Slashdot Mirror


SGI Sues ATI for Patent Infringement

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."

8 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. And so it begins... by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The SCO-iffying of sgi. I used to love SGI. I still love their old hardware, from Indys to Reality Engines, from the 4D85 I started on (before they gave fancy names) to the Onyx Infinite Reality that we ran virtual sets on in real time long before PCs could even think about doing this stuff, and the sgi's ran a lot of our live TV well into the PC era, doing a better job than PCs could years after the sgis were released.

    But now it's over and sgi has become an office with a few lawyers, and this is what the call emerging from bankrupcy.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  2. Not the first time by tjkslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else remember they gave NVidia the same treatment back in the heady day's of '98? This is nothing new for SGI. "Rattle the cage, and try to stave off the end with another lawsuit." How did that last one work for SGI? Not so well....

  3. the real culprit: clueless legislators by theStorminMormon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I read about stuff like this, it makes me annoyed. Not because any sense of fairness or ethics (companies don't have morals), but because of the wasted resources. Litigation is money spent without any production at the end. You pay a bunch of bloodsuckers to fight another bunch of bloodsuckers and either you take money from the other guy or the other guy takes money from you, but the only people guaranteed to get paid are the bloodsuckers.

    Imagine if the money spent on spurious litigation went into actual R&D, capital investment for fabrication centers, engineer salaries, hell even advertising. Anything but litigation!

    But as long as there's an avenue to make money this way, you can't really expect companies like SGI to behave any differently. You're providing a way for companies that are no long profitable (either because they have no product, e.g. SGI, or because they have an antiquate business model e.g. **AA) to leech off of the market instead of exiting it. Of course they're going to try to survive and not just go quietly into that good night. So, while I'm annoyed at this behavior, you have to realize that it's intellectual property laws that are the problem. We need fewer and simpler IP laws. Of course, trying to get lawmakers to pass fewer laws is like asking a competitive eater to "take it slow", and that's not even mentioning that the bloodsuckers aren't going to be happy to see yet another cash cow disappear anytime soon.

    How long will it take for public outrage to really grow until real reform is made?

    -stormin

    --
    The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  4. SGI's income went to research by nadanumber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SGI always poured the lions share of its income into research, and to the best of my knowledge they, even now, continue to do so.

    SGI is the company that today has the very fastest Linux computer - the Altix shared memory multiprocessing family - available at any price, really a technological marvel because it runs a single OS kernel and has memory architecture which is truly phenomenal - it scales better than any other multiprocessing/clustering solution.

    So any defense of their patents, however 'unpopular' with the video gaming set, should be welcomed because it could help a company that we really owe a lot to in many ways get back into the game. Honestly.

    They would not be a 'patent troll'. Don't forget, SGI open sources a LOT of its technology. Much more than most other hardware vendors. Much more.

    I used to work at NASA and our division was largely an SGI shop, and yes, they were expensive, but at the time, there was nothing else out there that was comparable in ANY way. You won't ever find me saying anything bad about SGI except maybe that it would be great if they were cheaper.

    Why? Because they are the best.

  5. Re:Reminds me of another three letter 'S' company by swthomas55 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Alexander Graham Bell was 4 hours ahead of a rival inventor filing the patent on his telephone. Being first is all, in this race. (From Wikipedia: Bell then secured his own patent in 1876, just hours before Elisha Gray visited the patent office for his own work on the telephone.)

    The Wikipedia article also tells the story of Antonio Meucci, who apparently invented the telephone several years earlier but was too poor to take out a patent. Seems things really weren't all that different 130 years ago.

  6. Zombie companies by aero6dof · · Score: 5, Funny

    SGI is back from the dead and is now trying to feast on living companies. If that doesn't fit the halloween season I don't know what does.

  7. Re:Classic case of innovator's dilemma? by SirKron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Delete:
    • SGI participates in none of it. Dies instead.
    Insert:
    • AMD gobbles up SGI too as the company is cheaper than the future cost of attorney fees to defend against the patent claims.
    • Intel, NVIDIA shit themselves as their graphics cards also infringe the patents.
    • Lawsuit proceeds pays for SGI acquisition and more.
  8. 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.