Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SGI Sues ATI for Patent Infringement

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the mommy-they're-playing-unfair dept.

Ynsats writes "The Register is reporting that SGI is filing suit against ATI for patent infringement. The suit alleges that ATI violated patent number 6,650,327, "Display system having floating point rasterization and floating point framebuffering", which was filed in 1998 and granted in 2003, in its Radeon graphics cards. This is coming fast on the heels of AMD's announcement of the intention to buy ATI for $4.2B and it doesn't seem to be swaying AMD's intentions. AMD hopes to finish the takeover by the end of this year. SGI has also issued an ominous statement stating that they have plenty of intellectual property left and there will be more litigation to come."

2 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Re:welcome back SGI by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative
    The patent is mentioned in the OpenGL extension specifications color_buffer_float.txt


    SGI owns US Patent #6,650,327, issued November 18, 2003. SGI
            believes this patent contains necessary IP for graphics systems
            implementing floating point (FP) rasterization and FP framebuffer
            capabilities.


    SGI's patent was filed June 16, 1998, and granted November 18, 2003

    ATI did similar work at the same time ATI_pixel_format_float

    The development history of ATI's document ranges from 9th June 2002 to 4th December 2002

    Basically, ATI gets caught between SGI filing for a patent, and SGI having the patent granted. Although, given that SGI have been announcing the status of this patent for the past three years, it does seem odd that they are only sueing now. Maybe they are scared of the ATI/AMD merger, or see that ATI has more money now.
    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  2. Re:Reminds me of another three letter 'S' company by Changer2002 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not having read the patent, I can't comment on this particular one, but one thing /.'ers love to do is point out how obvious patents are based on their titles. Being a lawyer and working with patents all day let me just state that the title of a patent often doesn't spell out what the inventive step is. It's just a general topic and area, and in a crowded area sometimes the titles are pretty generic. Usually you have to really get into the patent to find out what the innovation is (if it's there). So before you declare a patent obvious take a look at it, not just it's title.