NVIDIA Countersues Intel Over License Conflict

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Countersues Intel Over License Conflict

Posted by kdawson on Friday March 27, 2009 @12:42AM 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."

132 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why would Intel be so greedy? by tjstork · 2009-03-27 00:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
This is my sig.
1. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
2. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by 91degrees · 2009-03-27 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by vally_manea · 2009-03-27 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Yamamato · 2009-03-27 01:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by commodore64_love · 2009-03-27 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  And then the government will come-in and break Intel into pieces. Intel is better off having competition (like AMD, Nvidia) than government interference.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
7. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Lord+Ender · 2009-03-27 01:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
8. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by sam0vi · 2009-03-27 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
9. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Yamamato · 2009-03-27 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
10. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by EvilRyry · 2009-03-27 01:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What fantasy world are you living in? Although antitrust laws may say the government _should_ do that, they almost certainly won't.
11. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Phreakiture · 2009-03-27 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  www.wavefront-av.com
12. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  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 platform. Otherwise their market will disappear out from under them.
13. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by s_p_oneil · 2009-03-27 01:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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's business.
14. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
15. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by FrozenFOXX · 2009-03-27 01:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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 telling what may be the next "big thing" that's going to put a previous monolithic giant through some very serious hurt (Vista anyone?).
  
  --
  "Just a fox, a whisper."
16. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  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
17. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by morgan_greywolf · 2009-03-27 01:47 · 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.
  
  --
  My blog
18. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  And spend how long doing that? Intel has never been able to compete with the likes of Nvidia, ATI or even 3dfx. They won't suddenly be able to put out a GPU product that is anywhere close to rivaling what Nvidia has. In the meantime, Nvidia won't be sitting idly by, waiting for Intel to catch up.
  
  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.
  Both are about equally reliant I would say. If AMD loses x86, they could still hurt Intel badly by withholding x64 from them in retaliation. In addition, AMD is the other major GPU business out there. This means Intel could lose both Nvidia and ATI avenues when it comes to GPU technology.
19. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  NVIDIA's x86 business is probably a response to Intel's desire to eat their GPU market. In a tit-for-tat battle NVIDIA loses, because Intel has more money. But doing nothing means that NVIDIA loses anyway, because that's how Intel rolls.
20. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  lol! Did you really just replace company names with stock ticker symbols? That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
21. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Daravon · 2009-03-27 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
22. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Splab · 2009-03-27 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  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).
24. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by orclevegam · 2009-03-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  In a tit-for-tat battle NVIDIA loses, because Intel has more money.
  Maybe, but don't forget that Intel is fighting a battle on two fronts, they've also got AMD to contend with (which is a much stickier situation).
  
  --
  Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
25. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Has never been able to, until now. Larabee is just around the corner, and once it's out, Nvidia and Ati will be a fading memory.
  Remember less than 2 years ago when Nvidia CEO said RTRT was never going to happen, but then when Intel announced Larabee he flip-flopped and now claims they will have superior RTRT? Meh.
26. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by orclevegam · 2009-03-27 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  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 while all this plays out in the courts otherwise this whole thing is going to bring computer manufacturing and development to a grinding halt (at least on the dominate 80x86 platform, the niche players like PowerPC, Motorolla, and the various embedded chipsets will be fine).
  
