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

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#91

Post by jwilliams »

ckastner wrote: post #90
indy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#92

Post by chinhodado »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #85
robert_foss wrote: post #81

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…

One should keep in mind, this is true of basicly any software whatsoever. It ALL infringes on patents, nearly without exception. 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 ind…

> 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.

Easy for you to say, harder when millions to hundreds of millions are at stake.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#93

Post by scarface74 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #85
robert_foss wrote: post #81

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…

One should keep in mind, this is true of basicly any software whatsoever. It ALL infringes on patents, nearly without exception. 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 ind…

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.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#94

Post by throwaway2048 »

chinhodado wrote: post #92
throwaway2048 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should keep in mind, this is true of basicly any software whatsoever. It ALL infringes on patents, nearly without exception. 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 ind…

> 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. Easy for you to say, harder when millions to hundreds of millions are at stake.

Its always easier to be an armchair critic, but I bet there are more than hundreds of millions waiting for whoever can de-crappify the embedded ARM driver ecosystem.

Especially when this crap is at the root of why virtually every embedded linux product has serious security flaws that never get fixed. You cant update the kernel if you cant update the drivers.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#95

Post by [deleted] »

pavlov wrote: post #57
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)

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?

[deleted]

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#96

Post by coldpie »

_anything_ wrote: post #59
indy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn't put this past them as an acquisition tactic, Imagination drops MIPS, Ensigma and suddenly they look very attractive just for the patents alone.

Yeah, this is an open letter informing the world that imgtec is turning from a company producing useful stuff into yet another patent troll.

Patents belong in the garbage.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#97

Post by kakapupu »

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.

Right. Well, you could say it's both.

The patent system is broken, and no matter how "valid" their patents are, they're bullshit anyway because patents are bullshit in and of themselves.

A patent is just the government granting you a huge barrier to competition.

If you don't want to develop new tech because someone else might "steal" it, then just leave it to others. Someone will develop what you would have, and make plenty of money with it.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#98

Post by i336_ »

pavlov wrote: post #57
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)

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

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#99

Post by scarface74 »

ckastner wrote: post #90
indy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

There is a long history of customers using their leverage over a supplier to say that you either allow us to buy you, or we take our business to a competitor - or in house.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#100

Post by throwaway2048 »

scarface74 wrote: post #93
throwaway2048 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should keep in mind, this is true of basicly any software whatsoever. It ALL infringes on patents, nearly without exception. 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 ind…

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.
Post reply on HN