Motorola has been through a lot, to say the least. It was only a few years ago that Motorola had become an OEM struggling to stay afloat, as it was effectively an ODM for network operators in the US. We saw phone after phone pushed out with no real …
In a surprising move this afternoon, NVIDIA has announced that they will be filing patent infringement complaints against both Qualcomm and Samsung. This complaint is centered around the alleged use of NVIDIA patented GPU technologies in both Qualcomm and Samsung’s SoC’s and the unwillingness of the respective companies to enter in to a licensing agreement. NVIDIA has filed complaints with both the US Federal Court and the International Trade Commission, and in the case of the latter is seeking an injunction against Samsung to prevent them from shipping several recent products, including the Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 4, and Galaxy Edge.
Starting from the top, NVIDIA is of course no stranger to high profile lawsuits. However those suits are typically on the defensive side, such as the company suing Intel over the loss of rights to make chipsets for their products, or being sued by Rambus over the use of DDR signaling. This suit by comparison is unabashedly offensive – one NVIDIA calls the first time they have ever initiated a patent lawsuit – with NVIDIA going to the courts arguing that their GPU patents are being violated and seeking a resolution and compensation for those violations.
The use of patent infringement suits in the technology space is nothing new, and even in the GPU space they’re somewhat common. NVIDIA in particular is still the 800lb gorilla of the GPU world by patent portfolio size (and arguably by GPU R&D), so how they interact with other companies tends to depend on the size of those companies and what patents they have in turn. In the PC space NVIDIA and AMD have relatively strong cross-licensing agreements – AMD being the next largest GPU developer – followed by Intel who settled a suit out of court with NVIDIA 3 years ago over continued access to NVIDIA’s patents.
In the mobile SoC space however there are a much larger number of GPU manufacturers, and overall there is still a certain “wild west” aspect to patent licensing and infringement. On top of the larger number of GPU manufacturers there are even more companies involved once you discuss integration. In this case an Imagination PowerVR GPU may be licensed by an SoC integrator such as MediaTek, who in turn will sell the complete SoC to the device manufacturer such as HTC. In which case it’s not at all clear who is responsible for patent licensing, or indeed if parties are responsible at each and every step.
This leads us to today’s suit against Qualcomm and Samsung, as it’s based around both alleged patent infringement and arguments about who’s ultimately responsible for those infringements. As far as patents go NVIDIA is going to the courts with a number of patents, with some patents going as far back as the GeForce 2 era and even patents first devised by 3dfx (before NVIDIA acquired them). At first glance these appear to be technologies that are fundamental to modern GPU designs, in which case it is admittedly difficult to imagine other GPU designs not infringing on these patents.
One such example is called the ‘063 patent, which involves on-chip tiling and early visibility testing, and was first developed by a company purchased by 3dfx. This is a technique that all modern GPUs implement in some form, though these days the methods are much more advanced.
“The ʼ063 Patent was directed to this technology, which combined on-chip tiling with early visibility testing in the graphics pipeline. All of Samsung’s mobile products use GPUs that implement this patented invention.”
As is the case whenever anyone files a patent infringement suit, NVIDIA is telling the press and investors that they believe they have a strong case with ample evidence of infringement. The company ultimately believes that they would be victorious in court, though in many of these technology patent suits we see the involved parties settle out of court before any trial reaches its conclusion. Meanwhile if the case does go to trial, then NVIDIA has requested a full jury trial rather than a trial by judge.
Along with NVIDIA’s patent infringement claims, a big part of NVIDIA’s case will rest on allegations that Qualcomm and Samsung actively know about at least some of this infringement and have refused to settle the matter before now. NVIDIA’s claim notes that the company has been attempting to reach a license agreement with Samsung and Qualcomm since 2012, and that today’s suit is a result of their inability to come to an agreement over the last 2 years. Consequently because NVIDIA has been talking to these companies since 2012, they assert that this means that Qualcomm and Samsung have known about this infringement since NVIDIA presented their patents and proposed licensing agreement, meaning they have been willfully infringing on at least some of the involved patents over the last 2 years.
Complicating the matter is the question over who is responsible for patent violations. NVIDIA’s complaint alleges that Samsung believes this to be a supplier problem – that any patent violations are the responsibility of the company who designed the GPU, be it Qualcomm, Imagination, or ARM. As a result Samsung is unwilling to settle, and for that matter Qualcomm is no more willing to settle than Samsung is, though the complaint does not make it clear whether this is a disagreement over the patent claims or a belief that it’s the customer’s (Samsung’s) problem.
Ultimately this suit is focused around Samsung, as Samsung is both a device integrator and the manufacturer of the Exynos line of SoCs. Meanwhile because Samsung also uses Qualcomm’s Snapdragon SoCs in a number of products (including the North American editions of many phones), Qualcomm is being collared in to the suit on the basis that they are supplying some of the infringing GPUs.
