Hacker News Reader

Comment by golergka | Hacker News Reader

> Further, Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, accordingly Imagination does not accept Apple’s assertions.

I know that designing new GPU from scratch isn't an easy task - but is it THAT hard that they don't trust that one of the richest companies in the world is capable of doing it?

View on HN

The keyword is without infringing its intellectual property rights. Sure, they certainly can design a GPU, but design it in a way that does not step on the toes of others? Especially when you learned from them? That's the difficult part.

My understanding of the matter is the Apple GPU has had much of it developed in house for quite a while anyway (both on the SW and HW side). The only reason they didn't let go of Imagination earlier was presumably because they relied too much on their IP and patents.

Now I guess Apple have judged they no longer need Imagination and patents or more likely they are able to navigate the legal consequences successfully and the likely fines are less than the savings made (or worth it for the control Apple gains).

This announcement has been a long time coming and isn't particularly surprising.

Intellectual property is complicated - there must be some patent that Apple would infringe anyway. Perhaps the one on breathing...

Or PowerVR texture compression, which according to Anandtech is the canonical method for iOS development:

"Because Apple’s SoCs have always used GPUs from the same vendor, certain vendor-specific features like PowerVR Texture Compress (PVRTC) are widely used in iOS app development"

[0] http://www.anandtech.com/show/11243/apple-developing-custom-...

They could easily force change on the app for such change. Look at what they're doing regarding Bitcode and how quickly it might become the default.

It's orders of magnitude harder to statically check for at app submission time than Bitcode vs. Native is.

Would is be possible to patent some "biological respiration and oxygen replenishment" process and start suing babies?

You might be able to make it stick in East Texas.

There's also the possibility that Apple knows it infringes on certain patents but have done a risk assessment saying the lawsuits would be cheaper to go than to buy the company outright.

Going with the lawsuits also mean a good chance some patents could get invalidated but if not, Apple could end up paying more in the long run. Given how much money they have, they may not care because they could just buy the company outright later.

And if it is that necessary to use that IP to create this technology, even on a basic, generic, level, is the IP really valid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com