Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

imgtec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#111

Post by masklinn »

i336_ wrote: post #98
pavlov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time their stock was this low was eight years ago...! This could make the company a pretty attractive acquisition target for a competitor?

Haaaaang on. When Apple started designing their unibody Macbooks, they needed to put a hole in the aluminium for the power LED. There was only one company in the world with the equipment to make those (multiple-of-nanometers-wide) holes. Simple solution: Apple just bought the whole company. Voila, now Apple can cost-effectively produce those holes with one less renewable contract. This one might get interesting... --…

> EDIT: With the above being said, note this nearby comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14022436

Also there were rumors about buyout talks last year, Apple commented that they "had some discussions with Imagination, but [did] not plan to make an offer for the company".

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#112

Post by masklinn »

jwilliams wrote: post #91
ckastner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly not. Apple just announced to the whole world that they are no longer interested in Imagnation Technologies' IP. Announcing to the world that they were interested in Imagination Technologies after all (by acquiring them) would not only have made the prior announcement deceptive, but also (almost certainly) be considered market manipulation, given that the announcement caused a 60% drop in the stock's…

You're likely correct overall - However worth adding in this case it was Imagination making (and phrasing) this announcement, not Apple.

Imagination had little choice if they received notice from Apple, as noted by an other commenter

> UK regulations on stock markets are quite tough, publicly listed companies must share information that could impact the company as soon as they can.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#113

Post by jordskott »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #109
jordskott wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a reason on why ARM's GPU drivers are not updated on your device, it's hardly ARM's fault. ARM doesn't ship the SoC or the device directly to you, it ships it to the OEM. And it's the OEM who states the agreements. If you want to blame someone, starting by blaming the OEM.

ARM still writes the drivers for the chip and then dosent update or open them up. Not much OEMs can do about that.

But ARM cannot, and won't, officially support the OEM's devices and start releasing updates for them. The process is a bit more complex than you might be imagining.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#114

Post by goatforce5 »

exabrial wrote: post #45
boogersandstuff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their 2016 annual report notes £120.0m revenue (90 from IP/royalties) and £136.5m in operating expenses with an operating loss of £87.0m. Their new CEO mentions refocusing the company on IP and royalty income. Now Apple, which pays 60% of that income, is ducking out. Ouch. In the same report, they mention "There are no parties with whom the Group has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the busine…

> The discussion between Apple and these guys must've really gone south for a nasty and desperate press release like this That's what I found most intriguing. Why go public with this? (Especially with ongoing litigation)

Hinting at possible future litigation (and ultimately winning damages from Apple) is them trying to offer some light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#115

Post by throwaway2048 »

jordskott wrote: post #113
throwaway2048 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM still writes the drivers for the chip and then dosent update or open them up. Not much OEMs can do about that.

But ARM cannot, and won't, officially support the OEM's devices and start releasing updates for them. The process is a bit more complex than you might be imagining.

It still has to start at the top, and if they did update their drivers at least open source projects could then update on said platforms instead of being stuck on a 5 year old kernel till the end of time.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#116

Post by sangnoir »

laxd wrote: post #66
vosper wrote: post #6

> Apple license fees and royalties, as disclosed in Imagination’s Annual Report, represented revenue of £60.7 million for the year ended 30 April 2016 and are expected to be approximately £65 million for the year ending 30 April 2017 > Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights. Well Apple has a ~$7…

> Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights Can't believe they would try to use this as an argument in their own favour. It's either (yet another) proof that the patent system is broken, or that their patent are as invalid as can be.

> It's either (yet another) proof that the patent system is broken, or that their patent are as invalid as can be.

Why did you assume the patents would be invalid? It is possible that they hold patents fundamental to the field so every other GPU make has to (cross-)license the tech. There is also no obligation for FRAND licensing on GPUs, to my knowledge.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#118

Post by jwilliams »

masklinn wrote: post #112
jwilliams wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're likely correct overall - However worth adding in this case it was Imagination making (and phrasing) this announcement, not Apple.

Imagination had little choice if they received notice from Apple, as noted by an other commenter > UK regulations on stock markets are quite tough, publicly listed companies must share information that could impact the company as soon as they can.

Yup. I'm making a different point.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#119

Post by mikhailt »

skc wrote: post #106

Silly question, why can't Apple just buy the company outright.

It is not a silly question, it's just that no one outside of Apple and/or ImgTech knows.

The most logical reason would be that Apple has all it needs when it started building its own custom GPU many years ago and ImgTech has no patents it needs, which is entirely possible despite what ImgTech has said.

It is also entirely possible that Apple knows it has a few patents it is infringing and because on its last several years of experience, it would be cheaper to go through a lawsuit than to license. The reason? By going with the lawsuit, you're likely to get some of the patents invalided and royalties drop. It is possible it could go the other way, Apple paying more but it is extremely difficult to provide willful infringement when Apple can provide evidence of its own custom work that started before ImgTech was used in a clean room environment. But that's also easy to mitigate if ImgTech shows Apple hired the key personnel that worked on the same technology as the personnel should've known it was patented.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#120

Post by gergles »

esun wrote: post #54
rfrey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people don't belong to the company, why should the company get "a cut"?

The people are free to go, but getting the same people to develop the same product again without infringing patents is a challenge.

Conversely, if there are any group of people who will be able to develop the same product again without infringing patents, it's the people who wrote the patents in the first place.

Patent violation doesn't have a mens rea component - either you violate the patent by doing exactly what is described in it, or you don't. If you change even one aspect, you're no longer violating the patent. I'm sure the people who wrote the original patented algorithms can easily think of ways to accomplish the same thing that don't violate it.

Post reply on HN