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

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#71

Post by _gfrc »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #61
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.

And what's with the "This announcement contains inside information"? at the end? Once they release a public statement, isn't everything in that statement then ?

So that everyone who is handling this news before it is released (i.e. the publisher) knows that it contains sensitive information and may not be acted upon.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#72

Post by hyperpallium »

> Apple has not presented any evidence to substantiate its assertion that it will no longer require Imagination’s technology, without violating Imagination’s patents, intellectual property and confidential information.

Sounds like IMG has some fundamemtal IP that nVidia and AMD already license? They certainly have tied up their Tile-Based Deferred Rendering method, which never sounded that efficient to me (yet, Apple beats others graphically, so I probably don't appreciate it - maybe to do with cache efficiency?).

Apple, having understood this technique very well, might have thought of something even better.

They certainly would have to be pretty sure about their tech before sending this notification. Let's hope this... betrayal doesn't have the same fallout for customers as ~~google~~ maps did.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#73

Post by simonh »

_anything_ wrote: post #56
nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

There is definitely a lot of money to be made here, can't see it staying so low.

Why not? They don't seem to have any other customers.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#74

Post by jordskott »

hyperpallium wrote: post #72

> Apple has not presented any evidence to substantiate its assertion that it will no longer require Imagination’s technology, without violating Imagination’s patents, intellectual property and confidential information. Sounds like IMG has some fundamemtal IP that nVidia and AMD already license? They certainly have tied up their Tile-Based Deferred Rendering method, which never sounded that efficient to me (yet, Apple…

I already made a comment about Apple's GPU here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14021814

Apple actually has its own mobile GPU, built from scratch.

The Tile-Based Deferred Rendering GPU is an advantage from the GPU sharing the same memory with the GPU. On a normal desktop GPU you need to transfer huge amounts of data from the main CPU RAM to the Video Ram but on a mobile device, the CPU and the GPU sit both on the same memory system. This allows you to architecture your GPU in a different way.

Both ARM's Mali and Qualcomm's Adreno use Tile-Based Deferred Rendering.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#77

Post by nl »

indy wrote: post #55
nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

Does the decrease in share price make them a more attractive acquisition target for Apple?

It makes them a more attractive acquisition target for anyone who wants a decent IP portfolio.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#78

Post by puzzle »

ageofwant wrote: post #36

I blame Microsoft for Busines' current infatuation with Imaginary Property. Human civilization was built on the sharing of ideas and the ability to run with your neighbor's smart plan. Now you get sued for patent infringement and the neighbor expects to take rent for the rest of his natural life, and that of his undead estate, for what is almost always, at some level the synthesis of prior human endeavor and ingenuit…

Microsoft hadn't really even started when Apple itself had already perfected the fine, dirty art of submarine patents. We're using about early 90's, if not late 80's.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#79

Post by bokononon »

simonh wrote: post #73
_anything_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely a lot of money to be made here, can't see it staying so low.

Why not? They don't seem to have any other customers.

Indeed. From their 2016 Annual Report, "There are no parties with whom the Group has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the business of the Group except the contract with Apple Inc."

https://imagination-technologies-cloudfront-assets.s3.amazon...

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#80

Post by robert_foss »

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…

Only 3 of those provide high-end ip.

  * NVidia Tegra - possible
  * ARM Mali - possible, but would not allow for much differentiation
  * Qualcomm - has never sold its GPU IP seperately
Post reply on HN