nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[Razor01]

Just now, laminutederire said:

Ideally yes, but in practice money talks enough to make those dismissed if there is no strong evidence of it.

If its still on going, and the FTC and AMD and AIB's are all aboard, its going to be found out.  its not hard to find it.  AMD can point to we were selling this many GPU to AIB's prior to GPP and after this is what happened our sales to AIB's, if the AIB's can't show it was because of nV's original contract then no there is nothing there, if they can show its because the GPP forced them to buy less product from AMD that is a problem.  If it comes down to since they split the brands, and the new brands don't have as much market presence, there is nothing anti trust or competitive about it, because well they are selling others products, that means the AIB's need to go after nV to stop that.  AMD, FTC, EU aren't involved in those things.

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Hmm it wasn't all mining that caused that man, mining was secondary issues, Its supply issues from nV and AMD, which all point to memory supply.  Mining compounded the issue, interestingly enough US which is a country where mining is less than other countries, is where prices went up more, Europe, Asia, didn't see those price hikes.

That's something I have been trying to work out of late.   Accorded to market figures posted here a while back of the 44M GPU sold only 3M went to miners and the cost blow out was in the country with the least amount miners.   When the figures don;t exactly back each other up you know you have some sort of misinformed narrative doing the rounds.

 

Also, on topic, I never knew we had so many Omnipotent individuals on these forums.   Absolute certain they know what is happening with the whole GPP thing, if it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing to read some of the comments.

[Kamjam21xx]

Maybe its a lie and its still happening but they have gag orders not to talk about it, can never trust nvidia so we wont ever know.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Maybe its a lie and its still happening but they have gag orders not to talk about it, can never trust nvidia so we wont ever know.

It's alright, majority of the original information came from either AMD or undisclosed anonymous people not affiliated with any specific company.  So there is no shortage of witnesses not under gag orders to provide "evidence".

[pas008]

4 hours ago, Notional said:

And just after all vendors have either stripped their branding from AMD cards or made new branding outright. The damage is done you anticompetitive twats.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2018/05/04/nvidia-ends-geforce-partner-program/#3970d9bc6553

like this quote

NVIDIA lawyers and outside counsel approved GPP on the legal merits and I can tell you that the legal counsels of competitive chip companies talk routinely.  NVIDIA isn’t dumb, folks.  I do believe the program result could have been its competitors losing market share or having to spend a lot more money brand building, but that, in itself, isn’t anti-competitive.

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

So then Nvidia should require AIB to make a new brand exclusively for them, not force AIB to stop selling AMD cards under existing brands.

was the aib's choice according to what we know

remember gaming brand exclusively to nvidia

which should have been done yrs ago

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

Nvidia and AMD do not own the branding of AIB, so if they impose restriction that is anti competitive, which is illegal, but they could have AIB create a new exclusive Nvidia brand.

 

It is NOT LEGAL for Nvidia to restrict consumers access to AMD products, how is that hard to understand. The issue is not that Nvidia can or can't have a exclusive brand, it is how they went about doing it.

no read forbes article nvidia isnt dumb

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

I'm pretty sure that was Nvidia's idea all along. Make some bullshit partnership, force them to change their brands then retire the program to not be liable legally.

could be to get their own brand which they should have period

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

The exclusive access to gaming branding is also illegal, due to both companies developing gaming GPU's so AIB must be able to label/brand them as such.

 

This is like if Honda contracted Dealers to brand ONLY Honda's as sports cars, so Benjamins Motors can't sell Porsche's as sports cars.

not even close example

generic names are not sub brands

so reebok can use the jordan name for a line of products?

burger king can name their chicken nuggets mcnuggets?

49 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

I love you Nvidia, but no one was buying your bullshit. Actual PC gamers know the difference between GeForce and Radeon cards and didn't need nor request this clusterfuck of whatever you claim was helping.

oh my I can tell you many stories of users trying to install nvidia drivers on amd card and vice versa

I could tell you many times I have heard in game that they own strix card but didnt know if nvidia or amd

I can actually post help forums where users have no clue of which card they have too and they are gamers

[Notional]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2018/05/04/nvidia-ends-geforce-partner-program/#3970d9bc6553

like this quote

NVIDIA lawyers and outside counsel approved GPP on the legal merits and I can tell you that the legal counsels of competitive chip companies talk routinely.  NVIDIA isn’t dumb, folks.  I do believe the program result could have been its competitors losing market share or having to spend a lot more money brand building, but that, in itself, isn’t anti-competitive.

Everything companies do, have the go ahead of the legal departments. Doesn't mean they didn't break the law, nor that they won't get convicted in a case of law. After all, what is legally allowed in Asia or the US, might not be in the EU or Australia.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Everything companies do, have the go ahead of the legal departments. Doesn't mean they didn't break the law, nor that they won't get convicted in a case of law. After all, what is legally allowed in Asia or the US, might not be in the EU or Australia.

because your feelings feel like they broke anti competitive doesnt mean they did

 

please link the law they broke not what you feel

and mind you apple has done far worst with branding and naming in many companies

remember apple has sued and shut down many companies on branding and logos lol

 

fyi how has nvidia's legal team been on lawsuits? is their record is amazing lol

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

Everything companies do, have the go ahead of the legal departments. Doesn't mean they didn't break the law, nor that they won't get convicted in a case of law. After all, what is legally allowed in Asia or the US, might not be in the EU or Australia.

because your feelings feel like they broke anti competitive doesnt mean they did

 

fyi how has nvidia's legal team been on lawsuits? is their record is amazing lol

Because the lawyers said it wasn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not. It's up to a court to come to that conclusion. Neither the lawyers nor you can conclude otherwise.

