GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

ChadD said:
.
..................................................................
As far as the MS / market stuff I'm not trying to go off topic here. We can agree to disagree. Clearly you think the windows monopoly is good for gaming... your entitled to think as you wish. I know I'm not going to change your mind there.
Click to expand...

-Personally, i like VERY much to compare between similar situations. This is -to me- , the most important method in order to conclude my results.
P.S. Anyway, i want to put it as plain & simple as i can:

The hole point of AMD's arguments is that their interests will be damaged if AIBs follow GPprogram and use different brand-names, right ? :
1) Does AMD have any current contract with AIBs, which forces the AIBs to use the exact brand-name on both NV & AMD products ?
If the AIBs don't have such an obligation towards AMD under their current contracts, then they have EVERY right to choose what brand-name they will use at their own products !!

also, ... IF what i claimed at 1) is accurate, then we can also go to 2) :

2) Who can prove , who will be damaged or not in the future? perhaps.... NVidia will be the one who will be damaged since perhaps, the brand-name that AIB partners will use for AMD's products, might prove much more popular than the NV's brand-name!! So, how exactly can be proved which brand-name is good & which brand-name is less good ?

and lastly..3) :

3) Doesn't a company -(NVidia in this case)- has the right, to use any legal means in order for her products to be distinguished compared to the competition?
Why both GPUs, GeForce & Radeon must have the exact same brand-name, whether this brand is called ROG or Aorus, or whatever ? !! Is this a free market or not? Why must NVidia has to tolerate their products to be sold under the same brand-name as their rivals ?
NVidia can also complain that this kind of current policy is damaging their own interests and advertisement, just like AMD complains for the opposite !!
 
I am just wondering if it is not possible for Asus for instance to use the ROG brand for AMD and just introduce a new gaming brand for Nvidia. Should still fulfill the requirements of the program.
 
Sith'ari said:
3) From what i understood, NVidia herself approached you, -a tech journalist-, asking for your opinion on the matter. They would have to be idiots if they shared their program with a journalist and think that these info will remain private!!! So this proves that it wasn't NV's intention to keep this program secret.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what Intel thought, and they lost millions of dollars in lawsuits? There are lots of things that wasn't their intension, but here we are.
4) And finally, a general comment:
From logical point of view, i can't understand the fault about this program:
In short, NV is willing to give special benefits to any AIB that will work with them in this program, is that right ? Where exactly is the fault in that ? Do they say anywhere that they will force anyone to participate unwilingly ?? Apparently, No !!! So IF the AIBs feel that this agreement can lead them to benefits, then where exactly is the problem ???
The only problem -from what i understand- is that AMD is complaining that they will be pressed even harder at the marketshare. well :
Click to expand...
That is a significant problem when consumers are hurting in the GPU market already. We don't need Nvidia pushing for more exclusivity, even if that means it's an opt-in.

4a) That's AMD's problem,just like their recent laptop-agreement with Intel is against NVidia's interests, what's the difference ? companies make or break deals all the time if it's beneficial to them !! &
Click to expand...
Nvidia could always try to work with Intel to make a similar product. Just saying.

4b) The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. BUT... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? )
Click to expand...
Excuse me? I've been saying Windows is horrible for a while now. I'm typing this to you from my Linux Mint machine.

14326a7c1ec1256cafe3629eb40d1982fb679757.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
I haven't bought an Nvidia card in years now because values matter to me. It's difficult in the tech world to find a company I consider above average morally. I mean AMD and Intel, who are the other GPU options, each have their own skeletons in their closet, but at least AMD isn't trying to create their own closed garden bullshit. I fully agree that it is due to lack of funds and market share rather than being morally superior but i'll take what goodwill I can get how I can get it. AMD supports Freesync, which is an open standard, supports the open source Mesa drivers on Linux, doesn't restrict crossfire to the top model cards like Nvidia does with SLI, basicaslly they give me countless reasons to want to buy their GPUs. Nvidia just gives me more and more reasons to not want to support them. I have always tried to live by the motto "be the change". AMD is doing all these things I approve of, Nvidia is doing all of these things I hate: nothing will change if I continue to buy Nvidia cards because they have better top end performance (GTX 1080 and above). It's the same reason I switched to Linux. Microsoft will never do things the way I want them to, but they especially won't if I had continued to buy their product and use it while demanding change. They would have had my money and that's all that would have mattered, same as Nvidia. Hit their wallets and you do the only damage that matters to them. It all depends on how much you care about a company's business practices.
 
