GeForce Partner Program may be to blame for lack of Kaby Lake-G products

[AnonymousGuy]

KBL-G wasn't originally planned to be a high volume product, it was basically a science experiment that blew up in popularity.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see a flood of new products in a few months when production ramps up.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

They don't seem to get nV owns the products these AIB's are selling

Yea no they don't, they are just a parts supplier like any other company with contract requirements. There's nothing special about what Nvidia is doing or supplying to AIBs. And the whole they'll just find another AIB argument falls right on it's face when zero want to work with them, that's what Nvidia put at risk with long term industry practices that companies don't like.

 

They have about as much ownership over the product as the suppliers of gaming chairs and cases do, difference is we the consumers actually know who the main component supplier is for graphic cards.

 

You can't make a motherboard without Intel or AMD either but that doesn't make them theirs either, the company brand on the box who makes and markets it is the owner no one else.

 

This whole Nvidia owns the GPUs line is one the the silliest things I keep hearing, saying something that's wrong over and over doesn't make it true.

[Razor01]

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea no they don't, they are just a parts supplier like any other company with contract requirements. There's nothing special about what Nvidia is doing or supplying to AIBs. And the whole they'll just find another AIB argument falls right on it's face when zero want to work with them, that's what Nvidia put at risk with long term industry practices that companies don't like.

 

They have about as much ownership over the product as the suppliers of gaming chairs and cases do, difference is we the consumers actually know who the main component supplier is for graphic cards.

 

You can't make a motherboard without Intel or AMD either but that doesn't make them theirs either, the company brand on the box who makes and markets it is the owner no one else.

 

This whole Nvidia owns the GPUs line is one the the silliest things I keep hearing, saying something that's wrong over and over doesn't make it true.

Yes it does make it thiers too, see you can't make a motherboard or graphics card without the IP of Intel, AMD, or nV.  these companies are in the business of selling other's products with other's IP.  They need to get the rights to make those products from nV, AMD, Intel, to make products.  Ownership of those rights gives the company of that IP.

 

So whom ever owns the IP in the court of law, owns those products too lol.  An AIB can make a different cooler or different broad layout, but that doesn't mean they have any ownership of the actual product being sold.  They have the right to sell those products though because it was granted by the actual owner of the products.  They have ownership of the Cooler, but not the board either, because the board is also part of the IP given by the respective company.

 

Its like this lets say I build a game on Cry Engine, I need to "license" Cry Engine, Getting that license gives me the ability to sell a product built on cry engine,  If Crytek wants to change their licensing terms from their current EULA for free use, to paid use I'm screwed, I can't sell my product.  Sorry they can do that if they want to.

 

If I paid for Cry Engine and they do that that won't work, by the terms and agreements of payment with Cry Engine they must let me bring my game out.

 

Now lets say I paid for Cry Engine 1, and Cry engine 2 comes out, they don't need to give me Cry Engine 2 free of charge right?  I need to pay for that.  A new contract.  Till I get that IP right to use, I can't do anything for my products.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

saying something that's wrong over and over doesn't make it true.

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.

[Kamjam21xx]

I was gonna correct him, but i was like. "Eh whats the point" and didnt.

 

Just so people dont get confused, its not a blurred line. There is a right and wrong side here.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

Yes it does make it thiers too, see you can't make a motherboard or graphics card without the IP of Intel, AMD, or nV.  these companies are in the business of selling other's products with other's IP.  They need to get the rights to make those products from nV, AMD, Intel, to make products.  Ownership of those rights gives the company of that IP.

 

So whom ever owns the IP in the court of law, owns those products too lol.

Well for someone who argues a heck of a lot of legal stuff all the time I'm honestly surprised just how little you understand about Intellectual Property law, especially the last bit.

 

The rest of what you said isn't relevant at all plus you need to stick to your position better, where was your argument for CryTek owns all games that use it's game engine?

[Razor01]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well for someone who argues a heck of a lot of legal stuff all the time I'm honestly surprised just how little you understand about Intellectual Property law, especially the last bit.

 

The rest of what you said isn't relevant at all plus you need to stick to your position better, where was your argument for CryTek owns all games that use it's game engine?