 

How they are doing? Well, they got their asses handed to them in their pathetic Kepler licencing scheme, where they lost every single court case in the end.

[App4that]

HA! Funny af. Talk about getting your dick caught in a door closing LOL

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

because your feelings feel like they broke anti competitive doesnt mean they did

 

please link the law they broke not what you feel

and mind you apple has done far worst with branding and naming in many companies

remember apple has sued and shut down many companies on branding and logos lol

 

fyi how has nvidia's legal team been on lawsuits? is their record is amazing lol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

 

The fact you need this pointed out to you is a little concerning tbh.

[Razor01]

Just now, Notional said:

Because the lawyers said it wasn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not. It's up to a court to come to that conclusion. Neither the lawyers nor you can conclude otherwise.

For the courts to take action there must be precedent and their must be a law based on the precedent.  Those are easy to point out lol.  Legality or illegality must be proven.

 

What law did it break?  That is what is needed to start any of this off.

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

 

The fact you need this pointed out to you is a little concerning tbh.

 

 

And there is no law in there that states anything about branding of other's products is there?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

 

The fact you need this pointed out to you is a little concerning tbh.

I can't see how that counters any of pas008's points.   He is simply pointing out that there is no evidence a law has been broken and the odds that it has is currently pretty low with the information we have.  Contrast that to the people in this thread who are absolutely sure Nvidia has broken all the laws and can't even point to a single shred of evidence.

 

Is there a chance Nvidia broke some laws? yes, a chance.  Is it an absolute fact based on the legal expertise of forum users?  Absolutely not.   Enough information has been posted that would lead the rational person to the conclusion that you need to either wait for actual evidence or an actual court case before you can conclude they likely broke any laws.

 

It's a good thing LTT  forumers don't run the justice system. 

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

For the courts to take action there must be precedent

Nonsense. Precedent is set as a result of the outcome of a court case. It is not a prerequisite for a court case to be startet. It is up to the prosecutor, whether to accuse or not.

[Razor01]

15 minutes ago, Notional said:

Nonsense. Precedent is set as a result of the outcome of a court case. It is not a prerequisite for a court case to be startet. It is up to the prosecutor, whether to accuse or not.

 

No, Precedent creates the Law

 

Quote

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule

 

 

That rule creates the enforceable law by the governing bodies.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent

 

So once a precedent is created by a case, then a law is formed to execute that precedent.

 

Right now there is no precedent.  So for the case to even come about, nV must break a law that is currently in writing.

 

So what law was broken?

 

From what we have seen, I don't see anything that was broken.

 

This is easy to see, the current anti trust laws and anti competitive laws are extremely explicit.   They are written in the FTC and EU trade commission website, with the legal precedent that shows the case that created it.  Not much leeway in interpretation of them from an execution point of view.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

No, Precedent creates the Law

 

That rule creates the enforceable law by the governing bodies.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent

No, the government/parlament creates the law. Precedent just means the outcome of the law in praxis, has become a standard other court cases can point to. This way, they don't have to prove the legitimacy of the law every time. You're confusing things here.

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, Notional said:

No, the government/parlament creates the law. Precedent just means the outcome of the law in praxis, has become a standard other court cases can point to. This way, they don't have to prove the legitimacy of the law every time. You're confusing things here.

 

 

That I agree with.  No I am not confusing it, there are two ways about this.  The law changes based on precedent based on societies beliefs.  Or during the course of a case a new precedent if formed that causes new laws to be formed.

 

Lets take advertising and branding as an example,  In the 50's they were not protected by first amendment,  the precedent was laid out for that to happen.  In the 70's the precedent changed to include it in the 1st amendment with laws concerning commercial speak introduced into the first amendment

 

You are talking about case law in the second para, that is ONE form of precedent.  There are three other forms.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

That I agree with.  No I am not confusing it, there are two ways about this.  The law changes based on precedent based on societies beliefs.

 

Lets take advertising and branding as an example,  In the 50's they were not protected by first amendment,  the precedent was laid out for that to happen.  In the 70's the precedent changed to include it in the 1st amendment with laws concerning commercial speak introduced into the first amendment

You're confusing the deffinition of a law, and it's interpretation by the court. 

[Razor01]

Just now, App4that said:

You're confusing the deffinition of a law, and it's interpretation by the court. 

 

 

Not at all, I will not sit here and have people simplify precedent to case law, that is incorrect.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Not at all, I will not sit here and have people simplify precedent to case law, that is incorrect.

So stand

[Razor01]

26 minutes ago, App4that said:

So stand

 

The law must be broken first something goes to court, it has to be outright.  Then a new precedent can be found for the things GPP has done.  Since there is no laws that cover advertising and branding and such as anti competitive unless they are out right lies or the branding is doing so kind of infringement on another companies rights.

 

Once that precedent is done, then a law can be made so its easily executable later on.

 

Case law is used for just that.

 

Now if there is no law that is broken, then the person perusing the matter must show just cause to the court and give precedent if possible to get the authority to start the case.

 

Can precedence change in the court yeah it can, and that will force the law to change too.

 

This is why if you look at the FTC site and EU they are showing laws that point to previous cases, clearly shows the case law (precedent) that the law is based on.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Not at all, I will not sit here and have people simplify precedent to case law, that is incorrect.

Then stop doing it.

[Razor01]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Then stop doing it.

 

Constructive as always....

 

[Drak3]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

Constructive as always....

Again, wrong.

[Razor01]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Again, wrong.

I was being sarcastic lol.  So if you agree with that, kinda odd you are just rambling.