Intel Files Lawsuit Against Nvidia

[Face]

We have just learned that Intel filed a lawsuit against Nvidia late last night in which it alleges that the four-year old chipset license agreement the two companies signed is not valid for Intel's current and future generation CPUs with integrated memory controllers.

This includes Nehalem - a chip that Nvidia has repeatedly claimed it holds a chipset license for. Intel, as evidenced by this lawsuit, begs to differ.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...ainst-nvidia/1

Update:

NVIDIA responds to Intel court filing regarding chipset license agreement

NVIDIA responded to a Monday court filing in which Intel alleged that the four-year old chipset license agreement the companies signed does not extend to Intel's new integrated memory controllers which are found in the Core i7 (Nehalem) processors. NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang says NVIDIA is confident their licenses applies to Nehalem as well, and claims Intel is attempting to stifle innovation to protect its CPU business.

"We are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of NVIDIA. "At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

http://www.dvhardware.net/article33446.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0090218?rpc=44

[jasonelmore]

anybody seen the contract? that will tell the truth.. It probably could be interperted both ways.

[Dragy2k]

wow..... uppercut from intel......as much as i disapprove of nvidias marketing ethos......ati need them to be around...

[Face]

NVIDIA responds to Intel court filing regarding chipset license agreement

NVIDIA responded to a Monday court filing in which Intel alleged that the four-year old chipset license agreement the companies signed does not extend to Intel's new integrated memory controllers which are found in the Core i7 (Nehalem) processors. NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang says NVIDIA is confident their licenses applies to Nehalem as well, and claims Intel is attempting to stifle innovation to protect its CPU business.

"We are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of NVIDIA. "At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

http://www.dvhardware.net/article33446.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0090218?rpc=44

[STaRGaZeR]

"At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU[...]

[Particle]

Wow. Jen-Hsun is reaaaaaally full of himself, isn't he?

[Shintai]

I heard Huang said he would open a can of whoopass mixed with some big bang lawyers. But most likely just rename CPU chipsets to CPU support chips to avoid legal action. Rumours also said that there is a chance he would use AMiga style names. In that case there is no Chipset, Just Angus and Denise

[gatecrasherlok]

Intel and Nvidia at it again. They just don't have whats important on the agenda, keeping the consumer happy or keeping their wallets happier. I guess you'll all agree they are both hiding behind the new tech for consumer BS and that the latter involving business monopoly and monneh's is the real reason.

[ghost_recon88]

Why the heck would anyone want an nVidia i7 chipset anyways? With X58 supporting both Crossfire and SLI.

[Vozer]

Wow, Intel want to block Nvidia from joining their Lynnfield and Clarkdale parties too.

[Shintai]

Wow, Intel want to block Nvidia from joining their Lynnfield and Clarkdale parties too.

Not much party there with 5$ southbridges on a "slow" DMI interface from the CPU. Plus its about QPI. Lynnfield and Clarkdale doesnt use QPI like i7. This is only about i7 and Xeons.

[Mk]

Why the heck would anyone want an nVidia i7 chipset anyways? With X58 supporting both Crossfire and SLI.

I say let them build there chipsets and let's see who buy's them with x58 around.

[alucasa]

I am not totally sure who's right and wrong here, but personally I hope Intel wins. I just don't like Nvidia anymore.

[Donnie27]

I am not totally sure who's right and wrong here, but personally I hope Intel wins. I just don't like Nvidia anymore.

Me too

The whole NF200 crap caused a lot of bad blood.

[Vozer]

Not much party there with 5$ southbridges on a "slow" DMI interface from the CPU. Plus its about QPI. Lynnfield and Clarkdale doesnt use QPI like i7. This is only about i7 and Xeons.

You're right, Shintai. I thought it's about every CPU generation with integrated memory controller (includes Lynnfield and Clarkdale).

[Sparky]

I see this as intel trying to monopolize the market. Get the SLI license from nvidia, then boot them out. Nice

Even if nvidia's chipsets are not so great, the desire for them (or lack of) would be determined quite quickly by the market. SiS chipsets were pretty lame, but did that warrant forceful removal of them from the market? Not really, they still were around but small in number (do they exist anymore? I haven't checked).

The more chipset makers the merrier IMO. I might not buy their chipset, but someone else might. Depends on features and pricing and all that.

[Chad Boga]

Surely it should be clear cut whether or not the agreement Nvidia and Intel had, allows for them to make a chipset for the i7.

Seems just crazy to me.

[highoctane]

At this point I'm thinking this is just Intel being greedy and wanting to monopolize on the i7 platform.

There should at least be one option for a different chipset by a 3rd party.

