like petulent children these days? It's either lawsuits over things like this or they're playing 'your mom'. It's all very tedious.
    • by noundi (1044080)
      Apologies for being repetetative but the root cause is patents, right? Even if you don't agree that patents are the devils work you'd have to agree that the current patent system is immensely flawed. I honestly wonder how long we're supposed to watch this circus.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Is it me or are companies getting more like petulent children these days?

      Corporate warfare is not petulance.

      Most corporate licensing agreements are part license and part non-aggression pact.
      Intel fired the first salvo and broke that pact.
      It's not like nVidia can just shrug it off with "I'm rubber and you're glue."

      They've decided to play a very high stakes game of chicken.
      What would you suggest nVidia does?

    • It's either lawsuits over things like this or they're playing 'your mom'. It's all very tedious.

      Yo momma!

      Sincerely,
      Intel

      ---------------

      No, YO momma!

      Sincerely,
      nVidia

  • Larabee (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brit_in_the_USA (936704) on Friday March 27, 2009 @08:58AM (#27355941)
    Nvidia is going for gold. They want to make a x86 chip and target the laptop/netbook space with an ION+CPU on a chip before AMD or Intel do something similar. Intel probably needs cross licencing of lots of Nvidia graphics patents for Larabee and there huge market share of integrated graphics chips. Intel needs SLI support to compete with AMD and crossfire in the interim. I think Nvidia is in a strong position here.
    • I just want to point out, I am not a fan of any of the companies. I think it would be great for us consumers if each of Nvidia, Intel AND AMD were making CPU's AND Graphics cards.
      • Re:Larabee (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blahplusplus (757119) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:35AM (#27356285)

        Stockholders of the losing companies won't think so. Competition drives prices down but it also reduces profits, amd and intel got into mad price wars, and AMD hit Nvidia in the chin with the 4870 with DDR5 and a smaller die size, while nvidia is scrambling to move inventory of rather lackluster performing cards when compared against the 4870 and even the previous generations almighty 8800 series.

        The 8800 series was nvidia's grand slam and neither the 4870 nor the GT200 are really that great when all games run just fine on the 8800 (or or simply the G92 core).

        Intel is reacting out of fear that nvidia is closing in. With GPU's they've reduced the significance of CPU power as the main driver of performance upgrades and therefore can no longer command premium prices.

        Intel has been really lazy when it comes to providing for their own platform (thinking in terms what are the killer apps for the PC), IMHO it would be good if Nvidia hits a home run developing x86 with integrated graphics, as well as their own cpu. Nvidia seems to understand the fact that applications like games are important to the platform or else it will lose relevance long term and people will move to consoles. This has one thing I've hated about Microsoft's schizophrenic policy towards the PC, they can't seem to be able to deal effectively with an "open box" like the PC in terms of software sales because of piracy, and hence the Xbox and Xbox 360 .

        Larabee better be something special by the time it is released or else Intel will have wasted a lot of time and effort on a part that doesn't compete.

        Lastly, I think Intel is clueless that the PC is in desperate need of a revamp in terms of how common upgrades (like video cards, hard drives, etc) are installed, to remove the geek factor. I would love it if people could just plug shit into a slot (along the lines of how we slide flash memory cards into flash slots) and have been thinking about redesigning the PC case and motherboard slots as well to make the openness and upgradability of a PC more user friendly and accessible easier, retard proof designs.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by scientus (1357317)

          agreed, right now the competition is hot, and the consumers are doing quite well. Good bickering is good, and profits are also quite good, as long as it doesn't prevent any of these big guys from doing business.

          Lastly, I think Intel is clueless that the PC is in desperate need of a revamp in terms of how common upgrades (like video cards, hard drives, etc) are installed, to remove the geek factor. I would love it if people could just plug shit into a slot (along the lines of how we slide flash memory cards into flash slots) and have been thinking about redesigning the PC case and motherboard slots as well to make the openness and upgradability of a PC more user friendly and accessible easier, retard proof designs.

          While there is a possibility ntel could sink its own ship, (see above post) this thing is actually in quite good shape. Bus speeds do change, so things cant always be backwards compatible AND faster; but in general differnt stuff is very compatible. AMD is making a stride that 3 generations of CPUs w

        • I like where this idea is going. One of the hardest parts of a PC to upgrade is the CPU because of the pin out to the motherboard. If they overdesigned for the future they could definately benefit when people want to upgrade to new technology and just have to buy the CPU and install it. Instead of a new case and motherboard as well. Of course the fan would cause issues so that would have to be designed around. They could easily move more product.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      Nvidia is going for gold.

      nVidia wants to stay on the podium. Intel will be pushing their own graphics solutions. AMD will be pushing their own graphics solutions. What's nVidia to do, except push for their own CPU solution?

