nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Kamjam21xx said:

The arguement is basically if or if not they broke the law and will face penalties for that.

 

&

If what they were doing was right or not

 

& 

IP 

Someone tell Coke they're breaking the law for making Mc Donalds only sell Coke. /s

 

Nvidia did what large companies do, and it failed. 

 

 

[pas008]

35 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They do, for Nvidia graphics cards sold on their website which they are responsible for. What are you trying to point out, Nvidia having those licenses doesn't transfer them over to the AIB, the AIB must have them for the products they are creating and selling. It would be illegal for Asus to sell a graphics card with an HDMI output on it without an HDMI licenses irrespective of Nvidia having a license for it or not.

 

You can find a list of every company with HDMI license here, https://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/adopters_founders.aspx. All AIBs are on this list.

yes i know but I am saying nvidia is using their license for their ip on their boards

aib must have their own too

which is why we see different outputs on variety of aib cards

 

 

[XenosTech]

I'm surprised @leadeater is still replying.... You need a mallet and a chisel to get the point across to some of these guys when it come to Green and Blue matters. It's like their brains switch off when either of those companies are the topic at hand and they argue for the sake of it but not to learn anything from it, reminds me ROM.

[laminutederire]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Its not vague, its part of intellectual property.

 

https://www.cpsslaw.com/blog/2016/03/the-three-main-components-of-intellectual-property.shtml

 

You think law firms like this one think its vague?

 

Apparently the US state department is also vague about these things?

Us law is vague yes. That's why they function on common law.

Fact remains that there is a distinction in the law about all these.

Protection by patent is nowhere near protection by copyright for instance. You don't define anything else because you're either confused about the difference or you're trying to confuse everyone else.

[Carclis]

10 minutes ago, Mk7-Golf-R said:

 

Theres nothing illegal about what they are doing. Basically they are saying adhere to the rules we set or you don't do business with us.

 

no one is forcing companies to do anything. Nvidia has the best graphics cards on the market. This it allows them to have a choice on how and who they do business with.

 

if AMD had a competitive product this wouldn't be happening.

Read my post about "Misuse of Market Power". It's only a few posts after the one you quoted me on. I'd quote it again but I'm on my phone. To sum it up though, you can say that nobody is forcing them to sign up to the GPP but they're at a significant disadvantage if they don't, uncompetitive even. Linus covered this topic in a previous WAN show. So because Nvidia has a dominant position in the market they are pushing other companies around, many of who get a large part of their business in dealing with Nvidia cards. These companies are push to relegate competing products to obscurity. I don't know how you could possibly be more of a textbook example of "Misuse of Market Power" than that.

[Carclis]

3 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I'm surprised @leadeater is still replying.... You need a mallet and a chisel to get the point across to some of these guys when it come to Green and Blue matters. It's like their brains switch off when either of those companies are the topic at hand and they argue for the sake of it but not to learn anything from it, reminds me ROM.

He's clearly been hardened from eating all that lead.

[XenosTech]

Just now, Carclis said:

He's clearly been hardened from eating all that lead.

I see what you did there.

 

He just needs a mallet then lmao

[Carclis]

2 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I see what you did there.

 

He just needs a mallet then lmao

Sadly I think some objects are too stubborn to move.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I see what you did there.

 

He just needs a mallet then lmao

The problem with lead is it dulls very easily and becomes ineffective.

[pas008]

37 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

By that same logic... the manufacturer owns the entire GPU

 

Hahaha

different contract, manufacturer contract like apple,razer, etc (I could go on) uses pretty much for everything

once made for them its theirs

nvidia isnt doing those type of contracts they are doing strict ip contracts

24 minutes ago, App4that said:

Guys, why is this still a big deal. 

 

It died, you're beating a dead horse.

guess we dont like zombie horses

11 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I'm surprised @leadeater is still replying.... You need a mallet and a chisel to get the point across to some of these guys when it come to Green and Blue matters. It's like their brains switch off when either of those companies are the topic at hand and they argue for the sake of it but not to learn anything from it, reminds me ROM.

I buy best product out there, no fanboyism for me except coke

would love to go back to amd eyefinity was so much easier to setup after installing drivers

[Razor01]

14 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Us law is vague yes. That's why they function on common law.

Fact remains that there is a distinction in the law about all these.

Protection by patent is nowhere near protection by copyright for instance. You don't define anything else because you're either confused about the difference or you're trying to confuse everyone else.

 

Its not vague the reason why you are saying that is because patents are a function of multiple parts to create a patent, so its not easily definable, since there needs to be a thought process and logic involved, copyrights and trademarks are easily definable. 

 

If own ones IP rights,patents, copyrights and trademarks for a certain product, that they license to a 3rd party.   The owner of that product is not the 3rd party, they can't do as they wish, they have the right to do certain things based on what is agreed upon, but ownership is never given, if ownership was given, then they can do what ever they want with those copyrights, trademarks, and IP.

 

 

That is the definition and purpose of an IP license.

 

[laminutederire]

13 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

Its not vague the reason why you are saying that is because patents are a function of multiple parts to create a patent, so its not easily definable, since there needs to be a thought process and logic involved, copyrights and trademarks are easily definable. 

 

If own ones IP rights,patents, copyrights and trademarks for a certain product, that they license to a 3rd party.   The owner of that product is not the 3rd party, they can't do as they wish, they have the right to do certain things based on what is agreed upon, but ownership is never given, if ownership was given, then they can do what ever they want with those copyrights, trademarks, and IP.

