ROFL - I'm thinking they would have been smarter to license NV's gpus for ages. Mali isn't in the same league and you're being sued over MALI (and powervr+adreno)...LOL.
Nvidia might have even accepted a better deal for past transgressions if they knew they'd be getting IP licensed for the next 4-5 gens. I guess samsung intends to go all the way to ITC bans before they quit...ROFL. 6 out of 7 patents went NV's way in the markman hearing, they should deal now before willful infringement just keeps getting worse and 12 Americans get to decide the bill on a foreign company making 35-50x yearly profits of the American company they are stealing from (that won't go well for them, NV chose a jury trial for a reason). This will be FAR larger than the Intel bill of 1.5B who didn't willfully do it, just broke an agreement, hit court and then paid the fine. Intel is a USA company too.
Smart people would start buying NV stock.
It's a takeover target anyway, on top of all the other things they have going for them even if that doesn't happen.
Think about the fact that MSFT gets ~$4-10 per device sold with android for bits of infringing code (making ~7.5B a year on devices they don't even make) and then think about what the bill would be here yearly. NV makes $600mil now (up from ~530m last year), so even adding $1 per device is another 1.5-2B in profit with ~1.6B units being sold yearly on mobile (and growing yearly). 1.25B smartphones alone were sold in 2014 (up ~300mil from year before, about 350mil tablets too). Considering Qcom gets a percentage of the ENTIRE unit, not just paid for their device in the unit, NV has a leg to stand on asking for far more than a $1 IMHO.
In 2013 samsung alone paid MS a billion and with mobile's skyrocketing sales that was probably far worse this last year and likely worse this year. But Microsoft's case seems to be built on a house of cards so their jig might be up shortly (unlike NV's case, so far MS just has activesync of meetings...ROFL).