SGI Sues ATI for Patent Infringement

[urgaffel]

Oh no, don't tell me that SGI is going to become a let's-sue-somebody-company... :sad:

[EnlightenedPixel]

Good freakin lord. Next someone is going to sue for running a computer based on binary switches because they pattented 1's and 0's. Is this why they came out of bankrupcy? To sue ATI?

[quyeno]

At the end of the day if ATI infringed the patent then they should be sued. The technology is licensed to other companies and they pay alot of money to use this technology. If ATI wanted to use the technology, they should have licensed it. Simple. Companies have the right to protect their intelectual property.

[3DDave]

I guess SGI ruled out using AMD processors.

[Iain McFadzen]

I had a quick read through that patent, and couldn't help but giggle at the mental image of some poor clerk at the US patent office trying to het his head around it in order to decide whether or not he could grant it.

[mummey]

Oh no, don't tell me that SGI is going to become a let's-sue-somebody-company... :sad:

You appear surprised. SGI has always been a greedy company, just not always a smart one.

[mummey]

I guess SGI ruled out using AMD processors.

I find it funny since I remember a year ago SGI trying to sell my university lab an Onyz 4 with ATi GPU's riding on an SGI custom bus.

It seemed pretty cool, but didn't seem to be any significantly better than clustering 5 or 6 dell's (which we ended up choosing instead.)

[richcz3]

Oh no, don't tell me that SGI is going to become a let's-sue-somebody-company... :sad:
Not sure in their FTC filing they noted all the Patents they plan on going after. The fact that they just exited Bankruptcy proceedings and filed a lawsuit seems to indicate this is exactly what they intend to do. They'd be advised to do a better job than Rambus ever did. They lost royaly and were required to pay for all the legal proceedings.

Didn't allot of the graphics engineers flee to nVidia prior to SGI hitting the big berg?
If so....well - I can hear the sharks fins targeting nVidia next.

[cresshead]

imo if someone takes something from someone else and doesn't pay for it when they could/should then they deserve to be sued...they knew what they were doing right?[ati]or is it that they just ran roughshod over sgi cos they thingk they're capable of it...

for me...good luck to sgi...go rip their [ati's] bank vaults open...ati's made a mountain of money off of sgi's inventivness...payback time!...i surpose ati were praying that sgi folded....oh well...
...wrong!

re nvidia..yeah...and when you work for someone what you make is theirs, not yours...so inventiions made at sgi by people who new work for nvida belong to sgi...not the 'people who made it whilst under their employ'....so yup...go sue nvida too....if they can..good luck to them too!.....just think...both nvida and ati also have their chips in games consoles and telephones....

could be we see video cards rising in price soon!

stee+cats

[Cronholio]

If so....well - I can hear the sharks fins targeting nVidia next.

It's doubtful because SGI already tried to sue Nvidia a few years ago. They reached some sort of technology sharing agreement aand the suit was dropped. Around the same time SGI sold a bunch of non core technology patents to MS including some Open GL patents, so I think MS is safe as well.

[mummey]

imo if someone takes something from someone else and doesn't pay for it when they could/should then they deserve to be sued...they knew what they were doing right?[ati]or is it that they just ran roughshod over sgi cos they thingk they're capable of it...

for me...good luck to sgi...go rip their [ati's] bank vaults open...ati's made a mountain of money off of sgi's inventivness...payback time!...i surpose ati were praying that sgi folded....oh well...
...wrong!

re nvidia..yeah...and when you work for someone what you make is theirs, not yours...so inventiions made at sgi by people who new work for nvida belong to sgi...not the 'people who made it whilst under their employ'....so yup...go sue nvida too....if they can..good luck to them too!.....just think...both nvida and ati also have their chips in games consoles and telephones....

could be we see video cards rising in price soon!

stee+cats

Pardon my wording, but your statement appears naive.

Unfortunately the US patent systems rewards those who "think" of the idea and file first, rather than those who do the work necessary to fully develop the idea.

I can understand your statement if every patent holder had the intention of fully developing the idea themselves. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case and unfortunately its become more comman that the patent hides the patent from the public until someone else has brought it to market; at which point the patent holder sues the company for "lost revenue" even though it never had the intention of developing it themselves.