 

Yeah they kinda own the game too or actually ttey have the right to stop you for selling your game based on certain things, if you ever see the license agreement of one of the pay to use engines, they must agree upon and have the right to tell you if you can sell your game, so if a game that is created on Cry Engine is too close to one of their IP's they can tell you you can't make your game and they have to refund the monies of course..  Its also in their interest all code game code included becomes their property upon release of game to the public as well.  They can use the game code created by you in their next project as they see fit.  Any modification of the engine as well that you do becomes their property as well.

 

And I'm sorry if this above anyone of your heads, IP is not only a patent, its a property, its considered ownership of materials and derivatives of those materials, not just a piece of paper.

 

Now if you want more info on this since you guys don't know what the difference between patent and IP is.

 

Suggest you look it up, but basically IP can contain patents, but also contains trademarks, copyrights and what not.

 

here ya go

 

https://www.forensisgroup.com/intellectual-property-understanding-the-differences-between-patents-copyrights-trademarks-and-trade-secrets-2/

 

So again please try not to preach to someone that actually knows this shit

[Kamjam21xx]

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

So again please try not to preach to someone that actually knows this shit

You just changed your stance, quit flip floppin.

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

You just changed your stance, quit flip floppin.

Where did i change my stance?

 

nV has ownership of their IP, anything made on that IP, Board, they are part owner of that not only are they part owner, they are majority owner because without that IP that company can't make what ever product they want, regardless of who made it, they have rights to tell whom ever to shove it or release it.  And then factor in the GPU which is theirs, oh wait can't have a graphics card with that, who is making that?  That is nV too right?

[Kamjam21xx]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Where did i change my stance?

 

nV has ownership of their IP, anything made on that IP, Board, they are part owner of that not only are they part owner, they are majority owner because without that IP that company can't make what ever product they want, regardless of who made it, they have rights to tell whom ever to shove it or release it.

On what ownership of IP entitles you to. 

You actually just did it againg up there ^

[laminutederire]

13 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

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.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

On what ownership of IP entitles you to. 

Oh it entitles them quite  a bit for things like this because the GPU is made by nV dude.

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, Kamjam21xx said:

On what ownership of IP entitles you to. 

Delusion.

[Razor01]

10 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

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.

 

Do you know how extensions of patents work?  Extensions of patents work by a owner making changes to the original patent to create a new patent ;).  Its not the same patent anymore.  It can be a very small change for that matter.

[laminutederire]

Just now, Razor01 said:

Oh it entities quite  a bit for things like this because the GPU is made by nV dude.

Nvidia does not manufacture their GPU, TSMC does. By that principle they don't even own their gpus.

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Nvidia does not manufacture their GPU, TSMC does. By that principle they don't even own their gpus.

They OWN THE GPU man!

 

ITS THEIR IP, WTF are you talking about. just because you get something made at a factor, doesn't mean the ownership changes.....

AIB partners are making the boards else where, but the IP is still nV's, any manufacturing partner, must have nV giving them access to the IP as well, unless already in the contract of the AIB stating they can sub license said IP to them.

 

Its simple don't make this complicated, nV owns the IP for the boards and obviously the GPU's, If AIB's want to continue making graphics cards, they must get the right to use that IP, if not they can't.  nV has ownership of the IP in those board.  nV gives the right to AIBs to make those custom boards based on their IP.  The moment nV is not happy with what AIB's are doing with their IP they can shut it all down based on terms and conditions in their contracts.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

NO, don't make stuff up! It is GPP, and only that!

 

\rant

Not sure if your trying to by funny or just deluded.  Are you seriously suggesting any of these things I mentioned are made up?

[laminutederire]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

Do you know how extensions of patents work?  Extensions of patents work by a owner making changes to the original patent to create a new patent ;).  Its not the same patent anymore.

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.

5 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

They OWN THE GPU man!

 

ITS THEIR IP, WTF are you talking about. just because you get something made at a factor, doesn't mean the ownership changes.....

 

It all comes down to who owns the IP and who is the licensee. 

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.

[Razor01]

20 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

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.

 

No, one person uses a patent to create another patent, and the original company has a  problem with the new patent because the second company that made the new patent didn't have the right to create another patent based on the original patent, that is a problem.  The original company that made the original patent could have all rights (depends on how the IP license was drafted) to the new patent as well.

 

The new patent creator, must have the RIGHT to create IP based on the original IP.  If they don't have that right, they shouldn't even try it.

 

In this case the AIB's have no right to create their own patents based on nV's IP, they can't make competing products like a GPU or even a board design that uses another GPU for the same purposes. They can not patent the GPU board and say its theirs, they might be able to patent parts of the board which don't pertain to nV's IP though.