 

 

That is the definition and purpose of an IP license.

 

Except ownership of an idea means that you can do whatever you want concerning that idea, but that does not entail you own everything produced with that idea. That's where you stubbornly won't understand. Maybe it's too subtle for you.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Except ownership of an idea means that you can do whatever you want concerning that idea, but that does not entail you own everything produced with that idea. That's where you stubbornly won't understand. Maybe it's too subtle for you.

The fact that I can hold a graphics card in my hand means it's not IP. I was about to post a long 3 paragraph thing but you made the exact same point I was trying to make in one sentence, thank you.

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The fact that I can hold a graphics card in my hand means it's not IP. I was about to post a long 3 paragraph thing but you made the exact same point I was trying to make in one sentence, thank you.

end user has different agreement

just like a contract manufacturer and ip manufacturer a variety of agreements in the contract

you guys act like all contracts and licenses are made simple and easy

 

like said before if gigabyte/msi/evga/etc owns the card then why couldnt they clock the 1070ti to whatever they wish?

 

[Carclis]

26 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

If own ones IP rights,patents, copyrights and trademarks for a certain product, that they license to a 3rd party.   The owner of that product is not the 3rd party, they can't do as they wish, they have the right to do certain things based on what is agreed upon, but ownership is never given, if ownership was given, then they can do what ever they want with those copyrights, trademarks, and IP.

You are describing exactly how property rights work. Technically nobody owns land here in Australia because we are merely "freeholding", holding land using a license which expires after 100 years.

 

The important thing you're missing though is that these rights in AIB partners case stipulate the specification that they should conform to in order to receive support from Nvidia and to respect their property. They are conditions of use for the end product that companies like Asus produce. At the end of the day the Nvidia GPU die is no different from an AMG Mercedes engine which is being used in a Lamborghini. It's licensed to them with an accompanying specification that must be met. But the end product that comes out of Lamborghini is not the same as a Mercedes. These products are both the culminations of many IP's but the designs are originals from Lamborghini and Mercedes. It is their product and design because what they received is different from what they sold. They produced their own product.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

end user has different agreement

just like a contract manufacturer and ip manufacturer

That was a comment on what IP is, physical things cannot be IP. IP can be used to make physical things, physical things can have attributes that are IP but the item itself, the thing you can touch or hold is not IP.

[Mihle]

Wonder how many pages this will reach before it stops getting commented on.

 

My bet is 25, possibly 30.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Carclis said:

But the end product that comes out of Lamborghini is not the same as a Mercedes. These products are both the culminations of many IP's but the designs are originals from Lamborghini and Mercedes. It is their product and design because what they received is different from what they sold. They produced their own product.

 Dude, don't you know? Lamborghini doesn't own the cars it sells, it's just a reseller. The car actually belongs to the firm doing the seat upholstery.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Carclis said:

You are describing exactly how property rights work. Technically nobody owns land here in Australia because we are merely "freeholding", holding land using a license which expires after 100 years.

 

The important thing you're missing though is that these rights in AIB partners case stipulate the specification that they should conform to in order to receive support from Nvidia and to respect their property. They are conditions of use for the end product that companies like Asus produce. At the end of the day the Nvidia GPU die is no different from an AMG Mercedes engine which is being used in a Lamborghini. It's licensed to them with an accompanying specification that must be met. But the end product that comes out of Lamborghini is not the same as a Mercedes. These products are both the culminations of many IP's but the designs are originals from Lamborghini and Mercedes. It is their product and design because what they received is different from what they sold. They produced their own product.

I was going to use the exact same Lamborghini and Mercedes example as well, find it strangely amusing 

[Carclis]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 Dude, don't you know? Lamborghini doesn't own the cars it sells, it's just a reseller. The car actually belongs to the firm doing the seat upholstery.

Well I know which company I'd be looking at to buy up ?

[pas008]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

you guys act like all contracts and licenses are made simple and easy

 

like said before if gigabyte/msi/evga/etc owns the card then why couldnt they clock the 1070ti to whatever they wish?

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That was a comment on what IP is, physical things cannot be IP. IP can be used to make physical things, physical things can have attributes that are IP but the item itself, the thing you can touch or hold is not IP.

why did you leave out above?

 

why couldnt those aibs couldnt release overclocked versions of the 1070ti if they owned the card?

 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

why did you leave out above?

 

why couldnt those aibs couldnt release overclocked versions of the 1070ti if they owned the card?

 

Because I didn't want to reply to that part, I have already explained why before in a similar question you asked and there is enough information in this thread to figure it out.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because I didn't want to reply to that part, I have already explained why before in a similar question you asked and there is enough information in this thread to figure it out.

ok according to you its the aibs card but they cant do what they wish with it

[XenosTech]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

why did you leave out above?

 

why couldnt those aibs couldnt release overclocked versions of the 1070ti if they owned the card?

 

Could be something as simple as Nvidia saying, "If you factory OC this product we won't give you any technical support if anything goes wrong." Whereas they would receive support for factory OCing the snot out of the other GPU's. In the end the final product aka the card you slot into your pc and game/fold/mine on belongs to the AIB but the chip itself is only nvidia's.

[laminutederire]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

ok according to you its the aibs card but they cant do what they wish with it

Those cards are owned by AIB until they're sold. They can't do whatever they want to produce them since they do not build them from scratch, but once produced the product is theirs.