Gideon said:
Actually you dont know jack about it. Secondly it's a common thing to talk to the press when you think a competitor is using shady practices to hurt you. Your suppliers cant say much so they wont back you in a court of law cause they fear they will suffer repercussions from it. So if you can get the press to pick up on the story and throw some light on some dark corners of said program then you can often stop the competitor from launching said program cause now it looks bad and everyone is asking lots of uncomfortable questions. Once it's all over the news it's not uncommon for the government to start asking questions as well cause they dont want to look like they are not doing their jobs. Getting a injunction is very difficult, you have to prove it would damage your company beyond repair and judges really dont understand the tech world very well. This tactic is far more common then you know.
Click to expand...


Look last thing, the program has just started or when did it start? So how the hell are lawsuits pending, when damages aren't even done yet. Can't have a lawsuit without damages!

Are lawsuits really pending or is this something that is being assumed will happen. Btw, there must be evidence of damages, not, it can happen down the road.
 
Simmonz said:
I haven't bought an Nvidia card in years now because values matter to me. It's difficult in the tech world to find a company I consider above average morally. I mean AMD and Intel, who are the other GPU options, each have their own skeletons in their closet, but at least AMD isn't trying to create their own closed garden bullshit. I fully agree that it is due to lack of funds and market share rather than being morally superior but i'll take what goodwill I can get how I can get it. AMD supports Freesync, which is an open standard, supports the open source Mesa drivers on Linux, doesn't restrict crossfire to the top model cards like Nvidia does with SLI, basicaslly they give me countless reasons to want to buy their GPUs. Nvidia just gives me more and more reasons to not want to support them. I have always tried to live by the motto "be the change". AMD is doing all these things I approve of, Nvidia is doing all of these things I hate: nothing will change if I continue to buy Nvidia cards because they have better top end performance (GTX 1080 and above). It's the same reason I switched to Linux. Microsoft will never do things the way I want them to, but they especially won't if I had continued to buy their product and use it while demanding change. They would have had my money and that's all that would have mattered, same as Nvidia. Hit their wallets and you do the only damage that matters to them. It all depends on how much you care about a company's business practices.
Click to expand...

that's fine since it's your personal opinion, but i have to ask you something:
You do remember that AMD has bought out ATI right? And how strong & formidable the Radeon GPUs have been prior the bought out ? So if i was an ATI fan, i would ask myself : "How things would have gone for ATI if AMD hadn't bought them out" ?
(P.S. I've said it in the past, but i want to clarify it again: i may be an NVidia fan at GPUs, but when it comes to CPUs, i would prefer AMD over Intel anytime !! )
 
New user with an honest question: what is AMD doing to protect the gaming branding?

I can't buy an AMD card to actually do any gaming. I can buy an nvidia gpu at MSRP by camping their website.

So now that I'm an nvidia customer, I'm going to respond positively to nvidia marketing. Gaming brand x monitor, gpu, etc, with GeForce seal of approval. If the gaming bin is the highest caliber part, win win for me as well.

This seems like a win for nvidia customers, since I won't have to worry about a 3rd gen rebrand Polaris card being sold as a "enthusiast gaming" part when I should be spending my money on a 2060 gtx.

I understand that the branding umbrella is important for sales and user perception, and that AMD faces an image problem, but if nvidia is trying to secure the gaming moniker with aggressive marketing and the imminent release of the fastest gaming devices on the market, cudos to them.

I disagree that this is anti consumer. If anything it's pro consumer, since we're talking about regulating first tiers and providing 80% of the pc gaming users with an additional nvidia sop.
 
Sith'ari said:
that's fine since it's your personal opinion, but i have to ask you something:
You do remember that AMD has bought out ATI right? And how strong & formidable the Radeon GPUs have been prior the bought out ? So if i was an ATI fan, i would ask myself : "How things would have gone for ATI if AMD hadn't bought them out" ?
(P.S. I've said it in the past, but i want to clarify it again: i may be an NVidia fan at GPUs, but when it comes to CPUs, i would prefer AMD over Intel anytime !! )
Click to expand...