 

Look at Apple and Hackintosh, Apple owns the IP of Mac OS, even though another person buys that product they can't put the product on a Hackinstosh.  Since Apple forbids it.

 

With TSMC and transistors, their IP is being used in nV's products, nV has the "right" to use that IP, the moment they don't, they CANNOT sell any chips that use that IP.  First off they won't be manufacturing at TSMC anyways, nor can they manufacture those chips in another Fab if there is any IP associated with TSMC's IP in them.

 

 

This is why I mentioned Crytek, since I know that one extremely well, first hand.  What ever modifications I or my team made to the engine it becomes their property.  Their IP and ownership extends over to my product.

 

Look back with ARM and Intel, Intel had to license ARM IP for their fabs to manufacture ARM processors.  If at anytime that IP is not licensed anymore, Intel CANNOT make ARM processors for themselves or anyone else.

 

Look at any publishing deal, why do publishers what the IP of a particular game, they want it so

 

1) they can continue to make games based on that IP

2) they want to make sure NO ELSE can make a game based on that IP

 

Publishers want exclusive IP rights.

 

AIB's don't get exclusive IP rights man.

 

[Kamjam21xx]

34 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Delusion.

He had the 3 stances, without going into the many paragraphs indepth. 

1. They own everything manufactured 

2. They are part owners

3. They just control if you can sell the product, and also own it.

 

 

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

He had the 3 stances, without going into the many paragraphs indepth. 

1. They own everything manufactured 

2. They are part owners

3. They just control if you can sell the product, and also own it.

 

 

nV owns their IP period.  They can choose to see fit how they others use it.  If they don't like what AIB's are doing with their IP they can pull the plug, and court of law will side with them on this.

 

AIB's have no right first off to create a product with out the right to use nV's IP, if that product doesn't meet with the what ever nV feels like like their IP should be met, they can do what ever they wish at that point.

 

We are not talking about exclusive IP rights here, we are talking about one company using IP to create a product which they don't own. 

 

An IP license gives the ability to do certain things, but it doesn't give ownership of a product at all!

[Kamjam21xx]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

nV owns their IP period.  They can choose to see fit how they others use it.  If they don't like what AIB's are doing with their IP they can pull the plug, and court of law will side with them on this.

 

AIB's have no right first off to create a product with out the right to use nV's IP, if that product doesn't meet with the what ever nV feels like like their IP should be met, they can do what ever they wish at that point.

 

We are not talking about exclusive IP rights here, we are talking about one company using IP to create a product which they don't own. 

#4

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Kamjam21xx said:

#4

Let me make this simple for you since you can't seem to understand basic English

 

As a franchise does that franchise own the products its sells?

 

Your local Taco bell or McDonald's, has an owner a guy that is local probably, but does he "own" the products he sells?  He really doesn't even own the store. he might own the property the store is on, but everything else is owned by the Franchisee.

 

No he doesn't, the ownership is owned by the parent company, not the franchised store.

 

This is because by being a franchise they are "allowed" to do certain things.  It does not give ownership of those things.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, laminutederire said:

To me it would take something like GPP to prevent it.

Why though.  Intel aren't magic, not every CPU they put there name on instantly becomes salable.   This insistence that GPP is responsible for everything when we have actual historical trends and market conditions that offer more compelling reasons just baffles me.

 

Quote

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.

Exactly, but lets be realistic here,  people are trying to use the GPP (which is a gaming brand centric marketing stunt) in order to explain why one product (who's only link to being gaming is the onboard Vega chip) is not in many laptops 3 months after release.   In doing this they are ignoring all the other factors that effect how long/if a product makes it to market.  We may as well claim GPP is responsible for Atoms not making entry to the gaming market.

[Kamjam21xx]

24 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Let me make this simple for you since you can't seem to understand basic English

 

As a franchise does that franchise own the products its sells?

 

Your local Taco bell or McDonald's, has an owner a guy that is local probably, but does he "own" the products he sells?  He really doesn't even own the store. he might own the property the store is no, but everything else is owned by the Franchisee.

 

No he doesn't, the ownership is owned by the parent company, not the franchised store.

 

This is because by being a franchise they are "allowed" to do certain things.  It does not give ownership of those things.

Wrong. Sorry, just not true. Because ive looked into doing that, so i definitely know thats wrong.