  --
  Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
27. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by poetmatt · 2009-03-27 02:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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 even close nor do they have the experience to catch up yet. Important word is could. Intel would have to start making real GPU processors to catch up with the way current tech goes.
28. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Without access to key AMD and NVIDIA patents they're stuffed.
29. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding. It makes it harder to read and doesn't achieve anything. How hard is it to type Intel instead of INTC. Oh that's right, he saved ONE letter!
30. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, he didn't save anything because he had to hold down shift key all the time or press caps lock two times. He is a moron, he just thinks he is smarter then other people just by using ticker tape names.
31. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by hattig · 2009-03-27 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
32. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Chyeld · 2009-03-27 02:53 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I believe this is a demonstration of the widely touted "MAD" 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.
33. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps he forgot to license those extra couple letters from Intel and nVidia...
34. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by cheesybagel · 2009-03-27 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't a battle on two fronts regarding their bread winner. Even if NVIDIA stops manufacturing chipsets, they will still manufacture graphics chips. Fact is the latest NVIDIA chipsets have sucked and been buggy as hell. Their former love for SLI lock-in crapola hasn't gained any favors in the market either.
  I doubt Larabee will be all they have been claiming it will be, but Intel managed to sucker punch RISC vendors with Pentium Pro before. If they manage to make a chip with similar performance to NVIDIA's top offering, but cheaper (not unthinkable given Intel's manufacturing prowess while NVIDIA is stuck using TSMC), NVIDIA will be reeling for a long time to come.
35. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by santiagodraco · 2009-03-27 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
36. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe, but don't forget that Intel is fighting a battle on two fronts, they've also got AMD to contend with (which is a much stickier situation).
  Three fronts actually. The European commission is on their case for possible competition law breaches.
37. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by gbarules2999 · 2009-03-27 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think he just left out random vowels instead. I d tht vry nc in a while.
38. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by robthebloke · 2009-03-27 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  One word: Itanium.
39. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  One word: Itanic
40. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Has never been able to, until now. Larabee is just around the corner, and once it's out, Nvidia and Ati will be a fading memory.
  Remember less than 2 years ago when Nvidia CEO said RTRT was never going to happen, but then when Intel announced Larabee he flip-flopped and now claims they will have superior RTRT? Meh.
  Larabee will be just as much of a flaming pile of crap as their current graphic offerings. Larabee will still be outpeformed by all nVidia and ATi offerings.
  The first road block they have to overcome is the horrible name that their current offerings have and they will never do it with the enthusiast crowds then knowing intel it will be WAY overpriced anyway.
  So keep rooting for intel's GPU hop on the failboat and sink with their GPU.
41. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Creepy · 2009-03-27 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  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 CPU dye rather than keeping it separate, which increases the speed of memory access. ATI has been using integrated memory controllers for years but Intel has shied away from it because it ties a chip to a certain type of memory. If you remember Intel's attempt to force RAMBUS and then moving quickly to DDR, you probably remember that they could do so quickly by just changing the motherboard and not the CPU design.
  An integrated memory controller really has nothing to do with CPU tech, it is basically putting a motherboard component on a chip (which has happened before with cache and FPU and probably others [timer?]), so I'd have to say I'd back nVidia on this one. The AMD suit is a bit more questionable because it depends on interpretation. AMD recently split in two - a chip design company (AMD) and the manufacturing division (GlobalFoundries). The patent sharing agreement only applies to AMD subsidiaries and since GlobalFoundries was spun off as a separate company, it is not a subsidiary and would need a separate contract. The question here is whether you could consider them under the AMD umbrella because they were part of AMD when the contract was signed.
42. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by lordtoran · 2009-03-27 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
43. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by wastedlife · 2009-03-27 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  
  --
  Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
44. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by robthebloke · 2009-03-27 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Intel has the largest share of the GPU market, so I'm not sure what makes you thin they can't compete .... link. Sure there hardware isn't anything to write home about, but if it can handle aero and blu-ray playback, it's more than enough for 99% of PC users...
45. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by c0p0n · 2009-03-27 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  
  Your head a splode
46. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by c0p0n · 2009-03-27 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  Your head a splode
47. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
48. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by lordtoran · 2009-03-27 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
49. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
50. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by LordKronos · 2009-03-27 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  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 for a limited number of features, most of which aren't very useful to me). Gaming is the only thing I could do that would use it, but I'd rather do that on a console anyway.
51. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Nick+Ives · 2009-03-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  But Nvidia isn't targeting the mass market, they're targeting PC gaming enthusiasts. You only buy Nvidia if you care about gaming and Intel has consistently failed to deliver a competitive graphics part. They've pretty much admitted that whenever Larabee turns up won't compete with Nvidia's current top end parts, never mind what they've released by then.
  Their roadmap does eventually lead to high performance graphics parts but not any time soon. Taking out Nvidia like this will kill Intel in the PC enthusiast market in the short to medium term. They probably think that it's worth it but I find it to be an annoying strategy.
  
