Jump to content

laminutederire

Member
  • Content count

    1,691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About laminutederire

  • Title
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

1,239 profile views
  1. I hope for you not to go to court with that guy then. I've passed a law class which was solely on IPs, and he says something that does not comply with how law works at least in Europe. Licences in the case of patents between companies are contractualized. Nvidia will lose if they sue for the exploit of said licence on a period where the contract hasn't been breached or annulled. First of all, anyone can use their ip freely, the burden is on the patent holder to sue to forbid another company to exploit it. In the event Nvidia would, if there is a licence contract, any patent organization has the duty to reject the accusation. Maybe in the US it's different in practice since its a very corrupt country, but in theory, licences are legally binding for both parties. There is an ownership change since they sell products to another company which gets ownership of every gpu Nvidia will sell them. No they won't own Nvidia's IP, but the property of the GPUs will be theirs as per the sale contract between the two. In this scenario, there isn't any licensing involved at all. It's purely a commodity exchange for money. Then AIB transforms those gpu into graphics cards. There they may need to license some patents to effect the transformation legally. Well in this case IP are restricted to potentially patents and that's about it. Solely because of the nature of the contracts involved. And you were still wrong to compare the situation to copyrights derivatives because there are no copyrights involved in the manufacturing of GPUs except for the copyrights associated with logos of the AIB which would appear on the card. So the fact that IP can be broader just isn't relevant to the discussion. From a legal standpoint, as long they don't manufacture the gpu itself (which they don't since they buy it from nvidia), Nvidia has close to no patents to licence them to build the graphics card from the gpu, so they can use it in any way they want. The only thing that could prevent them from selling it would be a clause in the selling contract which allowed them to purchase the gpu in the first place (in which case they wouldn't buy them since it would be a waste of money). The patents solely apply on manufacturing. You can't forbid to sell something with patents, you can only forbid to produce (which subconsequentially does not allow sales). And before you tell me there are other types of IP, none of those are involved here except the Nvidia logo on the box, and Nvidia name in the product name. Oh and on the drivers provided with the card as well, since the code is protected by copyrights. Three things that most consumers will just throw out anyway by the way. But you'll find a way to claw back anyway by summoning an unknown source or unverified self proclaimed expertise to back up your affirmations. Oh and if you want my sources, just go have a look at the European convention on patents. Mostly everything is on there. It's in German-English-French.
  2. You don't listen so what's the point. Go live in your world and let us discuss properly on our own. I made clear more than a few time that intellectual property under copyright is not the same as patents. And yet you insist on comparing both. A book is ruled by copyright-like laws. Nvidias intellectual property is based on patents for everything they physically produce and by copyrights for mainly everything they produce as code, and then they have their brand like ip ruled by branding laws. Those aren't the same, and you can't infer between them, period. In the case of Nvidia and AIBs, they are the sole owner of their products. The sole reason why is that they sell the gpus to AIB. The same transfer of ownership then applies when it transfers from AIB to consumers. As for the AIB patents, depending on the country, if they depend on Nvidias patents, Nvidia may be forced to licence them those. But their patents most probably do not depend on Nvidias that much, since they have similar designs for AMD cards, which leads to believe that their own patents are independent from both and and Nvidia, or they depend on a common set of patents held by Amd and Nvidia. As far as your last comment goes: Nvidia patents do not supersede anything. If those are involved, the licensing agreement is made through the selling contract of the gpu from Nvidia to AIB. This contracts then supersedes everything else. Nvidia can annul the contract, but it will not prevent sale retroactively of the gpu they already sold. It will just mean that aib cannot exploit the new gpus anymore, since they won't have those in the first place. Your argument is tantamount to say that you don't own anything, and that everything you could expect to own is actually owned by the people who patented the tech behind it. (Which is ridiculous because it breaks all the contract of sale made in history). (Oh and if you want to quote something, quote something relevant. Your link is about copyrights, not patents, so I'll day it one more time with the same condescending tone you have with other people: in case you can't read proper English: copyright not equal to patents. Discussion about patents.)