If ATi wasn't bought out, I think they would be dead, the r600 would have killed them. If it wasn't for the AMD's CPU cash flow there would have been no way for graphics to keep going.
 
razor1 said:
If ATi wasn't bought out, I think they would be dead, the r600 would have killed them. If it wasn't for the AMD's CPU cash flow there would have been no way for graphics to keep going.
Click to expand...

I don't remember ATI having any problems to keep up with the competition prior the bought out. Are you referring to what exactly ? Radeon X600 line ? :confused:
 
Sith'ari said:
-Personally, i like VERY much to compare between similar situations. This is -to me- , the most important method in order to conclude my results.
P.S. Anyway, i want to put it as plain & simple as i can:

The hole point of AMD's arguments is that their interests will be damaged if AIBs follow GPprogram and use different brand-names, right ? :
1) Does AMD have any current contract with AIBs, which forces the AIBs to use the exact brand-name on both NV & AMD products ?
If the AIBs don't have such an obligation towards AMD under their current contracts, then they have EVERY right to choose what brand-name they will use at their own products !!

also, ... IF what i claimed at 1) is accurate, then we can also go to 2) :
Click to expand...

This is a straw man. Sure, the AIBs have every right to choose the branding of their parts. If you had read Kyle's article, you would understand that NVIDIA is potentially taking away that choice by not allowing the AIBs to choose to market both AMD and NVIDIA under the same branding. Let's not even get to number two because your first point doesn't make even the tiniest bit of sense.
 
So would this affect AMD's CPU oriented products? Say RoG/Aurous/etc branded motherboards?

What about prebuilt systems with AMD CPUs and NV GPUs?
 
thesmokingman said:
Whistleblower protections...
Click to expand...
What few ones that exist in this country are poorly enforced. The power is on the sides of the corporation and not the whistle blower. :(

Sith'ari said:
1) Since 10 people were asking him similar things, then he is forced to give 10 similar answers!! It's not his fault if gets asked the same things over and over again!! If you wanted to be fair you should warn him, as long as all the others who are asking the same questions towards him !!
2) My opinion is exactly the same with razor1 's : when you have a strong legal leverage, you go to courts, you don't spread these info into the public, since -just like razor1 mentioned-, the public isn't aware of legal terms, so your only goal (*the company i mean) is to create hype & impressions.
(*but this shouldn't surprise me, since all AMD has been doing for years , prior to FuryX 's release and afterwards, is just creating hype & impressions, which, afterwards, their released products completely fail to justify !! I've seen this tactic too many times from AMD, it gets really boring nowadays :yuck: )
3) From what i understood, NVidia herself approached you, -a tech journalist-, asking for your opinion on the matter. They would have to be idiots if they shared their program with a journalist and think that these info will remain private!!! So this proves that it wasn't NV's intention to keep this program secret.
4) And finally, a general comment:
From logical point of view, i can't understand the fault about this program:
In short, NV is willing to give special benefits to any AIB that will work with them in this program, is that right ? Where exactly is the fault in that ? Do they say anywhere that they will force anyone to participate unwilingly ?? Apparently, No !!! So IF the AIBs feel that this agreement can lead them to benefits, then where exactly is the problem ???
The only problem -from what i understand- is that AMD is complaining that they will be pressed even harder at the marketshare. well :
4a) That's AMD's problem,just like their recent laptop-agreement with Intel is against NVidia's interests, what's the difference ? companies make or break deals all the time if it's beneficial to them !! &
4b) The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. BUT... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? )
Click to expand...
I LOVE the colours!

razor1 said:
If ATi wasn't bought out, I think they would be dead, the r600 would have killed them. If it wasn't for the AMD's CPU cash flow there would have been no way for graphics to keep going.
Click to expand...
I don't know what would have happened, but I wish I could have found out. (I still miss ATi, alright? :cry: )

Been bouncing around the web all morning and in the tech news Kyle's story seems to be spreading like wildfire, has anyone seen any mention of it on mainstream media yet or do I have to drop them the tip? ;)
 
digitalwanderer said:
What few ones that exist in this country are poorly enforced. The power is on the sides of the corporation and not the whistle blower. :(


I LOVE the colours!