This suit is not limited to just Qualcomm’s Adreno GPUs however, and also extends to ARM Mali and Imagination PowerVR GPUs as well, as Samsung has used both of those GPU families in their various Exynos designs. Overall NVIDIA believes that the Adreno 200, Adreno 300, and Adreno 400 families all violate NVIDIA’s patents, while the Mali-T628 and the PowerVR SGX (Series 5) are also explicitly named in claims.
As a result virtually all of Samsung’s modern products are affected by this suit. As part of their request for relief, NVIDIA is asking that the ITC prevent Samsung from importing products using the infringing SoCs, which would include all of Samsung’s latest products including the Note 4 and its Edge variant, the Galaxy S4 and S5, and the latest Tab tablets. As Qualcomm’s SoCs are among the accused products, this injunction would presumably extend to Snapdragon imports as well, which given Qualcomm’s heavy presence in high-end phones and tablets in the United States would make the final list of affected products far larger. However it should be noted that immediate injunctions are very rare, so it’s unlikely that an import ban would go into effect before the conclusion of the trial (if it even makes it that far).
Meanwhile in the Federal Court complaint, NVIDIA is asking for both unspecified damages (i.e. a monetary reward) and for further injunction to prevent Samsung and Qualcomm from infringing on NVIDIA’s patents. Though once again the real goal here seems to be about forming a licensing agreement rather than preventing Qualcomm and Samsung from shipping SoCs.
One of the accused infringing products: Samsung’s Galaxy S5
One of the big questions of course is why NVIDIA is going after these two companies in particular, especially since they are essentially claiming that ARM Mali, Imagination PowerVR, and Qualcomm Adreno GPU families all infringe on some of these patents. The answer in turn from NVIDIA is that Samsung is the largest phone supplier in the United States, and Qualcomm in turn is the largest SoC provider while also providing the SoCs for most of those Samsung phones, so it makes sense to start at the top. NVIDIA is not talking about further legal action at this time, but the outcome of this case could have an impact on whether NVIDIA targets the suppliers (e.g. ARM and Imagination) or goes solely after additional customers and their ilk. Ultimately who is responsible for this infringement – can and should Qualcomm indemnify their customers against infringement claims like these – may be just as important as the alleged infringement itself.
Which on that subject, as part of their claims NVIDIA also points out their existing license agreement with Intel. In this NVIDIA notes that their Intel agreement covers all SoCs and CPUs shipped by Intel, including those incorporating Imagination’s PowerVR GPUs. So in the case where the SoC integrator is responsible, their licensing agreements would seem to cover any infringement regardless of who designs the infringing GPU.
Wrapping things up, at this time Qualcomm and Samsung have yet to respond to this suit. However given the scale of the suit, the complexity of the underlying technology, and the vast number of products involved, barring a quick out of court settlement this is expected to be a case that could go on for years. And even longer if it goes to appeals and/or triggers counter-suits. Altogether the ITC should have an initial response to the filing within 35 days, and if no settlement is reached the expected court date is in 2-3 years. To that end today’s suit from NVIDIA will be the start of a much longer process for Qualcomm, Samsung, and the larger GPU industry as a whole.
With Sony’s launch event we had the occasion to see their first Android Wear device. Sony presents the SmartWatch 3 and the SmartBand Talk wearable device watches.
The SmartWatch 3 sports a 1.6″ 320×320 TFT LCD run by a 1.2 GHz quad-core ARM Cortex A7 SoC and powered by a 420mAh battery. We find 512MB of RAM and 4GB of system NAND.
The device is IP68 certified even though it is charged by a standard microUSB port. There’s not much to say about the specifications of the watch as Sony has kept it pretty simple. Since Android Wear is not customizeable by OEMs, there is no differentiation between it and previous square Wear smartwatches.
In terms of design, there’s only one way I would describe it: rubbery. With the rubber armband extending over the sides of the watch, we’re talking a lot of rubber. It feels like one of those child-watches that I remember keenly, only that it’s not coloured bright orange, which is kind of ironic because Sony will offer some gaudy colour options such as lime later in the wear. We only had black and white models available at IFA and the black one was already kind of odd looking.
I also found the device too be a bit too big for my taste, but then again I was never fan of big watches. The microUSB port is protected by a little cover which you need to keep lifted up while trying to plug in the cable. I found this very annoying as I couldn’t make the cover stay on the side while plugging the cable in – it’s so small and fiddly that it took me a good 20 seconds to connect it.
