81–90 of 201 posts
In fact it is the major reason GPU vendors give for not having an open source driver. I have spoken to the CTO (Jem Davies) of ARM about the GPU drivers and open sourcing them more than once. And every time I've gotten the reply: "No, we can't, it opens us up to IP infringement suits."
Full disclosure: I used to work in the ARM GPU division.
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…
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?
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?
Shortly after I joined the bosses decided that we were giving away too much money to the provider, so began talks for an acquisition. The provider was willing, but were asking for much more than we were offering, so the talks fell apart. As such we ended up building our own SMS gateway and switched all our traffic to that - exactly replicating their API, bugs and all, in less than a year.
As we were their main customer they ended up losing 70%+ of their revenue overnight when we switched. A couple of years later we bought them, for much less than we originally offered. Both companies at the time were private companies, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same happens here.
In the GPU space it is impossible to not infringe on the IP of other vendors. In fact it is the major reason GPU vendors give for not having an open source driver. I have spoken to the CTO (Jem Davies) of ARM about the GPU drivers and open sourcing them more than once. And every time I've gotten the reply: "No, we can't, it opens us up to IP infringement suits." Full disclosure: I used to work in the ARM GPU division…
There is always legal risk in open sourcing code. Infact there is legal risk from pretty much any action whatsoever. Good, responsible companies don't let that become a barrier to doing the right thing.
If ARM really cared, GPU stuff would be open source. The fact it isn't pretty strong indication they don't. Don't just accept it when lawyers say no.
After all AMD and Intel both have full open source graphics stacks, and the world hasnt exploded yet.
Should also be noted, keeping stuff closed source is not very strong protection against reverse engineering, if it was DRM would actually work, and it never really has, dispite decades of effort. So its doubtful that keeping stuff closed is much protection against patent lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
AMD did, however, sell Adreno to Qualcomm when money was tight after the ATI purchase.
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?
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)
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?
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?
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 price.