  --
  Nick
52. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by im_thatoneguy · 2009-03-27 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  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.
53. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Joce640k · 2009-03-27 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  
  --
  No sig today...
54. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by ozbird · 2009-03-27 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
55. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  What about desktops? Game consoles?
  You know, I hear this crap about Intel graphics all of the time but there is never any proof to show that they are leading anything. Nvidia and ATI account for a very large percentage of all graphics chips in notebook/desktop PCs and 100% of all game consoles. Intel's offerings aren't even as powerful as Nvidia's lowest end part and are incapable of running trivial things like Vista's Aero or HD videos with acceptable performance.
  Netbooks are such an insignificant market that they don't even count.
56. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by ausekilis · 2009-03-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  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 instruction set. AMD has threatened to revoke Intel's access to AMD's 64-bit processing copyrights, which would leave Intel scrambling.
  I'm not sure of all the specifics for who owns what copyrights and has them apportioned to whoever else, though I do know that Intel's current game can end up very bad for them, very quickly.
  some light reading
57. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by hairyfeet · 2009-03-27 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  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 spooked, namely Ion which has been shown to play high def and even be able to game with either an Intel Atom OR a Via Nano. And honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Intel keeps getting pissy that Nvidia just doesn't buy Via. If you put the Ion and the Nano together in an affordable Netbook? Money in the bank. While it wouldn't have as good a battery life as the Atom, I frankly doubt folks would give a shit when they go "oooh" while seeing HL2 or HD video playing on the Netbook with the Ion+Nano combo. Add to that the fact that Nano has built in crypto that would be awesome for having full disk encryption without a performance hit, and frankly Intel is being really fucking stupid IMHO.
  I don't know who is calling the shots at Intel, but they seem really determined to piss off everyone, and in the PC business burning your bridges is NEVER a good idea. If Nvidia buys Via they could take a serious chunk of the Netbook market with Ion+Nano, if AMD wins they are screwed, and they are looking at antitrust with the EU. It seems to me that the success of the Core2 arch has gone to their haed and they frankly think their shit don't stink. But if it is one thing we have seen in IT it is that the winds can shift in a heartbeat, and burning all your bridges and pissing off all your partners can come back to bite you in the ass. I just hope Intel gets its act together, or I will be going with AMD or Nvidia. I want choices on my GPU, not the Intel IGP crap, thank you very much. I will glady take last year's AMD or Nvidia offering over ANYTHING that Intel has released today, and I haven't seen any solid numbers to show that Larrabee will change that opinion.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
58. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  "Dude, where's my card?"
59. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  But Intel looses their x86_64 licence if AMD looses its x86 licence.
  That's 'loses'.
  Despite the saber rattling by AMD claiming Intel is in breach merely for threatening to enforce the agreement, so far as I can tell it does not work that way. IANAL but the language of the agreement, which is partially available on the web, seems clear. It has survival clauses that enumerate which clauses survive if one party breaches its obligations. The party in breach loses its rights, the party not in breach doesn't.
  The party not in breach is expected to still meet its obligations, or at least the ones marked as surviving. If it breaks them at some point in the future it faces losing its rights too. However, since the agreement requires a lot more of AMD than Intel, it's not very likely Intel will ever be in a situation like AMD is now (that is, forced by financial problems to take an action which would be very questionable under the terms of the agreement).
  (It's not like they truly wanted to spin off the fabs. Even if that action didn't have licensing implications, it's basically giving up on ever being competitive with Intel again.)
60. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by magus_melchior · 2009-03-27 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  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 they still don't hold a candle to ATI/nVidia. They know that the complex math processing capabilities of GPUs will be a lot more of a determinant in high-to-mid-performance computing, so this is most likely Intel trying to leverage a better deal out of nVidia and other partners. Only this time, nVidia isn't buying it.
  