The other wearable is the SmartBand Talk. Sony markets it as a “lifelogger” device which tracks your movement via gyroscope and accelerometer and saves the data. The device also allows to be used pretty much as a bluetooth headset, just that it’s not a headset. You can talk to it and it has a little speaker. It has a 1.4″ curved narrow e-paper display that allows it to extremely power efficient. The band sports a tiny 70mAh battery.
Frankly, I’ll admit that I didn’t spend too much time with the SmartBand because I simply did not see any use for it. It kinda perplexes me and seems like some little gimmick gadget that you could just skip and get the real deal in the form of a full-fledges smart-watch.
All in all, Sony’s new wearables don’t seem to be any new groundbreaking inovation. It adds to the wearable ecosystem and I’m surely happy for that – but when it comes to actually buying one, I think people will find better options in devices from the competition.
Today Huawei launches the successor to the Ascend Mate, the Mate 7 and a new mid-range device called the Ascent G7. I’ve got my hands on a Mate 7 and managed to play a bit with the G7 today at Huawei’s event in Berlin. The Mate 7 directly attacks Samsung’s Note lineup in the phablet sector, while the G7 being still very big at 5.5″ is more of a budget device while trying to make little compromises.
First up, let’s see the raw specs that both devices offer.
| Ascend Mate 7 | Ascend G7 | |
| SoC |
Hi3630 “Kirin 925” 4xCortex A15 @ 1.8GHz 4xCortex A7 @ 1.3GHz Mali T628MP4 GPU @ 600MHz |
MSM8916 “Snapdragon 410” 4xCortex A53 @ 1.2GHz Adreno 306 GPU |
| RAM/NAND |
2 GB LPDDR3 & 16GB NAND or |
2GB LPDDR3, 16GB NAND & microSD |
| Display | 6″ 1080p JDI IPS-NEO | 5.5″ 720p IPS |
| Network |
2G / 3G / 4G LTE FDD & TDD (HiSilicon Balong IP block UE Category 6 LTE) |
2G / 3G / 4G LTE FDD or TDD (Qualcomm MDM9x25 IP block UE Category 4 LTE) |
| Dimensions | 157 x 81 x 7.9mm, 185 grams | ? x ? x 7.6 mm, 165 grams |
| Camera |
13MP Sony IMX214 BSI sensor, 5MP FFC non-spherical lens |
13MP Sony IMX214 BSI sensor, 5MP FFC 88° angle lens |
| Battery | 4100 mAh, 3.85V, 15.78 Whr | 3000 mAh, 3.85V, 11.55 Whr |
| OS | Android 4.4.2 with EmotionUI 3.0 | Android 4.4.2 with EmotionUI 3.0 |
| Connectivity | 802.11a/b/g/n/ac + BT 4.1, USB2.0, GPS/GNSS, MHL, DLNA, NFC | 802.11a/b/g/n/ac + BT 4.1, USB2.0, GPS/GNSS, MHL, DLNA, NFC |
| SIM Size | MicroSIM & NanoSIM | MicroSIM & NanoSIM |
Let’s start up with the Ascend Mate 7. The first thing you notice is that this is a big device. Coming with a 6″ screen this is one of the bigger candidates in the phablet space. What Huawei has done is reduce the bezels on the device as much as possible, that in the end the resulting device dimensions only slightly outsize the newly announced Note 4 with its 5.7″ screen. The new JDI manufactured IPS-NEO screen promises a constrast ratio of 1500:1 and also brings with it increased brightness and reduced power, with Huawei stating 15% better transmissitivity and 15% reduced power consumption. We’ll be sure to test this display to the fullest extent, as at first glance it seems outstanding. Filling up a 83% bezel-to-device-footprint ratio this is currently the most “screen” on a device out there. I have to point out that Huawei was very misleading in its rendered presentation pictures as it portrayed the phone as such that it gave an impression that the screen begins immediately where the bezel ends, however in reality there’s another 3mm of black nothingness on both sides before you meet the first pixels.
The same HiSilicon Hi3630 powers the Mate 7 that was released for the Honor 6, however it gets a slight 100MHz clock boost on the A15 cores and gets brandished as the Kirin 925. I made sure to ask a Huawei representative if we’d see various regional models offering various connectivity options, and to my delight this time we have full use of the Balong category 6 LTE modem provided in the SoC as the device offers full RF and antenna support for both FDD and TDD on the global model. Only variations will be select Chinese models which need to support a wider range of TDD bands to take advantage of their national carrier’s networks. This is all backed by two redundant antennas on the top and bottom of the device. Apparently the device is able to switch between them as the main connectivity antenna if the attenuation on either gets too high due to external influences like gripping or holding the device. Huawei reports a 40% reduction in call drops and a 15dB gain in signal strength.
Huawei was trying to praise a so called i3 co-processor, but this is something that devices have had since the Note 2 in the form of external “sensorhubs” which are most of the time little ARM Cortex M3 microcontrollers, with Qualcomm first integrating them into their SoCs such as the Snapdragon 800.
