nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

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 adverting 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 that that law is based on.

The first amendment of the US constitution hasn't changed, the interpretation of it has. 

[Drak3]

Just now, Razor01 said:

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

Given your understanding on legal precedent, the odds were substantially greater that you were serious.

[Drak3]

Just now, App4that said:

The fist amendment of the US constitution

Which one was that again?

[App4that]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Which one was that again?

Typo lives matter

[Razor01]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Given your understanding on legal precedent, the odds were substantially greater that you were serious.

 

So we have three people here that think that case law doesn't translate to actual laws?

 

Seriously?

 

 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

They haven't covered their asses from anything, they still rolled the program out, signed up partners and enforced their policies.

 

Ending something illegal doesn't absolve you from doing the illegal thing.

It makes it harder to prove. There is less evidence than there would be had it gone on longer. 

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

So we have three people here that think that case law doesn't translate to actual laws?

 

Seriously?

 

 

You're talking about case law rather than Nvidia getting their dick slammed in a door. So. 

 

 

muahahahahahaah

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

You're talking about case law rather than Nvidia getting their dick slammed in a door. So. 

 

 

muahahahahahaah

 

 

Ah no for everyone here talking about anti trust and anti competitive, they need to understand there is nothing there unless they can show nV broke those laws to begin with.  If they didn't, then show me the precedent where they can say they can be brought up into a case.

 

Problem is FTC has already set its grounds on advertising which is part of 1st amendment.  Its pretty clear, the owner of a product, like the GPU in this case, can choose who and how those products are sold and portrayed.  Its nV's right to do so.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Ah no for everyone here talking about anti trust and anti competitive, they need to understand there is nothing there unless they can show nV broke those laws to begin with.  If they didn't, then show me the precedent where they can say they can be brought up into a case.

This is a pointing an laughing at Nvidia time, you know people suck at that. Hard to laugh when holding a pitchfork. 

[WMGroomAK]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

You're talking about case law rather than Nvidia getting their dick slammed in a door. So. 

 

 

muahahahahahaah

I find it kind of funny that GPP was supposed to be all about being beneficial to the gamer (at least on their public perception) however instead of working to clarify how GPP was going to do that they decided to drop the whole program that they would have supposedly spent money and investment on establishing. 

[Razor01]

Just now, App4that said:

This is a pointing an laughing at Nvidia time, you know people suck at that. Hard to laugh when holding a pitchfork. 

ok you are just having fun, I don't think the others guys are, cause they have no idea how these things happen in the real world lol.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

I find it kind of funny that GPP was supposed to be all about being beneficial to the gamer (at least on their public perception) however instead of working to clarify how GPP was going to do that they decided to drop the whole program that they would have supposedly spent money and investment on establishing. 

Companies drop programs all the time when they receive bad PR.   Intention and outcome are not always linked. 

[App4that]

Just now, WMGroomAK said:

I find it kind of funny that GPP was supposed to be all about being beneficial to the gamer (at least on their public perception) however instead of working to clarify how GPP was going to do that they decided to drop the whole program that they would have supposedly spent money and investment on establishing. 

Neither AMD nor Nvidia give a flying **** about gamers. Same with Intel and AMD. They wouldn't last long if they did. There's a saying I forget at the moment, something about nice guys. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Neither AMD nor Nvidia give a flying **** about gamers. Same with Intel and AMD.

But what about AMD? Do they care?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Neither AMD nor Nvidia give a flying **** about gamers. Same with Intel and AMD. They wouldn't last long if they did. There's a saying I forget at the moment, something about nice guys. 

Nice guys:

 

-never get the girl

-always finish last

-will always be in the friend space

-know how to make a decent vindaloo but can't shit for pennies for month after.

[App4that]

Just now, Drak3 said:

But what about AMD? Do they care?

No LOL. They care about making money, hard to do that while caring. 

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

ok you are just having fun, I don't think the others guys are, cause they have no idea how these things happen in the real world lol.

We do, but your terminology and retorik is simply not correct. A law is the law and stands, whether it's been effectuated through a court case, or not. How it's being effectuated in praxis in the court, that subsequent result is what a precedence is.  And that precedence can change every single time the law is being used in the court.

 

In context to this case, we don't know if, for instance, the EU courts have convicted any companies of similar things, or if they would with the current laws. So everyone in here are only speculating on the outcome of such a law. As a layman, when I'm saying it's anticompetitve, I'm talking from a practical point of view, not necessarily from a legal point of view.

[Drak3]

Just now, App4that said:

No LOL. They care about making money, hard to do that while caring. 

Just so we're clear, AMD, AMD, and AMD don't care?

 

But surely AMD cares, right? Right?

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Just so we're clear, AMD, AMD, and AMD don't care?

 

But surely AMD cares, right? Right?

To be clear, all your cares belong to Lisa. 

[WMGroomAK]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

To be clear, all your cares belong to Lisa. 

Isn't Lisa one of those old Macintosh machines?  Does that mean Apple cares about me?

[Demonking]

2 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Did you suddenly forget miners ruining stock for the 480 and 580?

No, because even the 970 was higher up on the hardware survey than the 290/390. Nvidia marketing is ingrained,and people are gonna buy Nvidia no matter what.

[pas008]

17 minutes ago, App4that said:

You're talking about case law rather than Nvidia getting their dick slammed in a door. So. 

 

 

muahahahahahaah

read mr moose's post below

12 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

I find it kind of funny that GPP was supposed to be all about being beneficial to the gamer (at least on their public perception) however instead of working to clarify how GPP was going to do that they decided to drop the whole program that they would have supposedly spent money and investment on establishing. 

read below and also they wont disclose deals to evga that asus got each company prolly was getting different deals so confidentially is needed happens all the time in business world

does coke tell xx company their deal with yy company? lol

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Companies drop programs all the time when they receive bad PR.   Intention and outcome are not always linked. 

agreed, too much liberal wine

4 minutes ago, Notional said:

We do, but your terminology and retorik is simply not correct. A law is the law and stands, whether it's been effectuated through a court case, or not. How it's being effectuated in praxis in the court, that subsequent result is what a precedence is.  And that precedence can change every single time the law is being used in the court.

 

In context to this case, we don't know if, for instance, the EU courts have convicted any companies of similar things, or if they would with the current laws. So everyone in here are only speculating on the outcome of such a law. As a layman, when I'm saying it's anticompetitve, I'm talking from a practical point of view, not necessarily from a legal point of view.

show me how they broke any laws

and I bet many people that dont deal with tech would agree that they should have their own sub brand to separate themselves from the competition

 

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

agreed, too much liberal wine

 

My money's on it being glutten free

[pas008]

Just now, App4that said:

My money's on it being glutten free

remember that glutten free wine on corsairs logo

[Notional]

Just now, pas008 said:

show me how they broke any laws

and I bet many people that dont deal with tech would agree that they should have their own sub brand to separate themselves from the competition

Read my post again please. If you still think that I know the entire EU legal system, plus is a qualified prosecutor AND have the combined knowledge of the EU judges to singlehandedly convict NVidia by myself. Well, then you have a very high opinion of me; thanks

 

But generally the GPP forces third party companies to adopt NVidia's contracts, at the cost of AMD's market share, due to less marketing exposure. Marketing is worth more than the product itself. Otherwise companies wouldn't invest billions on it.