  3. What's your point the way? It does seem like you want to confuse everyone by changing your point all the time. As far as perfecting patents go, it all depends where. In many countries, getting a patent which extends another patent yields the obligation for the original patent holder to provide a fair license to the new patent holder. This mandatory license almost always cannot be exclusive etc.. in all those countries your argument falls apart. However what is true in all countries is that you don't have to have a license for the original patent to get an extending patent. You may not be able to use your own patent depending on if you get a (mandatory or not) license, but you still can forbid anyone else to use your patent. Where you don't understand patents is that yes they can potentially do exactly that. If it is the result of an inventive process which is not in current state of knowledge (in patents or published etc), they can. If their revendication in that patent do not entail any patents of Nvidia, they can both get the patent and exploit it without Nvidia saying a thing about it. That means that they can patent the power delivery system of their graphics card, and Nvidia can't do anything about it even if it is exploited with graphics cards using their GPU. Yea sure Apple can do that, but you don't seem to understand why. Apple can do that because MacOS isn't patented, it is copyrighted. So basically if you redo yourself MacOS you can sell it. What you can't do is sell the MacOS source code as is, or slightly modified. But that's absolutely not applicable to ideas, hence why we have patents for those ideas. It's often very hard to patent software, becausebyou can't patent the code, you have to patent a functionality of the code. And it's basically because of that distinction that Crytek is allowed to do that with your code, but Nvidia can't with AIBs. Because copyrights are legally different than patents and they have different laws regulating them. Then I really don't understand what exclusivity has to do with anything... By the way, aib can have exclusive licensing, if Nvidia wishes so. Nobody has talked about that anywhere in the discussion, stop trying to drown people in useless points which don't have a relation to the discussion. We know what you're trying to do.
  4. I meant a patent based on other patents, hence the extension. It means that if what you invented is a non trivial invention from another patent, you can file a valid patent. And that patent is yours and nothing belongs to the original patent holder. That aside, you haven't contradicted anything. Yes that extension is a different patent, so? It does not belong to the original patent holder at all, and there is absolutely nothing he can do about that. There is no transfer of ownership of that patent through derivatives and what not. They "own" the idea of the gpu, but they do not manufacture it. How is that different that Asus who owns the idea of a graphics card but not produce every part of the chip? Your argument is that the gpu is necessary for the graphics card, is it? In this case, every thing belongs to TSMC, since they own the transistor IP and a you without transistors does not exist. I agree this doesn't work for Nvidia/TSMC, but it doesn't work for Nvidia/AIB as well.
  5. Nvidia does not manufacture their GPU, TSMC does. By that principle they don't even own their gpus.
  6. What's above yours is that the right to forbid sale does not mean owning. If what you were saying would be even remotely true in this context, how would you explain that you can patent an extension of a patent? That'd be a derivative of the original patent so it couldn't work huh? You re misusing laws on copyrights (which are mostly the one used for software) and patent laws which apply here mostly (with trade laws). And it seems that those last laws you don't have a clue how they work.
  7. And yet he will over and over and over and over again. You could argue that patent ownership does not mean much as you can own a patent and not have any rights on it. Owning a patent just means you're considered as the creator of the invention. After that you get the licensing rights which are often ceded to the company the inventor works in. You could teach him that a patent or an intellectual property has nothing to do with anything. It's just a right to forbid other companies to use your IP without your consent. What they produce is always theirs, but you can just forbid them to produce them. But he won't listen, he never does. Edit: hammering false narratives should be illegal if you ask me.
  8. Yeah sure but it's funny because it's the sole reason lootboxes are investigated
  9. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-25-now-belgium-declares-loot-boxes-gambling-and-therefore-illegal An article in native english about it. Sad thing is that the only game that wasn't considered illegal was SWB2... you do wonder how they conducted their investigation..
  10. Never underestimate ego battles. It always makes people do ridiculous things.
  11. To me it would take something like GPP to prevent it. That being said, Intel's own product using it is barely out, so it should take some time for us to know if it indeed is not used anywhere.
  12. If a laptop price was only due to component prices, MacBooks would be way cheaper. So would be surface laptops and so on. The price difference may just be only design and marketing related. You can't make better than it in a smaller form factor hence were going to make you pay more. Something along those lines.
  13. I'm surprised they haven't done a drop test yet like some people (for some reason) with phones! Of course it wouldn't be intentional, but when you have dropped half of them, better turn this into a good video !
  14. No but anti competitive is better because it can be argued at a later date that Nvidia is allowed to do their shut because AMD is anti competitive as well. Duh
×