  --
  "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
61. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by poopdeville · 2009-03-27 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  After all, I am strangely colored.
62. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by scientus · 2009-03-27 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  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 over what it does. It is reasonable to have a BIOS on ROM that does not interact with the network, that does not stay on all the time, or implements straight forward ACPI. But things that are OS-like belong in a OS, not above the pervue of the user in a flash chip, and that OS should be one that is used and works, so that a device which has a driver in the OS doesnt work simply because there is not ANOTHER driver for the BIOS.
  If you want things like netboot, you can put linux or BSD on a flash chip and kexec to any other OS, but don't force another proprietary OS down my throat and call it "Open".
63. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by digitalchinky · 2009-03-27 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  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. Choice is a good thing yes?
64. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Klintus+Fang · 2009-03-27 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  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 that Intel is capable of doing.
  For example, if Intel were to disappear from the face of the earth, do you know what would happen? There would be no company physically capable of producing enough CPUs to meet demand, prices would sky rocket because supply would be so much less than demand and it would probably take a decade before the likes of nVidia or AMD were able to build up the manufacturing capacity to meet the demand that Intel is currently supplying.
  For better or worse, Intel is the dominant player because nobody can match their manufacturing capacity. I'm sure they worry about the possibility that nVidia might cut into their CPU sales...but the notion that they would be scared witless that a company that doesn't even own a FAB is going to rival them in the high volume microprocessor market segments is naive.
  
  --
  In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
65. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Lord+Ender · 2009-03-29 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
66. Re:Why would Intel be so greedy? by Klintus+Fang · 2009-03-29 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  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 margins for intel and other cpu manufacturers. but almost all of these machines that have atom or arm based processors in them also have a cheap integrated Intel graphics solution. that is equally bad for the gpu market. obviously in the segment where atom is relevant, gpu speed is even less relevant than cpu speed is if they are using integrated intel graphics solutions (which basically suck even worse than the atom does so far as performance is concerned).
  as for the claim that gains in gpu speed are not anywhere near done, while saying that CPU speed gains are over. that doesn't really hold water either. claiming that gpu speed increases won't be over until we have photorealistic rendering in real time ignores the way microprocessor design works. gpu speed increases will stop for the same reason that cpu speed increases stopped: because you eventually reach the point where the next speed increases draws so much power and generates so much heat that there is absolutely no benefit to increasing the speed anymore. cpu speeds didn't stop increasing because software couldn't benefit from the speed increases anymore. it stopped because increasing speed further was so expensive that it made no sense to do it anymore. That said, cpus still are increasing speed with each generation, but the increases are coming much more slowly and are occurring as a result of micro-architecture improvements, which are much harder to pull off then just shrinking the process size, and doubling the power (which is how cpu speed was increased generation over generation in the 90s).
  high end gpu's have already crossed that threshold as well, in my opinion. which is why I suspect nvidia is interested in expanding beyond the graphics market. think about it: the power supply requirements of a high end desktop that has the best possible graphics solution installed are getting pretty nuts. the power supply in a high end gaming/video-rendering desktop (if you want the machine to be able to run without blue-screening every few hours) costs more than the CPU itself. gpus are hitting a plateau as well at this point because of this power issue.
  gpus are going to have to improve performance the hard way from hear on out, in my opninion, just like cpus have been forced to do.
  
  --
  In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
The real source of this post is here... by MojoKid · 2009-03-27 00:52 · Score: 1, Informative

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/
1. Re:The real source of this post is here... by Rufus211 · 2009-03-27 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:The real source of this post is here... by MojoKid · 2009-03-27 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:The real source of this post is here... by ScuttleMonkey · 2009-03-27 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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. Ultimately our editors are going to choose both the summary text and offsite links that are best suited to represent the story for discussion by the community.
  
  Now, this is not to say we don't value any submissions. We recognize that a certain amount of the driving force behind sharing a story is to get your own vanity link as recognition (although we do slap a big fat "nofollow" on there so no google-juice farming for you) so your name is linked to whatever you put in the "your site" field. In this case Mojo chose to link the top level domain of his site "http://hothardware.com/" which is linked to off his name. The "scoop", however, is what is most important to our readers and as an editor I feel the obligation to provide the absolute best possible content when available. In this case kdawson felt that article Mojo linked to was not as good as the Reuters piece. It happens a lot, get used to it. If a link or the summary text is not up to snuff we often rewrite/replace it for the good of the site.
  