      With nettops, laptops and integrated graphics taking more and more of the market the platform is important. It's much easier to play dirty tricks when it's one package and not a PCIe 16x slot, just give nVidia "difficulties" in ingrating your CPU on their chipset. No wonder they want to roll their own.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      > before AMD or Intel do something similar

      Um, Intel has already done something similar and the machines are available today.

      http://www.google.es/search?q=N280 [google.es]

      And the next generation will be available before Xmas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_(CPU)#Future [wikipedia.org]

      A single-chip solution for netbooks, combined with Intel's fabrication processes, means NVIDIA won't be anywhere close in the foreseeable future.

  • It's just sad; you'd think BOTH companies could make more money if they'd stop behaving like children and would work together.

    But no.. they won't compete, nor do they seem to want to work together. At least Nvidia isn't backing off; hopefully as this escalates, both companies will realize this is rather idiotic and will work together again.

    They do, afterall, sell different products.

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      They do, afterall, sell different products.

      One sells chocolate, the other sells peanut butter. Both want to sell Reese's cups.

  • First they go after AMD threatening to revoke their x86 agreements (shooting themselves in the foot and threatening their own cross licensing) now they go after Nvidia? Someone should really remind them that their own GPU's are sub par and that for the average home user processor speeds have been "good enough" for years now leaving upgraded graphics cards and memory as practically the only visible speed boost. At this point its arguable that Intel needs AMD and Nvidia far more than they need Intel,

    • by Touvan (868256)

      It's especially perplexing, since their newest successfully marketed innovations - solid state hard drives - open them up to a whole new area of competition where neither AMD or nVidia are even trying to compete.

      I don't get why they don't spend all that legal money on innovation there, instead of suing everyone under the sun.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LordKronos (470910)

        solid state hard drives....I don't get why they don't spend all that legal money on innovation there

        They are spending plenty of money there, and they are smoking the competition in the process. The X25-M/E drives are easily at the head of the pack. There are very few SSDs that can keep up, and the few that manage to just barely surpass it in one benchmark tend to fail miserably in some other benchmark.

        It's just that Intel has the resources to be able to focus on more than one thing at a time.

    • If subpar technology faded, then we would all be running Alpha processors instead of x86.
  • FIX SLASHDOT (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The little "javascript slider to display all comment" thing is FUCKING BROKEN.

    STOP MESSING WITH SLASHDOT and TEST your damn SHIT before putting it online you dumb fucks.

    It's like you're using Slashdot as your personnal testing ground for all your javascript and CSS skills (or lack thereof).

    STOP IT ALREADY.

    • he might be harsh but he is right - broken here too (firefox 3.0.7, no greasemonkey or the likes)

    • Click "Help & Preferences" > "Viewing" > "Slashdot Classic Discussion System" > "Save"

      Now never see that god awful slider again.

  • patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:26AM (#27356199) Homepage

    I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this is a good example of where litigation is getting in the way of innovation. Consumers and the economy would benefit most if these companies could compete for the best products rather than trying to shut each other down in the courts.

  • by maugle (1369813) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:30AM (#27356241)
    AMD is watching from the shadows, hands clasped, whispering "Good, good."
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...then you litigate!

  • by bistromath007 (1253428) on Friday March 27, 2009 @09:53AM (#27356521)
    I swear, it's like watching Cici and Niles.
  • Can't everyone just get back to what they're best at: making truckloads of cash?

    I mean, Intel beat AMD in the desktop micro space, and NVIDIA beat ATI in the desktop GPU market. The two losers even had to join forces to stay afloat.

    Seems to me that everyone would be happier if they just played nice, and counted their money.

  • NVIDIA's position was inevitably weakened when ATI & AMD got into bed. No way AMD is not going to ride to the rescue of NIVIA, and indeed probably cannot (in terms of market share).

    Intel is taking calculated risks with both AMD & NVIDIA, but in the medium term has surely to be working hard to get out of the various cross-patenting agreements, by developing its own tech.

    In the interim, one way to maximise revenue is to make sure that most of the chips on the Mobo are from Intel. Goodbye NVIDIA. Si

  • make me happy I choose AMD/ATI for all my computers...
  • ..NVIDIA decided to fight fire with fire..

    There, fixed that for you. :P

  • As a result both Intel CPUs and nVidia GPUs will go up in price... I might have to switch back to AMD.
  • Furthermore, the action also seeks to terminate Intel's license to NVIDIA's valuable patent portfolio, which no doubt is reverberating with some level of intensity in the halls of Intel."

    Don't get your hopes up; it will never happen. But it's fun to think about what would happen if Intel had to shut down for a few weeks until they got their lawyers reined in and back under control.

  • Intel: I'm going to shoot myself in the foot.

    NVidia: You missed, that was your hip. Here's the video to prove it.

  • by EEPROMS (889169)
    Is it me or did Nvidia's and Intels marketing dept guys talk to each other, then decide if they got the companies to sue each other it would hide the fact that sales are down over 50% from both the board and the stock holders.

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...