NVIDIA Loses Huge GPU Order Due To Linux Blob

[hal2k1]

Nope, you don't. You have the right to use the product which implements the patent, but you get not a license to that patent. Obtaining a license for a patent is usually done to build a product which in some form implements the patent to distribute it further. You don't get that right just from buying a product.

Yes, you do.

You clearly don't understand what is meant by the term "license". A license is merely a grant of permission to do something that one would not normally be allowed to do. A driver's license is a grant of permission for a person to drive a vehicle on a public road. A fishing license is a grant of permission to fish. And so on.

With a patented invention, the patent holder has the right to grant or withold permission for everyone else to either USE that invention or to PRODUCE that invention. Everyone needs permission form the patent holder to do either ... one needs a license (a grant of permission from the patent holder) to make a product incorporating that invention, and one ALSO needs a license (a grant of permission from the patent holder) to merely use that resulting product.

So yes, you DO get an implied license (to USE the product) for any embedded patents when you purchase a physical item. Everyone who buys the item gets such a license. Anyone wishing to run hardware accelerated video decoding, for example, will have had to buy a graphics card ... so they do already have a license to use the hardware accelerated video decoding features physically on the card (even if they run Linux).

But you are right, they don't get a license to make cards. So? Who ever claimed that they did?

[smitty3268]

So on Windows I'm using the patent illegaly because I haven't paid separately for the driver (I downloaded it for free) and therefore I don't get a license for the software part of the patent?

Whether you pay for the driver or not is immaterial. NVidia paid the license fees to use the patent in their software driver. The fact that they give that to you for free doesn't change the fact that they paid for it.

[kobblestown]

Whether you pay for the driver or not is immaterial. NVidia paid the license fees to use the patent in their software driver. The fact that they give that to you for free doesn't change the fact that they paid for it.

Fair enough. But my point is that *I* paid for it. Or you think nVidia got the money from somewhere else? I paid for it when I bought the card. I am certain, and no one here has disputed this, that the patents used for a graphics chip are licensed per unit and cover the whole patents regardless of what part of it is implemented in hardware and what in software and that this license cost is passed down the chain. So the patent holders got their money! I don't see anyone disputing that either. So why should I be forbidden to use something I have paid for? After all, patents protect ideas, not particular implementations. If I have paid for the idea by paying for a particular implementation why can't I use the idea with implementation of my choosing.

[archibald]

Fair enough. But my point is that *I* paid for it. Or you think nVidia got the money from somewhere else? I paid for it when I bought the card. I am certain, and no one here has disputed this, that the patents used for a graphics chip are licensed per unit and cover the whole patents regardless of what part of it is implemented in hardware and what in software and that this license cost is passed down the chain. So the patent holders got their money! I don't see anyone disputing that either. So why should I be forbidden to use something I have paid for? After all, patents protect ideas, not particular implementations. If I have paid for the idea by paying for a particular implementation why can't I use the idea with implementation of my choosing.

You gave the money to Nvidia, at which point it became their money, so it's misleading to say that you paid for that license. Similarly, the company that pays me didn't buy me a beer last night, even though the money used to buy it originally came from them, and I can't tell anybody that I employ Mr. Bridgman just because I buy AMD hardware.

I think that if you buy Nvidia hardware then a license to use the patented algorithms *with their binary driver*.

[hal2k1]

I think that if you buy Nvidia hardware then a license to use the patented algorithms *with their binary driver*.

Nope. You buy permission to USE the hardware you purchased. If there is any IP embedded in that hardware (nvidia IP or otherwise), then you buy permission to USE it. Ergo, you have a license to use that IP.

What you do with the hardware is up to you. It is now yours after all. If you want to use a driver other than nvidia's, fill your boots. Go right ahead.

[smitty3268]

Nope. You buy permission to USE the hardware you purchased. If there is any IP embedded in that hardware (nvidia IP or otherwise), then you buy permission to USE it. Ergo, you have a license to use that IP.

What you do with the hardware is up to you. It is now yours after all. If you want to use a driver other than nvidia's, fill your boots. Go right ahead.

If only that was true.

Yes, you have permission to use the hardware. But you don't have permission to create new software which infringes on software-patents that just happen to also hook into that hardware.

Look, i'm not trying to defend the patent system. It's stupid. But that's the way it works, and why features like that aren't in Mesa. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise if you want, but it won't change anything.

[Markore]

SPARC architecture is opened with GPL licence in UltraSPARC T2 CPU,
but Nvidia does not make Solaris/Illumos SPARC drivers available at all (nov even closed blob for SPARC).

Also I would need to point out that Illlumos needs KMS (Kernel mode settings) implementation , found in Solaris11 to gain newer graphics drivers.