Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] AMD R9 Fury X to be possibly impacted by Asetek lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] AMD R9 Fury X to be possibly impacted by Asetek lawsuit - Page 14

post #131 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar63 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Gamers Nexus, the original writers of this article released a Youtube video explaining the information more thoroughly for anyone seeming to be confused or misunderstanding why AMD and the Fury X might be involved in any of this:


Okay first dude get a hair cut, spend more time flipping his hair like a woman for my liking. The impact on the Fury X is likely to likely to be minimal because companies like AMD tend to order in bulk, thousands at a time and probably have a solid stock in place already. Historically in these types of legal actions the supplier, not the customer is targeted because the customer is not responsible for the suppliers actions.

The WORST that is likely to happen to AMD is they will have to switch up to a new supplier in another 6 months or so and even that is not all that bad as that time frame puts them close to the hoped for next generation release.

In all likelihood this will have zero impact on AMD and the Fury X. In essence this is a news report that is designed to gather mouse clicks, not have substance.

This.

Someone understands supply chain.
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
post #132 of 176
Idk if anyone has mentioned this yet but this is all speculation and more importantly, an incredibly moot point and cannot affect AMD even if they wanted it to.

Reason being is AMD makes graphics cards, the FURY X has a primary designation as a product that outputs and processes an image for display. THey may use an infringing product on their hardware, but it cannot matter and hold up in court because the primary function is not one of cooling, which unfortunately for cooler master IS the primary function of the products that they were sued for. That being said if you need proof look no further than your driveway or garage...

Source: Everything else sold in the US that has smaller components that are patented, yet still used. Cars for example use a vast variety of patented components, all of them - from the gas shocks that lift hoods to the macpherson struts attaching the wheel hub to the car to the internal combustion engine driving the thing. The primary function of the car is for transportation, and as such it does not infringe on patents - though it may use the components - it does not infringe on patents on devices that raise hoods, link suspension components, or internally combust to create rotational motion & power.
post #133 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by zvonkorp View Post

Idk if anyone has mentioned this yet but this is all speculation and more importantly, an incredibly moot point and cannot affect AMD even if they wanted it to.

Reason being is AMD makes graphics cards, the FURY X has a primary designation as a product that outputs and processes an image for display. THey may use an infringing product on their hardware, but it cannot matter and hold up in court because the primary function is not one of cooling.

Source: Everything else sold in the US that has smaller components that are patented, yet still used. Cars for example use a vast variety of patented components, all of them - from the gas shocks that lift hoods to the macpherson struts attaching the wheel hub to the car to the internal combustion engine driving the thing. The primary function of the car is for transportation, and as such it does not infringe on patents - though it may use the components - it does not infringe on patents on devices that raise hoods, link suspension components, or internally combust to create rotational motion & power.

In the US it comes under Contributing Infringement. Coolermaster are still liable. AMD are not.

In fact all of your analogies do not hold water,all the components mentioned have A. Expired Patents or B. Licensing.
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by B NEGATIVE View Post

In the US it comes under Contributing Infringement. Coolermaster are still liable. AMD are not.

In fact all of your analogies do not hold water,all the components mentioned have A. Expired Patents or B. Licensing.

Sorry, might want to double check your claim here - if what you said is true, then there wouldnt be any cases of patent trolling against automotive companies - which b ythe way, are becoming more numerous as the years go by.

Source; http://www.brinksgilson.com/userfiles/file/AutoArticle_Final.pdf

The fact that the macpherson strut patent expired in the 90s and no one bothered to pay to renew it supports my claim that its just a moot point.
Edited by zvonkorp - 9/25/15 at 5:32am
post #135 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by zvonkorp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by B NEGATIVE View Post

In the US it comes under Contributing Infringement. Coolermaster are still liable. AMD are not.

In fact all of your analogies do not hold water,all the components mentioned have A. Expired Patents or B. Licensing.

Sorry, might want to double check your claim here - if what you said is true, then there wouldnt be any cases of patent trolling against automotive companies - which b ythe way, are becoming more numerous as the years go by.

Source; http://www.brinksgilson.com/userfiles/file/AutoArticle_Final.pdf

The fact that the macpherson strut patent expired in the 90s and no one bothered to pay to renew it supports my claim that its just a moot point.

Litigation is on the rise but not on the items you used as an example.

Im not an expert on car patents but I would hazard a guess that the patents are much more specific and apply to tech developed by specific companies,Honda's VTEC system or Porsche's active mount or variable vane turbo tech,for example. The like of 'gas struts and wheel hubs' will not be on that list.
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar63 View Post

Okay first dude get a hair cut, spend more time flipping his hair like a woman for my liking. The impact on the Fury X is likely to likely to be minimal because companies like AMD tend to order in bulk, thousands at a time and probably have a solid stock in place already. Historically in these types of legal actions the supplier, not the customer is targeted because the customer is not responsible for the suppliers actions.