These companies been given the term: Patent Trolls

[cresshead]

each patent and each lawsuit does not ness depend on the last lawsuit....


just because you got found innocent of a parking offense doesn't mean you didn't do a murder!
...if you get my drift....

naive or not isn't really an issue for me...i'm not the firm of lawyers who went over the patents and filed for ati infringing them....

as they say time will tell...or not!...or it might...!...err or not!

law is all about interpreting anyhow!

[jbo]

the US patent systems rewards those who "think" of the idea and file first, rather than those who do the work necessary to fully develop the idea.

I would expect a community of artist to have a firmer understanding of the importance of intellectual property.

Unfortunately, this is rarely the case and unfortunately its become more comman that the patent hides the patent from the public until someone else has brought it to market;

How is this possible? aren't patents a matter of public record?

I think the problem with patent law is not that it rewards those who think of things first, but that it allows extremely vague ideas to patented... loose wording allows for different interperetations.

[Cronholio]

Unfortunately the US patent systems rewards those who "think" of the idea and file first, rather than those who do the work necessary to fully develop the idea.

Which is probably not the case here. sgi was the first company to implement a floating point frame buffer and market it commercially. It doesn't matter that in the end ATI more "fully developed" the technology in your or anyone else's eyes. sgi could probably make a really solid case here, and with perfect timing. Like most lawsuits (the nvidia/sgi for example) this will likely end in a settlement with a payout from ATI and/or a technology sharing agreement.

To answer the question, yes patents are a matter of public record, and I'm sure at some point ATI was fully aware of sgi's patent. There's no way they could've overlooked it. Everytime these comapnies make even then smallest technology improvements they try to file a patent for it. There's no way ATI implemented something as important as a floating point framebuffer without checking to see if they could patent it for themselves. Maybe ATI didn't think they were infringing on the patent, or maybe it was just a calculated risk on their part and they figured they weren't likely to be sued or if sued the settlement would be less costly than licensing the technology in the first place.

[EnlightenedPixel]

I would expect a community of artist to have a firmer understanding of the importance of intellectual property.

How is this possible? aren't patents a matter of public record?

I think the problem with patent law is not that it rewards those who think of things first, but that it allows extremely vague ideas to patented... loose wording allows for different interperetations.

You'd have to know what youre looking for in order to find the patent.
What they mean by hiding is these companies arent coming out and stating " We have patented a new technology - bla bla" theyre just patenting it and leaving it at that.

[jbo]

You'd have to know what youre looking for in order to find the patent.
What they mean by hiding is these companies arent coming out and stating " We have patented a new technology - bla bla" theyre just patenting it and leaving it at that.

well, yeah. of course you'd have to know what you're looking for. it's your responsibility to check if there's an existing patent. believe me, all of these big companies know when they're infringing on patents, because if they thought they weren't, they'd try and patent it themselves.

[almux]

Good freakin lord. Next someone is going to sue for running a computer based on binary switches because they pattented 1's and 0's. Is this why they came out of bankrupcy? To sue ATI?
I will sue you because you have used the words "running a computer" wich is Patent 345.sfx.463.673 © AVN 1999 Switzerland...
But you may send me a check of 1€ or 1,30 US$ or 1,60 CHF and i'll stop immediately all action in law.
;)

[Glenfx]

If they took the patent/idea word by word, then they might be in some sort of trouble.

There is another way around it and it consist of adding/evolving/improoving the original patent in which you can get a new patent where you must state that it is an addition to/evolution of/improovment of X other patent.
In this case your pattenting the improovement. Tho i dont know if based on that they can use it on a comercial product.



What i find funny though, there are billions of people in this world meaning the same idea can be conseived by a huge ammount of people without knowing about eachother. but the first one to get a patent becomes the absolute owner of the idea.

But the USA is largely known for theyr main industry.... law suits

[m1j]

I will sue you because you have used the words "running a computer" wich is Patent 345.sfx.463.673 © AVN 1999 Switzerland...
But you may send me a check of 1€ or 1,30 US$ or 1,60 CHF and i'll stop immediately all action in law.
;)

I believe you have found the heart of the problem. If patents where for real technology and real consepts with models and code to proove them there would be less law suits. But when the US patent office allows such vague and common ideas to be patent we see the run a muk law suits and patent trolls.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.