SGI Sues ATI for Patent Infringement

Ynsats writes "The Register is reporting that SGI is filing suit against ATI for patent infringement. The suit alleges that ATI violated patent number 6,650,327, "Display system having floating point rasterization and floating point framebuffering", which was filed in 1998 and granted in 2003, in its Radeon graphics cards. This is coming fast on the heels of AMD's announcement of the intention to buy ATI for $4.2B and it doesn't seem to be swaying AMD's intentions. AMD hopes to finish the takeover by the end of this year. SGI has also issued an ominous statement stating that they have plenty of intellectual property left and there will be more litigation to come."

Re:Huh?

[LizardKing]

SGI created OpenGL.

Just proves the old adage....

[Darth_brooks]

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue."

Re:welcome back SGI

[mikael]

The patent is mentioned in the OpenGL extension specifications color_buffer_float.txt [sgi.com]

SGI owns US Patent #6,650,327, issued November 18, 2003. SGI
        believes this patent contains necessary IP for graphics systems
        implementing floating point (FP) rasterization and FP framebuffer
        capabilities.

SGI's patent was filed June 16, 1998, and granted November 18, 2003

ATI did similar work at the same time ATI_pixel_format_float [sgi.com]

The development history of ATI's document ranges from 9th June 2002 to 4th December 2002

Basically, ATI gets caught between SGI filing for a patent, and SGI having the patent granted. Although, given that SGI have been announcing the status of this patent for the past three years, it does seem odd that they are only sueing now. Maybe they are scared of the ATI/AMD merger, or see that ATI has more money now.

Re:Huh?

[wrf3]

Their patent is a little more specific than this. A company called Chromatics had floating point hardware in their CX 1536 graphics engine back in the 80's (so named for it's 1536 x 1152 resolution) and used floating-point to represent the initial coordinates. What they didn't do, but SGI does, is store computed pixel attributes in the framebuffer in floating point.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:welcome back SGI

[mike2R]

is this becoming the new business strategy for technology companies that failed in their traditional business?

I think it's inevtable. When a public company goes bankrupt, it has to be wound up or reconstituted in such a way as to give maximum value to its creditors and shareholders. If it's sitting on software patent assets that are potentially worth money then those assets must be realised.

Re:And so it begins...

[Pharmboy]

If you did a little googling [ftc.gov], you would see that DEC sued Intel over patent infringement and for abuse a monopoly, along with a few others.

Here is another link you might find useful [wikipedia.org].

Re:A sad day...

[RAMMS+EIN]

``It's a shame too, SGI was a great company with some very good products too.''

Yes, and they gave to the Free software movement, too. XFS, OpenGL, and the STL, IIRC.

Re:It's not the legislators who are clueless

[theStorminMormon]

Do you have any facts to back up this claim? I know that some legislators are lawyers, but in the past whenever I've contacted my own representatives (which I've done many times) I've been struck by how utterly clueless their staff seemed to be. (And, by the way, Senator Allen R-VA is a lawyer who, judging by his staff and subsequent form letter, has no idea what net neutrality even means.) Furthermore, law is a specialized profession. You don't just have to be a lawyer to really understand this, you have to be a lawyer with at least a rudimentary understanding of technology who also specializes in IP law (as opposed to tax law, criminal law, family law, constitutional law, etc.) How many legislators fit that bill? I think you're drastically over-simplifying this case. I find that annoying because every time some wide-eyed fanatic claims "all the legistlators are lawyers and teh lawyers are all out to get us!" he or she takes away from serious analysis of a serious problem. No one is going to take you seriously if you sling around unfounded assumptions, and that gets in the way of people like me who actually want to change things instead of just be melodramatic about them.

In any case, I visited this site: Congress Merge [congressmerge.com] to do a search of how many members of congress were lawyers. I first did a search for "lawyer" in the profession field. I got 6 hits (3R, 3D, if you're curious). Then I did a search for "attorney" and got 193 hits. Assuming no overlap, we've got 199 lawyers in congress (102D to 90R, if you're curious, and I'm assuming 1I). Congress has 635 members (435 in the House, 200 in the Senate).

So out of 635 members, 199 were lawyers or attorneys at any point in the career. That's 31%. Hardly enough to say, in my opinion, that "Legislators are by and large lawyers". 31% of those are lawyers, how many do you think are IP lawyers? Sorry to rain on your simplistic world, but it's more complex than just "teh lawyers are everywhere!"

-stormin

Re:Reminds me of another three letter 'S' company

[Changer2002]

Not having read the patent, I can't comment on this particular one, but one thing /.'ers love to do is point out how obvious patents are based on their titles. Being a lawyer and working with patents all day let me just state that the title of a patent often doesn't spell out what the inventive step is. It's just a general topic and area, and in a crowded area sometimes the titles are pretty generic. Usually you have to really get into the patent to find out what the innovation is (if it's there). So before you declare a patent obvious take a look at it, not just it's title.

Re:welcome back SGI

[OakLEE]

I am an IP Lawyer and patents are not about just protecting stolen research, though it does. They are about protecting you investment in a device that is non-obvious and innovative (you got that part right). What this means is that even if ATI did invent this all by themselves, if SGI invented it before ATI, they are entitled to sue.

You are confusing patent law with trade secret law, which does protect from missapropriation and stealing, but requires that you keep your innovation secret, which you cannot do if you file a patent. The two laws are for the most part mutually exclusive.

Re:Reminds me of another three letter 'S' company

[Jahz]

> And what, exactly, is creating something original, if not being "the first one to get there"?

something original = copyright
something original + non-obvious* = patent

Way off-base. The problem is that so many Americans do not really understand what a Patent or Copyright is. Right from the horses mouth (USPTO):

" There are three types of patents:
1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture;
3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant. "

The key here is that patents are for things that are invented. The invention may be an entirely new idea or a significant improvement on some other idea. By idea, I mean: "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter." So even though 64-bit cards are the natural evolution of 32-bit graphics cards, SGI was the first company to "think of" this improvement to the cards.

On the other hand a copyright only applies to authored materials, namely "literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished." You may copyright the manual describing how to manufacture a 64-bit graphics card, but you would have to patent the procedures in that manual.

Back to the OP. So you see, your definition of a patent as being a "non-obvious copyright" is way off base.

Re:Reminds me of another three letter 'S' company

[Osiris Ani]

guess/hope most people would find the idea of Peary patenting the very process of reaching a pole rather silly

...and it would indeed be rather silly, had he not invented any new and novel means to achieve that particular end. Your failure to see the difference between the circumstances presented in your exceptionally obtuse analogy (there existed prior art for numerous forms of self-sustained human ambulatory movement, as well as other basic and elaborate forms of geographic transport) and reality is a reflection not of a general failure in the system, but of your lack of understanding of that system.

The first team to reach either pole by means of a teleportation device that they invented has a very good chance of acquiring a valid patent on the process.

Re:Reminds me of another three letter 'S' company

[mikael]

In some states, I believe that squatters on private property can acquire the title if they can prove they've been living on the property unchallenged for ten years.

It's certainly true in England - a guy managed to gain ownership of a house simply by squatting there for 16 years [bbc.co.uk]. Didn't make a nuisance of himself, was polite to everyone and the council didn't find out for 16 years.