The WORST that is likely to happen to AMD is they will have to switch up to a new supplier in another 6 months or so and even that is not all that bad as that time frame puts them close to the hoped for next generation release.

In all likelihood this will have zero impact on AMD and the Fury X. In essence this is a news report that is designed to gather mouse clicks, not have substance.

First off, no one asked you regarding his hair. Please be less condescending, though I have a feeling is a hopeless suggestion.

Secondly, the worst that can happen, is that a judge can agree that fury X sales keep the infringement alive because they keep selling asetek IP inside the fury X (and according to the law, they are not free to do so). Meaning a judge can rule out that the fury X cooler is an essential part (because they tested it with asetek in the past, but went with a copy IP from CM), and because of this, the fury X might get banned. This is the worst that can happen. Not just AMD forced to switch (and of course the other manufacturers can smile as they will extra charge AMD, or AMD forced to not use AIO cooler), but AMD forced to be stuck with a stock of cards they can't sell, with coolers they can't use.

And with asetek increasing their patent to EU and china, this can be an even bigger potential problem to AMD.

Most likely, Asetek are aiming at AMD to buy the coolers from them on the next round as they wanted it initially with the fury X. If that won't happen, they might aim at screwing AMD and follow up with injections.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #137 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

First off, no one asked you regarding his hair. Please be less condescending, though I have a feeling is a hopeless suggestion.

I never said anyone asked, my opinion is my opinion just as yours is yours, get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

Secondly, the worst that can happen, is that a judge can agree that fury X sales keep the infringement alive because they keep selling asetek IP inside the fury X (and according to the law, they are not free to do so). Meaning a judge can rule out that the fury X cooler is an essential part (because they tested it with asetek in the past, but went with a copy IP from CM), and because of this, the fury X might get banned. This is the worst that can happen. Not just AMD forced to switch (and of course the other manufacturers can smile as they will extra charge AMD, or AMD forced to not use AIO cooler), but AMD forced to be stuck with a stock of cards they can't sell, with coolers they can't use.

And with asetek increasing their patent to EU and china, this can be an even bigger potential problem to AMD.

Most likely, Asetek are aiming at AMD to buy the coolers from them on the next round as they wanted it initially with the fury X. If that won't happen, they might aim at screwing AMD and follow up with injections.

The Fury X would not be banned because buying a Fury X is NOT buy a Cooler Master cooler, it is buy an AMD based video card. The coolers in question have already been sold, Cooler Master has their money. The ONLY legal action Asetek can take is to ban future sales to AMD and demand a percentage of the royalties from Cooler Master. AMD is clear on this matter except for possible future card construction. By the time that becomes an issue AMD could easily have a new provider in place or will have moved to a new design.
post #138 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar63 View Post

I never said anyone asked, my opinion is my opinion just as yours is yours, get over it.
The Fury X would not be banned because buying a Fury X is NOT buy a Cooler Master cooler, it is buy an AMD based video card. The coolers in question have already been sold, Cooler Master has their money. The ONLY legal action Asetek can take is to ban future sales to AMD and demand a percentage of the royalties from Cooler Master. AMD is clear on this matter except for possible future card construction. By the time that becomes an issue AMD could easily have a new provider in place or will have moved to a new design.

AMD could ban their bracket design that mounts to the graphics card, there for both are in limbo. AMD being the main part the primary component that which the technology is designed around would only make Aestek's hardware illegal.
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #139 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar63 View Post

I never said anyone asked, my opinion is my opinion just as yours is yours, get over it.
The Fury X would not be banned because buying a Fury X is NOT buy a Cooler Master cooler, it is buy an AMD based video card. The coolers in question have already been sold, Cooler Master has their money. The ONLY legal action Asetek can take is to ban future sales to AMD and demand a percentage of the royalties from Cooler Master. AMD is clear on this matter except for possible future card construction. By the time that becomes an issue AMD could easily have a new provider in place or will have moved to a new design.

AMD could ban their bracket design that mounts to the graphics card, there for both are in limbo. AMD being the main part the primary component that which the technology is designed around would only make Aestek's hardware illegal.

What purpose would that serve?

And it would only make the mounting litigation worthy and only for a specific mounting device,they cant patent the screw pattern for example,not the cooler hardware in itself. AMD dont have a 'bracket design' to begin with either.
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 176

Truth is the products mentioned here have very little shelf life in the big scheme regarding extending any litigation towards AMD. It's not likely therefore financially worth anyone's time to pursue right or wrong, legal or illegal...it's moot.

 

Between CM and Asetek however the court's finding and result makes sense for Asetek to protect their brand and IP now and in the future. Lawsuits with established companies are also a warning to not do it again as well (seemingly short term).

 

Once the smoke clears on this, which outside of these web postings no one would know this was ongoing at all, these companies will continue to jockey around each other, and occasionally someone will get caught copying another's IP, and go to court to settle the matter....

 

sleepysmiley03.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] AMD R9 Fury X to be possibly impacted by Asetek lawsuit