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

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#181

Post by josefdlange »

golergka wrote: post #4

> Further, Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, accordingly Imagination does not accept Apple’s assertions. I know that designing new GPU from scratch isn't an easy task - but is it THAT hard that they don't trust that one of the richest companies in the world is capable of doing it?

And if it is that necessary to use that IP to create this technology, even on a basic, generic, level, is the IP really valid?

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#182

Post by FireBeyond »

tux1968 wrote: post #177
FireBeyond wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I bet there are more than hundreds of millions waiting for whoever can de-crappify the embedded ARM driver ecosystem. Hyperbole much? 7 billion people on the planet, and "more than hundreds of millions" of them are waiting with bated breath for the "de-crappification of the embedded ARM driver ecosystem"?!?

I think you'll find the hundreds of millions in question were dollars, not people.

You're almost certainly right. Oops!

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#183

Post by shiznit1618 »

"This announcement contains inside information."

That single line at the end of the document means that any buying or selling of Apple or Imagination shares could be considered insider trading.

Is this legal black magic to void trades that have hammered their stock price?

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#184

Post by 0xCMP »

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... --…

Also if they get to repatriate their overseas money that would allow them more ability to acquire companies important to their business.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#185

Post by mikhailt »

sweden wrote: post #159
mikhailt wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, you seriously think Apple would just let ImgTech guys come in without lawyers and agreements and all of that sort? Apple has extensive experience in this area, they had ImgTech signed everything possible to protect Apple and to indemnify themselves. It is a risk that ImgTech also took by allowing Apple deeper into the development process. This isn't a one-way street here. Apple is extremely potent in prot…

It actually is as simple as the OP said. That was the main reason why Apple went for Imagination instead of ARM or Qualcomm when it comes to mobile GPUs. Imagination market cap has been falling hard in the latest years, so hard to the point that their only customer until now was Apple. They were desperate and they signed very risky deals in order to keep Apple as a customer. And Apple is a complete control freak when…

I'm not sure where we crossed wires but we're saying the same thing, nothing you said changed what I said.

What I meant by OP is that it is not as simple as flying their partners in and they start working together and then leave. Apple doesn't just do that without ensuring everything that happens stays in Apple only. So, flying ImgTech guys in and out does not mean ImgTech owns the patents to what they did at Apple want or the other way around, Apple can ensure they have the exclusive rights to it.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#186

Post by eridius »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #100
scarface74 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, responsible companies don't let that become a barrier to doing the right thing. Despite what Stallman would have you believe, open sourcing your own code is neither right nor wrong . It's just a choice.

Its most definitely a quantifiable, collective wrong when that choice leads to a total security disaster like the embedded ARM situation. It might not be so bad if they bothered to update their drivers, but they dont even let other people try to do so.

Open source software has plenty of high profile security disasters too. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or disengenuous.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#187

Post by eridius »

winterismute wrote: post #180
gergles wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is very true. However, they could still lose a court case if they failed to prove that the design they shipped benefited by information that was confidential - even when the information was about what "not to do". Still, this is probably among the hardest case to bring on and win for a company, imho.

Patents aren't confidential information. In fact, that's kind of the whole point of patents.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#188

Post by bryanlarsen »

pcwalton wrote: post #178
bryanlarsen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps not. Existing GPU makers protect themselves through cross-licensing their patents: you can use mine if I can use yours. However, it sounds like ImgTec is considering going full-on troll, so they won't need access to the other patents any more and can just sit under their bridge extorting tolls.

Patent trolls are non-practicing entities. Imagination Technologies is hardly a non-practicing entity.

Sure, today. But they're "concentrating on the licensing business".

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#189

Post by wolfgke »

eridius wrote: post #186
throwaway2048 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its most definitely a quantifiable, collective wrong when that choice leads to a total security disaster like the embedded ARM situation. It might not be so bad if they bothered to update their drivers, but they dont even let other people try to do so.

Open source software has plenty of high profile security disasters too. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or disengenuous.

Unluckily this is true. But there is a central difference: If such a security bug occurs in an open source software, you can in principle look for the bug source yourself to fix it to secure your computer to against attacks. If it is closed source, this is hardly possible or often such a self-defense is even illegal.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#190

Post by scarface74 »

wolfgke wrote: post #189
eridius wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source software has plenty of high profile security disasters too. Pretending otherwise is either ignorant or disengenuous.

Unluckily this is true. But there is a central difference: If such a security bug occurs in an open source software, you can in principle look for the bug source yourself to fix it to secure your computer to against attacks. If it is closed source, this is hardly possible or often such a self-defense is even illegal.

In theory yes, but just to take one well known example, the HeartBleed SSL bug was introduced in 2012 but wasn't found until 2014.
Post reply on HN