  Bottom line is you are submitting this story as a participatory member of a community, a community that is heavily in favor of ideals like open source and the freedom/sharing of information. While we value your contribution, I will always choose the site with better information and fewer ads when possible so that our readers have less drek to wade through to get to the meat. I mean honestly, few readers actually read the article before spouting off at the mouth as it is, I don't want to force that behavior with sub-optimal articles.
  
  Sorry you feel you got burned, but a sense of entitlement in a community based on collaboration is something I just can't support. Hope to see you around in the future.
Petulent children by clickclickdrone · 2009-03-27 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
1. Re:Petulent children by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  It is just you, they have always been this way.
  Throughout much of it's history Pepsi has been run by one of coke's vengeful castoffs.
2. Re:Petulent children by noundi · 2009-03-27 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
3. Re:Petulent children by TubeSteak · 2009-03-27 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
4. Re:Petulent children by UnknowingFool · 2009-03-27 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Larabee by Brit_in_the_USA · 2009-03-27 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Larabee by Brit_in_the_USA · 2009-03-27 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Larabee by blahplusplus · 2009-03-27 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Larabee by scientus · 2009-03-27 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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 will fit in previous generation motherboards, albeit with slower memory pipelines. Also, with SATA and usb it really is just plug it in computing, and with no restart. It costs more, but servers have hot swap RAM, and also many motherboards have hot swap PCI-E cards.
  For the most part, this criticism of upgradeability is without merit: simply because development is moving really really fast and therefore a 3-year-old computer cant use anything but PCI cards, and USB devices (also IDE HDs work fine) of and old one doesnt mean there is a lack of interoperability, this is largely just cause everything is getting so much better, cheaper, and faster. The parts that are no longer inter-operable are so obsolete and slow that there is no point is continuing to using them in a new machine.
4. Re:Larabee by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  For a brief period in time, the cards were about the same speed (regarding GTX versus 4870). Then Nvidia chopped the prices and undercut AMD and then released the GTX260+ which owns everything short of the twin GPU cards.
  DDR5 is nice, but the nvidia cards have a very fat pipe to their memory chips and most analysts agree that DDR5 on a nvidia card wouldnt make much difference. Nvidia also has stable driver releases and doesn't rush products to market that aren't finished (unlike the 4870 which had/still has driver issues)
5. Re:Larabee by Kjella · 2009-03-27 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:Larabee by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Except that GTX260 is a 400-500mm2 chip and 4870 is 270mm2. This is largely due to the misdesigned, overly wide memory interface that GDDR3 forced on nVidia. ATI screwed up in the same exact way with HD 2900 before.
7. Re:Larabee by fast+turtle · 2009-03-27 04:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Nvidia also has stable driver releases and doesn't rush products to market that aren't finished (unlike the 4870 which had/still has driver issues)
  Emphasis Mine:
  Unlike Nvidia's so called stable drivers, ATI has released a single Unified driver that works on XP/Vista/Win7-Beta (nvidia's are still borked on Win7) and that will be easily ported to Linux and OS-X (ATI wants some of that Apple Pie) using kernel shims just as Nvidia Does. Plus their driver will be 90+ open source now that they've finished isolating the closed source code from their driver.
  To me, this places ATI in a much better position then Nvidia because unlike Nvidia, ATI has (since AMD Purchased them) emphasized stable drivers over fast and buggy), though the catalyst control panel crashes frequently, which I refuse to install for that reason and no I don't hate Nvidia since I'm currently using an Asus Silencer - fanless - 7300GT in Gentoo64 multi-lib mode with the open source driver (bought card in 1qtr 2008)
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
8. Re:Larabee by Joce640k · 2009-03-27 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  > 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
  And the next generation will be available before Xmas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_(CPU)#Future
  A single-chip solution for netbooks, combined with Intel's fabrication processes, means NVIDIA won't be anywhere close in the foreseeable future.
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:Larabee by Demonantis · 2009-03-27 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
10. Re:Larabee by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-03-27 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike Nvidia's so called stable drivers, ATI has released a single Unified driver that works on XP/Vista/Win7-Beta (nvidia's are still borked on Win7)
  I've stopped reading here, because that simply doesn't correspond to my observations. I use Win7 beta for day-to-day task both at home and at work - at work with an ATI card, at home with NVidia. With ATI Win7 drivers, I've seen at least one driver crash every day until I switched to Classic mode - and that is without even running any 3D games, just with Aero! With NVidia, I haven't had a single crash so far, and my home PC is mostly a gaming rig, and I play a wide assortment of games, from some relatively old OpenGL stuff (such as Neverwinter Nights) to Left4Dead and GTA4.
Intel's suing AMD, AMD's suing Intel... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 00:59 · Score: 0

