RSSLean SGI Sues ATI Over Graphics Patent
By Ed Oswald | Published October 25, 2006, 12:02 PM
Fresh off a reorganization and Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Silicon Graphics has sued graphics chipmaker ATI for patent infringement, accusing the company of using SGI's technology in Radeon graphics processors.
SGI had just days before emerged from Chapter 11. Nearly every part of the company has changed, from a new business model, executive team, and smaller product line. Additionally, it has also acquired $115 million in financing to rebuild the company.
Company CEO Dennis McKenna said the new SGI is the opposite of the old one. Whereas before the company normally accounted for one-fifth of customers' IT spending, SGI has made effort to allow it to address up to 80 percent of a customer's IT needs.
Part of this effort apparently also covers aggressive policing of its intellectual property. In US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, SGI filed suit asking for an injunction and unspecified damages from ATI, which today completed its merger with chipmaker AMD.
According to the suit, the patents ATI is allegedly infringing on cover resources that help achieve enhanced graphics processing. SGI was awarded the patent in 2003.
"SGI has licensed this technology to ATI's major competitors and, as I have previously been stating publicly, SGI intends to aggressively protect and enforce its IP," McKenna said. "This is the first visible step in that process."
ATI was not commenting on the merits of the suit until it had reviewed the court filings, it said.
For anyone curious, this is the patent in question:
http://patft.uspto.gov/n...50,327&RS=6,650,327
From a cursory skim, it looks like SGI has patented the modern GPU.
Score: 0
|This is one of those articles that just "is". There's not enough detail to provide any basis to anyone outside the two parties to have a meaningful discussion or debate about anything but patent and I.P. issues in general. If SGI manages to get an injunction, it will be interesting to see how AMD handles it with their buyers (Dell for one).
Score: 0
|I think this may come down to actual personnel shared between the two companies.
Recall that Silicon Graphics helped Nintendo develop the graphics systems for the Nintendo 64. Sometime between then and the Gamecube, some people splintered off to form ArtX, who developed the Gamecube's graphics processor. Before the Gamecube's release, ArtX was bought by ATi. ArtX's Gamecube graphics processor was the basis for the original Radeon.
Score: 0
|That makes sense, but the patent was granted in 2003 and R300 is 2002.
If they go the patent way, doesn't this qualify for prior art ?
Score: 0
|They waited too long to sue them for the tech that ATI has been using for years now.
Score: 0
|Wrong. www.uspto.gov read the Patent FAQ section.
Score: 0
|i wish it was illegal to patent ways of doing things, and only legal to patent actuall inventions, ie a chip that calculates things, but they could only patent that excact chip, not any chip that calculates things. the current way, people are being able to sue people for things that are similar to something they invented.
Score: 0
|The calculation, perhaps, but not where, how, or when it is applied?
Score: 0
|how can you patent a calculation?
if that's the case, i want 2+2.
i'm sure 2+2 was quite an advanced concept to the caveman, but by no means should be considered property.
i agree with the master of silence, only the uniqueness of physical objects should be able to hold patent. not math calculations.
Score: 0
|i just dont understand why people can patent a product, patents were invented to protect inventions from being stolen, not ways of doing things. and before someone cuts me up, i do believe in itelectual propery, but those are finished videos, music etc. it is a tangible product. a way of creating things isnt, and that is just stupid. but in that case, i want to patent walking foreward. oh and chewing with my mouth open.
or maybe rubbing rocks around in sand so they get shiny, i want to patent that!
Note: the definition of tangible is not limited to ony touch, it also includes sight and hearing and the works. Thus a movie is tangible because i can watch it.
Score: 0
|Yeah, I used the wrong word there. My bad.
It's been a long day.
Score: 0
|...patents were invented to protect inventions from being stolen, not ways of doing things.
Actually, there is a certain class of patents (I believe "Business Methods", or something like that) that actually are for patenting ways of doing things. That is how a whole lot of companies get the over general patents, by tacking "...over the internet" or "...with one click" after a standard business model such as "selling something...".
I think in order to patent something, you should have to have a working model, or sound design for doing such...otherwise, I want to patent an algorithm for sending information faster than it is used...oh, wait, that one is already taken.
Score: 0
|http://www.uspto.gov/web...eral/index.html#whatpat
Score: 0
|And also i think nobody should be able to patent something they arent going to use except to sue others. oh i want to patent a method of making up dumb patents and sitting on them until i find someone else who has something similar, or might in some far off universe be using my patent, then sueing.
Score: 0
|yea but dumba** companies still patent general ideas or subcomponents, like ipods "method of scrolling through a blah blah blah." i dont think theoretical sub-components of an objectg should be patentable.
Score: 0
|The companies are not the dumb***es. They simply apply for the patents. It's the attorneys and the patent clerks that get them approved. The USPTO could reject them, they reject WAY more applications than they approve.
Score: 0
|New Business Model:
Those who can do, do. Those who can't, sue.
They were relevant in the mid to late 80's and cannot compete with ATI/nVidia. Imagine that.
The patent they are suing over covers floating point calculations done in hardware. It was previously done before that in emulation.
The only reason it wasn't done in hardware at the time because the hardware was so incredibly expensive.
The patent clerk who let this slide through should be shot. Prior art was all over the place....placing existing calculations on a chip should not qualify for a patent.
Score: 0
|it seems though, that the patent is not being refuted, just not being paid for. If other people are paying for the license, why not ATI?
Now of course, if they went after Nvidia and Intel as well, then we could say that they "can't do" right?
litigations and patents, what a convoluted world
Score: 0
|it seems though, that the patent is not being refuted, just not being paid for. If other people are paying for the license, why not ATI?
Many companies pay to license patents just because it is cheaper than disputing the patent holder's claim.
Score: 0
|People pay for crack every day. Does that make it legit?
A stupid, pointless, abusive patent is stupid, pointless and abusive even when companies decide paying for it might be a better business decision than fighting it.
Score: 0
|agreed,
nice analogy.
:-)
Score: 0
|maybe they invented it completely seperate and it is just pretty similar to something that the other company has. thus ati believes they really invented it, and they may be right. but someone else went down a different path and invented it first.
Score: 0
|I don't agree to pot...but many want it legal and it is so in a lot of places :p
Some people like fighting such things, and some people will purchase the rights or the companies. I only wish to understand. :) Afterall, MS will purchase such things, and people who hate them will hate the fact they buy whatever. Though I'm sure they would not defend MS to not...
see? :D
Score: 0
|No, because it doesn't apply.
Look at the patent.
It's obvious. There's prior art. It's just stupid. it should never have been granted in the first place.
Score: 0
|That's what they have courts for.
Score: 0
|(nevermind - retracted)
Score: 0
|still dumb, i shouldnt have to go to court because i invented something someone else did. if i can show all my research into it i should be allowed to make it.
Score: 0
|How else would you settle arguments like that? So if Big Corporation outright steals your patent idea, you shouldn't have the option to go to court to have it decided objectively? Geez. What are you smoking? Sounds like you live in a Socialist or Communist country.
Score: 0
|