I don't know what would have happened, but I wish I could have found out. (I still miss ATi, alright? :cry: )

Been bouncing around the web all morning and in the tech news Kyle's story seems to be spreading like wildfire, has anyone seen any mention of it on mainstream media yet or do I have to drop them the tip? ;)
Click to expand...


whistle blowers lose their cases most of the time because of improper filings, in this case with AMD involved they will do it the right way (or at least I thought they would, maybe they can't even do that right lol). Because well they have the money and resources and the right attorneys to do it the right way lol.

Well for one thing if they were able to weather the storm of the r600, I personally would love to have ATi rather than AMD, AMD just makes too many stupid mistakes all over the place. But again here would be going up against a company that was firing on all cylinders. The g80 was a damn good chip. I don't remember how ATi's bottom line or cash reserves looked at the time of the buy out, but I do remember thinking AMD overpaid so I think they weren't that great. Think I mentioned it at the time too, I thought ATi was only worth half of what AMD bought them for.

Taking this to the public causes two issues here, one I mentioned already, which goes to who instigated the evidence gathering, its seriously frowned upon if the plaintiff started this with a 3rd party and not gone directly which goes to two because its now public..... Second now since its in the public eye, juries don't like that either. So the plaintiff took something that is 50/50 down the middle and now tipped the scales towards the defendant.
 
Last edited:
Sith'ari said:
I don't remember ATI having any problems to keep up with the competition prior the bought out. Are you referring to what exactly ? Radeon X600 line ? :confused:
Click to expand...


HD29xx the line that came right after the buy out, pretty much what ATi was working on to go up against the g80 :)
 
razor1 said:
whistle blowers lose their cases most of the time because of improper filings, in this case with AMD involved they will do it the right way (or at least I thought they would, maybe they can't even do that right lol). Because well they have the money and resources and the right attorneys to do it the right way lol.

Well for one thing if they were able to weather the storm of the r600, I personally would love to have ATi rather than AMD, AMD just makes too many stupid mistakes all over the place. But again here would be going up against a company that was firing on all cylinders. The g80 was a damn good chip. I don't remember how ATi's bottom line or cash reserves looked at the time of the buy out, but I do remember thinking AMD overpaid so I think they weren't that great. Think I mentioned it at the time too, I thought ATi was only worth half of what AMD bought them for.

Taking this to the public causes two issues here, one I mentioned already, which goes to who instigated the evidence gathering, its seriously frowned upon if the plaintiff started this with a 3rd party and not gone directly which goes to two because its now public..... Second now since its in the public eye, juries don't like that either. So the plaintiff took something that is 50/50 down the middle and now tipped the scales towards the defendant.
Click to expand...
If only AMD had you in their legal team.
 
Meeho said:
If only AMD had you in their legal team.
Click to expand...


Again this isn't about me, you can ask any lawyer about this they will say the exact same thing, don't even need to be a lawyer to know these things. Staying away from media is the first thing anyone should do when prepping for a law suit, doesn't matter if its tort law or criminal law, the chances of damages and mishandling of evidence become uncontrollable once its in the public eye. Not only that other evidence can be uncovered that is more favorable towards the defendant giving them ammunition to counter anything that would arise form such findings. if its hard to control the evidence when things are under wraps with only a few parties privy to the info and dealings imagine how hard it would be to control it once its in public.

To win a lawsuit isn't about being right or wrong, well it is, but its also the best way the story is written for the jury and in this case Judge too because he has ultimate say in many things.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
Again this isn't about me, you can ask any lawyer about this they will say the exact same thing, don't even need to be a lawyer to know these things. Staying away from media is the first thing anyone should do when prepping for a law suit, doesn't matter if its trot law or criminal law, the chances of damages and mishandling of evidence become uncontrollable once its in the public eye. Not only that other evidence can be uncovered that is more favorable towards the defendant giving them ammunition to counter anything that would arise form such findings. if its hard to control the evidence when things are under wraps with only a few parties privy to the info and dealings imagine how hard it would be to control it once its in public.

