AMD Wins Patent Dispute Against Vizio and Sigma Designs

[Guest]

The U.S. ITC reportedly sided with AMD in a patent dispute against Vizio and Sigma Designs concerning the use of the company's graphics tech in TVs.

AMD Wins Patent Dispute Against Vizio and Sigma Designs : Read more

 

[kcgoat26]

MORE CRAP ,THE COMMON PEOPLE ,NEED NOT KNOW

 

[jpe1701]

The problem with that is who decides who is "common"?

 

[razamatraz]

So AMD held a patent that they were not using in this way but no one else can use it in this way....I get why patents exist but this seems a bit trolly; use it or lose it.

 

[bananaforscale]

Like people who frequent Tom's Hardware are common anyway, even if it's a big site.

 

[racksmith101]

I'm not common! There is only one of me (thank God the world doesn't need any more) that makes me rare and unique 😛

 

[John Nemesh]

You write the article like it's a bad thing that Vizio and the others were found guilty of infringing another company's IP? Why? Because you can't buy a 2nd rate cheap TV if they have to all pay the appropriate licensing for the tech they use? Boo hoo! The quality of "journalism" here lately has taken a huge dive. You better start fixing this, and learn how to publish facts instead of spin, or people are going to stop coming here...

 

[hot.alwina]

"So AMD held a patent that they were not using in this way but no one else can use it in this way"... And you claim to "get why patents exist". Wow.
1. Other people can use it, but they need to pay the fee
2. Patents wouldn't make sense if they required you to use them in production. You could have the resources to develop something new while lacking everything that it required to produce it large-scale and sell it. This you need to patent your work so that you can safely sell the rights and still earn money from your achievement.

 

[kamran.emdadi]

Or you can just go complain about someone else's field, I'm a patent attorney, want to criticize my field and how it works? How about computer programmers, one guy can do the work of 20 yet a whole team is employed to waste governement money on every project. Medicine? Pushing toxic drugs on people when they really need more sleep and water and weight loss? Patents invite those with the idea, to file first and receive the reward, not a perfect system, but better then those identified above.

 

[John Nemesh]

"So AMD held a patent that they were not using in this way but no one else can use it in this way"... And you claim to "get why patents exist". Wow.
1. Other people can use it, but they need to pay the fee
2. Patents wouldn't make sense if they required you to use them in production. You could have the resources to develop something new while lacking everything that it required to produce it large-scale and sell it. This you need to patent your work so that you can safely sell the rights and still earn money from your achievement.

It doesnt matter. AMD patented it and people that want to use their technology have to pay. That's the way it works. Sorry you don't like it, but your like or dislike of patent law doesn't affect in the slightest how it's applied.

 

[alan_rave]

They have to pay the appropriate licensing, but when the price is to high it becomes monopoly.

 

[eye4bear]

My cheap "on sale" Vizio 48" 4K TV has been one of my biggest regrets, never find, no matter how much I adjust it, a great picture. My 39" Samsung HD TV still has a superior picture. So them not selling their crap cheap is OK with me.

 

[hdtelevision.guy]

"So AMD held a patent that they were not using in this way but no one else can use it in this way....I get why patents exist but this seems a bit trolly" Just like the law that guarantees that if you have a spare bedroom, someone off of the street can't just walk in and use it without asking or paying.

 

[imno007]

It's not clear from the article if the companies sued even knew they were using chips that infringed on AMD's copyright (and I wasn't going to read the 50 pages of lawyer-speak). According to the article, the chips were manufactured by Imagination Tech./Arm, and presumably as the people who actually made the chips they would be in the best position to know if the chips were using AMD's tech. But the companies that ended up being sued were just the ones who bought their infringing chips. Did they know exactly what they were buying beforehand? If not, they got doubly screwed.

 

[imno007]

It's not clear from the article if the companies sued even knew they were using chips that infringed on AMD's copyright (and I wasn't going to read the 50 pages of lawyer-speak). According to this, the chips were manufactured by Imagination Tech./Arm, and presumably as the people who actually made the chips they would be in a position to know if the chips were using AMD's tech. But the companies that ended up being sued were just the ones who bought their infringing chips. Did they know exactly what they were buying beforehand? If not, they got doubly screwed.