[Donnie27]

Surely it should be clear cut whether or not the agreement Nvidia and Intel had, allows for them to make a chipset for the i7.

Seems just crazy to me.

I'm not sure and don't have the documents in front of me. But from what I've seen and read, Intel and nVidia had a similar agreement to the one AMD and Intel has. Neither of those companies charges the other for the other's tech or IP. If one charges the other, then the deal is off. They agreed to stay out of court otherwise. nVidia wanted Intel's tech free while they wanted Intel to pay them for their tech. So no, I don't blame Intel for not wanting to pay nVidia (directly or indirectly) when nVidia uses their tech free.

There's a 1000 post thread here about the SLI chips nVidia was trying to pretend their cards needed. Hacked drivers proved that was NOT the case. Now sure I could be wrong

[Shintai]

People should realise that in the future for both AMD and Intel there aint any room for 3rd party chipsets. Its not about being greedy. Whats next? AMD and Intel monopolize IGPs because they put then on the CPU package/die? Wakeup to reality. nVidia just served its purpose in the chipset business and is no longer needed.

[onewingedangel]

Nvidia have a licence to make chipsets for Intels FSB interface, but haven't licenced the QPI interface.

Nvidia feels that their FSB licence should somehow cover the new QPI interface.

Personally, I see this Intels way. If Nvidia want to develop chipset using Intels QPI interface, they should come to a mutually benefitial agreement to licence the tech.

I think Nvidia's problem was that they don't have all that much leverage in negotiations, as both Intel and AMD move to a 'platforms' approach Nvidia loses out on both chipset sales and GPU sales unless they allow platform independent SLI.

[highoctane]

There should always be an option, how would you like to only be able to buy oem parts for your car.

There is always going to be a need for a motherboard to handle IO functions, why should be have to buy intel chipsets only or amd only regardless of how simple or complex the chipset.

Its simply greedy that these brands want to lock their platforms to themselves, at least intel seems to.

There's plenty of room for third party chipsets as there would be in x86 cpus if intel would license, Intel simply doesn't allow for room for anybody else to exist in its space then who's already there.

How things are not they are simply locking out anybody else, I mean really, what are they afraid of, they're simply squeezing out competition.

[highoctane]

I'm not sure and don't have the documents in front of me. But from what I've seen and read, Intel and nVidia had a similar agreement to the one AMD and Intel has. Neither of those companies charges the other for the other's tech or IP. If one charges the other, then the deal is off. They agreed to stay out of court otherwise. nVidia wanted Intel's tech free while they wanted Intel to pay them for their tech. So no, I don't blame Intel for not wanting to pay nVidia (directly or indirectly) when nVidia uses their tech free.

Well that I had no idea of but I still feel Intel would have resisted licensing qpi to nvidia or any other third party regardless.

[onewingedangel]

Last I heard Intel was open to licencing QPI, but couldn't come to mutually agreeable terms with Nvidia. ie. Nvidia don't want to pay, or give anything up.

As far as DMI equipped processors are concerned, Nvidia may be able to make chipsets for these as DMI is essentially a PCIe x4 connection, but these are essentially southbridges and aren't really able to benefit from Nvidia's IP as much as a QPI enabled chip would (true 3x16 SLI northbridge etc.)

It seems as if Nvidia are trying to play around some (un)specific wording of the previous FSB licence to avoid having to come to terms on licencing QPI.

[Donnie27]

Well that I had no idea of but I still feel Intel would have resisted licensing qpi to nvidia or any other third party regardless.

Maybe, I don't know what they'd do either way if nVidia hadn't pulled what they did. Here some more.

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/60473...f200-chip.html

The first is obviously nForce 790i for Penryn and prior CPUs, then there’s X58 with an NF200 chip, which will allow four-way and three-way SLI setups, with each slot getting 16 PCI-E 2.0 lanes. Finally, there’s the new licensed native SLI setup on X58 boards, which allows standard two-way SLI via two PCI-E slots with either 16 or eight lanes.

The other catch is that motherboard manufacturers have to send their X58 boards to go through Nvidia’s SLI Certification Labs in order to receive the ‘cookie’ that will then be embedded into the BIOS to enable full SLI support. According to Berraondo, SLI support is only ‘turned on only when our drivers determine that the motherboard has passed a special check that makes sure the key and chipset ID are a match and are in fact, certified to run SLI.’

So Intel would pay nVidia for the "Cookie" (on their boards) while nVidia Paid Intel NOTHING Certified my eye LOL!

So yes shintai, folks should wake up! Business isn't carried on like this. Intel-AMD/ATI-IBM and others have always done it the right way. It's goes like; you pay me, I pay you or I get it free if you get it free! nVidia wants; You pay me for mine but I get your tech free.