To win a lawsuit isn't about being right or wrong, well it is, but its also the best way the story is written for the jury and in this case Judge too because he has ultimate say in many things.
Click to expand...

But that only applies if you actually have a case and expect to win.
This is pure speculation on AMD's part, based on ZERO proof besides "anonymous sources" -- ie. AMD is counting on manufactured outrage.
 
schoolslave said:
But that only applies if you actually have a case and expect to win.
This is pure speculation on AMD's part, based on ZERO proof besides "anonymous sources" -- ie. AMD is counting on manufactured outrage.
Click to expand...


This is what I'm wary about, but Kyle is not one to go out on a limb like that. He stated to me and everyone lawsuits are pending, as we have read in this thread, there has to be something there for him to say that. Also why would it be multiple lawsuits? To me that doesn't seem like AMD is doing it, its the AIB's/OEM's doing it? If that is the case, its not about AMD at all. Its about AIB's.OEM's are being forced to do something they don't want to. Like brand alignment. The problem with this is, the program started this month from my understanding, we as consumers haven't seen anything yet of these changes in branding, in marketing, or anything for that matter. So no damages have been done so far, because everyone is still selling the stuff as they always were. I do believe when Kyle stated people have signed up for this program. Its only natural they have done so. Until that first pull back in marketing or brand we see, we won't know the full extent of this program. Even at that point evidence must be there to show how it has limited AMD's penetration to the marketplace.

If its brand alignment, that are what the AIB's and OEM's are trying to stop, that is going to be a tough one to win, unless there is clear wording from them to stop selling AMD products all together I don't see that flying. Because nV wants to be the only gaming brand if they partner up, that is not illegal, it can be used as anti competitive but even then its not stopping the partner from selling AMD cards so its fine line.

If its AIB's and OEM's going after this, and AMD leaked or pushed the media towards the problem, well as I wrote before that still stands.
 
A few people here seem to be overvaluing the court system.

If AMD can nip this in the ass simply by getting a few journalists to do their job and investigate. Its very possible pressure from the public will keep these contracts either unsinged, changed or scrapped completely. NO tech company wants to be compared to 90s Intel or MS, when it comes to legal matters... as BOTH lost not millions, but billions. Not to mention the harm to their brands.

The courts Suck >.< Even if AMD comes by enough paper work to prove wrong doing in the light of day. They still have to file, bring a case, spend potentially millions up front on legal costs. What is more important here is the time it will take to move through the courts. This would hardly get taken care of in a court next week or next month or next year. It would be years where NV could likely win against any injunction (potentially) and could be putting these practices into full effect for 5,6... 7 YEARS before they lost in a court. So after ensuring no major GPU manufacturer built an AMD "Gaming" card for years they may win a settlement. Which if Intel and MSs court cases teach us anything is that no Court is going to put NV out of business over anything. They will get slapped with a painful yet affordable dollar figure. A figure the NV leadership may feel is worth paying to hijack an entire industry. (it sort of did work for both Intel and MS)

So the best play AMD has is to make what NV is doing behind closed doors known fully. Hopefully shame them into not acting like a company looking to ensure their monopoly status for years. Before anyone says it yes I know AMD and Intel both do very well in terms of units sold and low end market share... they are the GM and Ford of the GPU industry. Nvidia is BMW/Benz/Porsche they are the high performance parts (not that 5-10% faster really makes them 20x better in my book and outside gaming I would perfer AMDS proper opencl first cards but whatever) Point is NV is looking to ensure that the GM and Ford of their industry or any new companies product will be unable to be advertised as performance parts. In this case they feel they have the power to pull that off. Imagine if GM and Ford both used the the same 5 Massive AD agencies and one of them went to all of them and said if you want to continue doing preferred business with us you can't create any Performance ADs for the other guys.
 
razor1 said:
Again this isn't about me, you can ask any lawyer about this they will say the exact same thing, don't even need to be a lawyer to know these things. Staying away from media is the first thing anyone should do when prepping for a law suit, doesn't matter if its tort law or criminal law, the chances of damages and mishandling of evidence become uncontrollable once its in the public eye. Not only that other evidence can be uncovered that is more favorable towards the defendant giving them ammunition to counter anything that would arise form such findings. if its hard to control the evidence when things are under wraps with only a few parties privy to the info and dealings imagine how hard it would be to control it once its in public.

