Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA Countersues Intel Over License Conflict
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 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.
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
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.
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,
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.
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
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.