Intel's suing NVIDIA, NVIDIA's suing Intel...
What's next? AMD suing ATI?
Oh wait...
They're like children by ZorinLynx · 2009-03-27 01:10 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:They're like children by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  The pie is shrinking. Neither company wants to accept that, they are trying to ensure the volume of pie they get remains the same.
2. Re:They're like children by Culture20 · 2009-03-27 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  They do, afterall, sell different products.
  One sells chocolate, the other sells peanut butter. Both want to sell Reese's cups.
Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by grapeape · 2009-03-27 01:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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,
1. Re:Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Intel just shot themselves in the foot.
  I don't know how much the rest of you know about hardware-design culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in software where you can become successful by being an asshole. If you screw someone over in hardware, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.
  What this means is the computer-buying public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase the Larrabee, nor will they purchase any of Intel's chips. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Intel has alienated an entire market with this move.
  Intel, publicly apologize and cancel your lawsuit or you can kiss your business goodbye.
2. Re:Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  HAHAHAHHAHA wow you are a serious comedian, kudos!
  I'm an expert too, and I see this as nothing but Intel getting ready to drop huge, game changing, bombs on it's competition.
  The competition is shaking in it's boots, hence the counter-suits.
3. Re:Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  I'm an expert too, and I see this as evidence that Intel is getting out of the semiconductor business and moving into selling refurbished dildos.
4. Re:Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by Touvan · 2009-03-27 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  http://www.unfocus.com/
5. Re:Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by LordKronos · 2009-03-27 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Intel must be really confident in its new GPU by waddleman · 2009-03-27 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  If subpar technology faded, then we would all be running Alpha processors instead of x86.
FIX SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:19 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
1. Re:FIX SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  mod this guy up!
2. Re:FIX SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  No, Mod this guy up!
3. Re:FIX SLASHDOT by ChienAndalu · 2009-03-27 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  he might be harsh but he is right - broken here too (firefox 3.0.7, no greasemonkey or the likes)
4. Re:FIX SLASHDOT by FreakinSyco · 2009-03-27 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Click "Help & Preferences" > "Viewing" > "Slashdot Classic Discussion System" > "Save"
  Now never see that god awful slider again.
Bit of an awkward analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Because when I think "classy restaurant", I think of ketchup in foil packets
patents by Lord+Ender · 2009-03-27 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
1. Re:patents by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  from a business point of view, Intel innovated new patentable devices in order to gain marketshare from Nvidia and remove a cross-licensed competitor. That makes stocks go up... therefore is good. The availability to renegotiate patent arrangements was one of the deciding factors making the innovation profitable.
  -- from a Wall Street point of view.
2. Re:patents by Lord+Ender · 2009-03-27 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  According to our constitution, IP law exists to promote "science and the useful arts," not to support Wall Street. And the fact is that everyone owns little pieces of technology everyone uses. Owning a patent might be a positive for your balance sheet, but the fact that your competitors own patents on technology essential to your business is a negative. Then factor in the constant expense of litigation... I would wager even Wall Street would be positively influenced with the legal risks and expenses associated with patent law removed.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Meanwhile.... by maugle · 2009-03-27 01:30 · Score: 4, Funny

AMD is watching from the shadows, hands clasped, whispering "Good, good."
when you can no longer inovate,... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:46 · Score: 1

...then you litigate!
Those two need to get it over with and bone... by bistromath007 · 2009-03-27 01:53 · Score: 2, Funny

I swear, it's like watching Cici and Niles.
1. Re:Those two need to get it over with and bone... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  this a very sad comment which indicates a very diseased mind.
Core competencies.... by A.+Lynch · 2009-03-27 01:54 · Score: 1