To win a lawsuit isn't about being right or wrong, well it is, but its also the best way the story is written for the jury and in this case Judge too because he has ultimate say in many things.
Click to expand...
Funny you would make such a statement, my gf is a paralegal, asked her lawyer boss about it, his response was "you're wrong."
 
FearTheCow said:
Funny you would make such a statement, my gf is a paralegal, asked her lawyer boss about it, his response was "you're wrong."
Click to expand...


Seriously you didn't even look this up did you?

https://www.americanbar.org/publica...12_13/spring/social-media-transformation.html

Yeah internet is a huge ass problem, the public is a huge ass problem with all these things the information is so widely available because if the inet, its worse now then it was before.

https://lim.economics.cornell.edu/civilpaper.pdf

Guess Cornell law is all fucked up to right?

All these cases where Cornell Law listed where media tainted the jury and evidence were all fake? This is exactly what I was saying to get that injunction to go to the public first is sure way of not getting the injunction.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law...of-trial-by-media-before-courts-law-essay.php

High-profile civil litigation is not just decided in the courts; it also is decided in the court of public opinion. Courts and legal commentators are increasingly recognizing that the media, through the way it covers litigation, has a very real impact on the resolution of individual lawsuits. Common sense dictates that it is within a lawyer's role, therefore, to work with reporters on their stories to ensure accurate reporting. Many defense attorneys in high-profile cases, though, flinch at the idea of saying anything to reporters out of concern that such conversations could be misconstrued as an attempt to affect the jury pool or persuade a judge or jury. For this reason, rules and beliefs have developed as to how lawyers may appropriately engage the media to mitigate its impact on their clients.
Click to expand...

In covering litigation, particularly corporate litigation, the media has an inherent bias that favors plaintiffs. When charges are made public, the media automatically reverts to the basic elements of storytelling and casts the lawsuit in traditional protagonist-antagonist terms. The defendant, simply by being on the wrong side of the “v," becomes the "villain" to the plaintiff's “victim," whether or not the actual charges have any factual basis or legal merit. Reports frequently lead with the plaintiff's injury or allegations and only include the corporate position as a response. These stories rarely are counterbalanced by positive stories about the defending company. Because companies would rather not draw attention to any litigation, they usually do not seek publicity for their victories. Even if they did, reporters often do not see corporate litigation victories as particularly newsworthy. Goliath is supposed to beat David; that is not news.
Click to expand...


I guess all these people that teach law and practice it, are stupid.
 
Last edited:
I've never seen so many people salivating at the potential for a market leader to become an outright monopoly. The amount of comments from people trying to spin this into another "good business move" from NVIDIA is pretty telling. I mean the AIB's have been able to market their products as they see fit for 20+ years but now apparently it's a serious problem, brand recognition is being diluted, something needs to be done!

From a legal standpoint I don't think it's ever black and white. I think AMD would have to try to prove damages and since the program is just ramping up it would probably be a few years of it being in place for there to be a significant enough effect on the market for AMD to be able to make that sort of claim. If you look at the AMD/Intel case it took years for them to receive compensation and one has to wonder whether it was enough considering the business they lost. I think the strategy here is to put pressure on NVIDIA to alter the program to give AIB's more control of their brand and if that doesn't work pursue a long costly legal avenue if that's the only option.
 
Last edited:
FearTheCow said:
Funny you would make such a statement, my gf is a paralegal, asked her lawyer boss about it, his response was "you're wrong."
Click to expand...

about what exactly? lawyers are supposed to pay attention to detail, not making vague statements..
Anyway, can you ask your lawyer what does he think about my arguments at #589 post? i'm most curious to hear what he has to say;)
 
razor1 said:
Seriously you didn't even look this up did you?

https://www.americanbar.org/publica...12_13/spring/social-media-transformation.html

Yeah internet is a huge ass problem, the public is a huge ass problem with all these things the information is so widely available because if the inet, its worse now then it was before.

https://lim.economics.cornell.edu/civilpaper.pdf

Guess Cornell law is all fucked up to right?