The body of the Mate 7 houses an enormous 4100mAh battery offering 15.78Wh of power: this is more battery capacity than found in the Nexus 7 2013, but inside a phone. Huawei made this possible by dedicating a very large amount of internal device space to the battery alone, with it taking the whole width of the device and filling up from the top of the bottom bezel up to the fingerprint sensor in height. This is all encased in an aluminium body and keeping a thickness of 7.9mm at the thickest point in the center of the device. Even though it is made of aluminium, the device is still able to offer NFC with help of a little gap above the camera and the NFC coil surrounding the camera and flash; the top and bottom parts of the Mate 7 remain plastic. Huawei tried to spin a 3.5mm thickness at the edges, but I’d say 5mm is the more realistic measurement that we see on the sides of the device. The ergonomics are very pleasing and the build quality is top notch.
On the bottom we find a standard microUSB 2.0 connector, which is oddly enough not in the very middle of the device and makes for a strange asymetry in terms of design. The power button is found on the right side at thumb’s reach and the volume rocker is located right above it. On the left side we have the main SIM tray and the secondary tray that may house both a nanoSIM and a microSD card, which by the way means the phone has full dual-SIM capabilities.
The camera setup is relatively established while offering the same IMX214 camera sensor as found on the Honor 6. The G7 offers by the way the same optics system. The F2.0 28mm wide angle lens is a welcome addition that I hope more manufacturers would adopt. On the front camera we see a 5MP sensor, and with something Huawei names a non-spherical lens, which I’ll have to investigate more to see what it brings.
The main attraction of the Mate 7 is the new fingerprint sensor found below the back camera. This is a touch-sensor manufactured by Swedish company FPC, which may be the FPC1020 that was announced late last year. As such, Huawei is the first manufacturer following Apple’s TouchID to offer a full touch sensor as opposed to a swipe implementation as found on Samsung’s devices. It offers full 360° print rotation readout support, no matter if you have wet fingers or not. Huawei implements a RF sensing ring around the sensor that makes it possible to detect your finger even when the device is sleeping (as it will wake the device up). This allows for turning on of the devie and unlocking in a single action. I tested out the feature and it works perfectly. The fingerprint registration is identical to Apple’s, with you having to press your fingerprint multiple times for better characterization of your fingerprint. The success rate was near 100% for what I didn’t consider a very serious registration procedure on my part. The touch sensor can also be used as a camera shutter button when taking photos.
On the software side we see an update of EmotionUI to version 3.0. I’ve been working on the Honor 6 review for the last few weeks which had version 2.3 on it, and the change is quite enormous as we go for a full redesign from 2.x’s pre-iOS 7 style to literarly a new design language that seems to outright copy iOS 7 in many aspects. I’ll dwell into the software more in the following weeks, but I can already say that this is now my favorite custom Android framework and skin implementation out of all OEMs out there, as it brings not only design, but also a termendous amount of exclusive and useful features with it.
The G7 on the other hand is a more mixed bag. It is a 5.5″ 720p phone with a new Snapdragon 410 SoC, and is rightfully so a mid-range phone priced at 299€. As mentioned before, it offers the same camera setup as the Mate 7. The 7.6mm thin body housing a 3000mAh battery (which at time of writing I now considered small compared to the Mate 7’s) is made out of plastic and was noticeably less impressive than the Mate 7’s. Huawei didn’t communicate its exact dimensions but it felt similar in size to the G3 considering both have 5.5″ screens. I really don’t have that much to say about it, and neither did Huawei as the presenter at the unveiling offered an excrutiating 12 minute presentation with very little substantial content.
The Huawei Ascend Mate 7 and the G7 both come in either silver and gold, with the Mate 7 and G7 having each respectively an additional option of black and grey. At 499€ for 2GB/16GB and 599€ for the 3GB/32GB models the Mate 7 will be available end of october in China and Hong Kong and UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spain in Europe, with a global launch following that. The G7 with its 299€ MSRP will be available end september in Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands Turkey, Poland, Norway, South Africa and Mexico, with other markets to follow.
Least to say I was impressed by the Mate 7. It seems like a great device overall – I know that the SoC has some faults (specially GPU performance) and you will be able to read about that soon as I finish up the Honor 6 review, however the phone’s build quality, great screen, connectivity features and gigantic battery all make up for it.
A dual processor system sounds awesome to the home user but in reality it is almost entirely a professional market. The prosumer has to use Xeons at JEDEC memory speeds and then ensure that the software is NUMA aware, especially if it decides searching for data in the other processor’s L3 cache. However now that GIGABYTE Server is selling to the prosumer via Newegg, they sent us the GA-7PESH3 for review.
