Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement • Hacker News Board

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#41

Post by rainforest » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:41 AM UTC

owenwil wrote: post #15

I love how passive aggressive this is – it shifts from "it's a shame Apple is leaving" to "we could sue them over it" pretty quickly towards the end. They imply it's difficult to do, but also that it's basically already complete... bizarre post to make public.

The undertone certainly seems like they'll be paying a lot of attention to Apple's compliance of their patent portfolio. Given how much of their revenue comes from Apple I wonder if they'll have to become an enforcer of their current IP rather than generator of new IP.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#42

Post by coldtea » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:42 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #13

pavlov wrote: post #5

This is interesting: "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." Could Apple not be using someone else's IP, for example from NVidia or AMD?

AMD does not license to third parties, neither does Intel. Options (ignoring acquisition and design from scratch) are: * NVidia's Tegra graphics cores, possibly (not clear whether they block-license let alone architecture-license to third parties) * ARM's Mali, definitely licensable * Broadcom's VideoCore, possibly * Vivante, definitely licensable * Qualcomm's Adreno, formerly Imageon, unlikely Also note that at leas…

>AMD does not license to third parties, neither does Intel.

If the money was right, they would. Apple is not a random third party. Heck, it could buy AMD with a year's spare change.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#43

Post by boogersandstuff » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:42 AM UTC

owenwil wrote: post #15

I love how passive aggressive this is – it shifts from "it's a shame Apple is leaving" to "we could sue them over it" pretty quickly towards the end. They imply it's difficult to do, but also that it's basically already complete... bizarre post to make public.

This tone is what you get when your CEO hasn't slept in 3 days because of anxiety.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#44

Post by wapz » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:44 AM UTC

tooltalk wrote: post #22

pavlov wrote: post #5

This is interesting: "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." Could Apple not be using someone else's IP, for example from NVidia or AMD?

nVidia made similar claims against Samsung (and Qualcomm) a couple of years ago. A lot of folks speculated that Samsung would lose not only because nVidia is a leader in GPU business, but also because Samsung is a foreign company. Long story short, nVidia lost. ( https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/07/nvidia_and_samsung_... ) Samsung initially asked Qualcomm to deal with it since nVidia was really going after Qualc…

Yeah, if you think about it companies like Apple have very little reason to pull out from a licensing deal unless they have a very good reason to (aka non-infringing tech on the way). They're not going to pull out and come back and say "We're sorry. Can you give us the same rate you offered before?"

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#45

Post by exabrial » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:49 AM UTC

boogersandstuff wrote: post #27

trendnet wrote: post #3

Judging by the tone used in that press release, they are in deep trouble. It does not even matter that £60.7 million is a small portion of their business. It could be the opposite of what happened to ARM when Apple decided to put their chips into Newton.

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)

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#46

Post by giovannibajo1 » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:51 AM UTC

satysin wrote: post #16

That was a rather oddly worded press release. Much more defensive than I would have expected and quite arrogant towards the end. They make it sound as if no other company on earth could do what they do which as we know does not usually work out well for those who claim such a thing.

Well, not really so odd if your stock drops 77% to a 8-years low in a single morning.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#47

Post by Aaargh20318 » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:52 AM UTC

Ultramax wrote: post #31

Keep in mind this is not just hardware but software related. Right now I have IT graphics tools to optimize 3D models for mobile devices (for example). For us developers, it means optimizing to a different standard, while worrying about backward 'optimization compatibility'. Plus we'll need new software tools for development on the new GPU.

I imagine the new GPU will support the same Metal API. As this is probably something that Apple has been working on for a while now I'd assume that Metal was designed with this new GPU architecture in mind. How much of those tools would need to be updated to a new GPU assuming the current API was specifically written for it ?

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#48

Post by Quequau » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:57 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #13

pavlov wrote: post #5

This is interesting: "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." Could Apple not be using someone else's IP, for example from NVidia or AMD?

AMD does not license to third parties, neither does Intel. Options (ignoring acquisition and design from scratch) are: * NVidia's Tegra graphics cores, possibly (not clear whether they block-license let alone architecture-license to third parties) * ARM's Mali, definitely licensable * Broadcom's VideoCore, possibly * Vivante, definitely licensable * Qualcomm's Adreno, formerly Imageon, unlikely Also note that at leas…

Hold up. I thought AMD was actively courting third parties to partner with to do mixed IP development (wrt graphics and GP GPU compute) and that licensing restrictions that they had were almost entirely related to the x86 side of their business.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#49

Post by macspoofing » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 9:58 AM UTC

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)

Signalling a potential lawsuit so that Apple enters into a patent licensing agreement.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#50

Post by masklinn » Mon, Apr 03, 2017, 10:02 AM UTC

Quequau wrote: post #48

masklinn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMD does not license to third parties, neither does Intel. Options (ignoring acquisition and design from scratch) are: * NVidia's Tegra graphics cores, possibly (not clear whether they block-license let alone architecture-license to third parties) * ARM's Mali, definitely licensable * Broadcom's VideoCore, possibly * Vivante, definitely licensable * Qualcomm's Adreno, formerly Imageon, unlikely Also note that at leas…

Hold up. I thought AMD was actively courting third parties to partner with to do mixed IP development (wrt graphics and GP GPU compute) and that licensing restrictions that they had were almost entirely related to the x86 side of their business.

I remember rumblings about that some years ago (circa 2010~2012), but I don't remember anything ever coming of it.