All these cases where Cornell Law listed where media tainted the jury and evidence were all fake? This is exactly what I was saying to get that injunction to go to the public first is sure way of not getting the injunction.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law...of-trial-by-media-before-courts-law-essay.php






I guess all these people that teach law and practice it, are stupid.
Click to expand...

You made the statement to ask any lawyer about what you were saying, I did, nice to see you suddenly changing your argument.

Put it simply, you made a statement of fact, that statement was proven wrong.

schoolslave said:
I'm sure she did on a Sunday of all days.
Click to expand...

She is his sole employee, they tend to habe a pretty good relationship and she can call him with random shit just about whenever.

Sith'ari said:
about what exactly? lawyers are supposed to pay attention to detail, not making vague statements..
Anyway, can you ask your lawyer what does he think about my arguments at #589 post? i'm most curious to hear what he has to say;)
Click to expand...

None of us are lawyers, you Nvidia white knights are the ones making statements of fact about the law. I just had my gf ask him about the one statement, I don't want to know the details of the way because I am not pretending to be a legal expert. I wanted just a "he is right" or "he is wrong" answer and got one.
 
FearTheCow said:
You made the statement to ask any lawyer about what you were saying, I did, nice to see you suddenly changing your argument.

Put it simply, you made a statement of fact, that statement was proven wrong.
Click to expand...


Monday I'll ask my corporate lawyers, and see what they say ok? I can pull up law firms by google search that say don't talk to the press so...... If they are advertising what you should and should not do with their involvement lol, guess what.


She is his sole employee, they tend to habe a pretty good relationship and she can call him with random shit just about whenever.
Click to expand...

For what kind of law, personal injury, litigation, civil, criminal, corporate? What law firm I would like to ask him or her directly with all the information I have stated so far.

None of us are lawyers, you Nvidia white knights are the ones making statements of fact about the law. I just had my gf ask him about the one statement, I don't want to know the details of the way because I am not pretending to be a legal expert. I wanted just a "he is right" or "he is wrong" answer and got one.
Click to expand...

details matters, experts want to know the details before they make a statement, because details can change the view of their statement. Otherwise its just hearsay. Hearsay can have mistakes.
 
Last edited:
FearTheCow said:
.....................................
None of us are lawyers, you Nvidia white knights are the ones making statements of fact about the law. I just had my gf ask him about the one statement, I don't want to know the details of the way because I am not pretending to be a legal expert. I wanted just a "he is right" or "he is wrong" answer and got one.
Click to expand...

ok, how about a "right" or "wrong" then? as i said, i'm most curious...
 
Publishing this article might damage the relationship between [H] and Nvidia. Maybe.

But no [H] articles on Nvidia products at launch will definitely damage my desire to own one. You might even say it'd push me into buying competing products.

Thanks Nvidia for making my future GPU decisions easy.

And thank you Kyle for still calling out companies out on their shenanigans, shortcomings and underhanded bullshit.
 
https://www.isba.org/ibj/2012/01/thedangersoflitigatinginthemedia

There is usually an emotional component to litigation. Moreover, given the slow rate at which cases lumber forward, it is not uncommon for clients to lose patience and wish to inform others of how they have been mistreated. However, judges do not look kindly upon either attorneys or litigants that seek to try their cases in the media.
Click to expand...


This is from a commercial ligation, corporate lawyer.

No one in the court system likes this stuff, because if there is any inkling of feeling of being influenced, they throw the stuff out.
 
razor1 said:
Monday I'll ask my corporate lawyers, and see what they say ok? I can pull up law firms by google search that say don't talk to the press so...... If they are advertising what you should and should not do with their involvement lol, guess what.




For what kind of law, personal injury, litigation, civil, criminal, corporate? What law firm I would like to ask him or her directly with all the information I have stated so far.



details matters, experts want to know the details before they make a statement, because details can change the view of their statement. Otherwise its just hearsay. Hearsay can have mistakes.
Click to expand...
And like usual, none of what you said matters, you made this statement "Again this isn't about me, you can ask any lawyer about this they will say the exact same thing, don't even need to be a lawyer to know these things. " well guess what, one lawyer didn't say the exact same thing, so you are wrong.
 