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.
Intel seems rather annoyed lately. by Icegryphon · 2009-03-27 02:19 · Score: 0

Is it that time of the business cycle/month or is it the fact that tesla spanks intel performace?
Hardball courtship? by Bearhouse · 2009-03-27 02:21 · Score: 1

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. Since because of antitrust Intel probably cannot buy them out, they'll just bleed em white.
Events like this... by LunarEffect · 2009-03-27 02:31 · Score: 1

make me happy I choose AMD/ATI for all my computers...
1. Re:Events like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  ... because after all x64 is the future. I'll stick with them too, no way I'm giving my money to Intel since AMD is the only one that cares for the consumer pocket, my pocket. Phenom II and AM2 socket anyone?
Proofread much? by kheldan · 2009-03-27 02:40 · Score: 1

..NVIDIA decided to fight fire with fire..
There, fixed that for you. :P

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:06 · Score: 0

...who read that as "Court of Chicanery"?
My guess by someone1234 · 2009-03-27 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

He did it on purpose.
INTC is not the same as Intel.
INTC a greedy bunch of shareholders.
Intel is a company with great products.

--
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
1. Re:My guess by ozbird · 2009-03-27 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Intel is a company with great products.
  
  Intel's graphics chipsets, and/or the Linux drivers for them, are not "great products".
2. Re:My guess by Lord+Ender · 2009-03-27 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, it seems using tickers really bothered the anonymous trolls. For the record, I'm an investor (I actually own small parts of both companies directly), and I see the symbols often enough in following the business news that my brain automatically translates the symbols to the company names. It doesn't feel awkward to me. Oh, to the guy who thinks I'm stupid for holding shift: NVIDIA requires shift to write whether you use the ticker or the proper company name.
  And while I am unashamedly a greedy shareholder, I care about the impact of the technology more than I do about my share values, because I am a tech geek and a gamer first and foremost ;-)
  If Intel can produce a cheaper, faster, non-vapor GPU than NVIDIA, I'll be happy to buy it even though it's bad news for my few thousand dollars worth of NVDA shares. But I've never seen real evidence of this.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Great... by danomac · 2009-03-27 03:47 · Score: 1

As a result both Intel CPUs and nVidia GPUs will go up in price... I might have to switch back to AMD.
1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Or Nvidia products will get really cheap. Nvidia has been shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately. First off, Since they can't build i& chipsets, there Intel chipset future is limited at best. 2nd There will be no more Nvidia parts in future major game consoles (nintendo, MS, Sony). Ati does not need them since imho the ATi chip sets are much better(having owned/used both ati and nvidia branded products), also amd/ati will never put nvidia branded tech in there products (i.e. SLI). I think nvidia is doomed to niche type products, much like VIA is now. Either that or they die like 3dfx did years ago.
  Also Nvidia CEO is pretty mis-guided with his GPU centric world.
  Just my .2..
2. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, so nVidia won't be developing any i7 chipsets?
  FFS - what the hell am I waiting for on Intel's prices to go down, then? They're just going to stay obscenely high for forever. Fuck it, I'll just go with AMD and be done with it.
Nope by Joce640k · 2009-03-27 05:08 · Score: 1

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.

--
No sig today...
Tomorrow? Intel more than ever...! by Joce640k · 2009-03-27 05:11 · Score: 1

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.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Tomorrow? Intel more than ever...! by 3vi1 · 2009-03-27 09:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
Theme From License Konflikt by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 05:27 · Score: 0

So sue me!
So sue me!
So sue me!
So sue me!
License Konflikt!
3
2
1
Fight!
License Konflikt!
Excelent!
nVidia
Novell
Red Hat
IBM
TomTom
MicroSoft
Sony
License Konflikt!
Sorry, had to -Anon
Don't Get Your Hopes Up by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2009-03-27 05:49 · Score: 1

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.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Let me help by zaivala · 2009-03-27 06:37 · Score: 1

Intel: I'm going to shoot myself in the foot.
NVidia: You missed, that was your hip. Here's the video to prove it.
Hmmm by EEPROMS · 2009-03-27 09:33 · Score: 1

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.