For all the naysayers here, surely you can all see the potential for shenanigans on NVIDIA's part here. Surely you can see how this program could be used as a staging point for seriously making the consumer's life much much worse? Surely you can see where this could all lead? Do you believe Kyle spoke to 7 OEMs and AIBs? if you do then and all 7 of them said they didnt like the program, what does that say to you? my god people wake up. Very bad things can have humble innocuous beginnings. What happened to vigilance? The dangers for US the consumer are huge here.
 
FearTheCow said:
And like usual, none of what you said matters, you made this statement "Again this isn't about me, you can ask any lawyer about this they will say the exact same thing, don't even need to be a lawyer to know these things. " well guess what, one lawyer didn't say the exact same thing, so you are wrong.
Click to expand...


So you don't think a commercial lawyer pointing to over 10 different cases saying the same thing I stated, means anything? In black and white its right there.
 
Is GPP the problem or a symptom of a bigger problem? What is nVidia so scared of that would make them do that?

I've been asking myself this one and it has a lot of really interesting answers. Think about how poorly the Vega did, what Lisa Su did to Raja, and the current situation over at AMD and Intel developing its own discrete graphics boards as you think about the nVidia GPP program.

I don't get why exactly yet though, and I have absolutely no proof of my conclusions so I'm not ready to share, but I think this is just a harbinger of something even bigger coming involving a few more companies. :|
 
Frankly I don’t even see the point in what NVidia is doing. It is the hardware/software produced working together that makes or breaks the product. If it is superior it will win out.

Can you even be in GPP if you have two separate gaming lines? How it is worded your gaming lineup to me means any designated configuration meant for gaming. Alienware 51 for AMD gaming computers vs just Alienware for those with Geforce ones may violate the GPP.

Frankly I would like to see ASUS call AMD gaming line ROG 1, NVidia just ROG. Then sue NVidia if any difference in treatment occurs. This is maybe more a battle with the AIB and OEMs in having control over their branding. It is their branding and not for NVidia to influence or hijack to reap the benefits one company has worked hard at for years.

Interesting ploy but a Trademark belongs to the owner and it is as if joining you give up your trademark for your gaming line.
 
Registered to thank Kyle for his work and to give the opinion I've been arguing in other discussions on the topic.

I can't see this as anything but a problem for consumers. It reeks of manipulation to become a pseudo-monopoly by giving their partners the right to "choose to sign up" for something that isn't necessarily to their benefit, but if they don't they're disadvantaged to their own competition. If AMD or Intel products can't be marketed for their intended purpose then how can it not be considered monopolistic in that NVIDIA would essentially control all marketing of gaming brands? If GPP is as stated, it's indefensible from a consumer standpoint.

It begins encroaching on consumer rights at that point, at least in my opinion.

Transparency is what NVIDIA is calling it, but has anyone ever heard of anyone ever buying a video card thinking it was a GeForce card and getting home and finding out they bought a Radeon card? Their vague, if not outright misleading blog post is an insult. It has nothing to do with transparency to the consumer, that much is obvious.

It's NVIDIA's job to prove the article incorrect and yet all we've heard is silence.
 
ecmaster76 said:
So would this affect AMD's CPU oriented products? Say RoG/Aurous/etc branded motherboards?

What about prebuilt systems with AMD CPUs and NV GPUs?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't go beyond dGPU, possibly APU/MCM/integrated, but would need to see all the paperwork to know for sure. Gets real tricky on prebuilts, as they may be the target here.

razor1 said:
So you don't think a commercial lawyer pointing to over 10 different cases saying the same thing I stated, means anything? In black and white its right there.
Click to expand...
What relevance would legal advice not to go public in a defense case that doesn't apply here, that historically can't be won regardless of legal outcome, and have on AMD who probably lacks standing in this case?

Assuming AMD and not an AIB/OEM brings the case, they'd ask Intel, who also would be affected, to join them. That takes time and legal outcome rather irrelevant. Like usual, you've quoted a lot of opinions and technical details with seemingly no understanding wtf you are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top