nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[App4that]

Just now, pas008 said:

remember that glutten free wine on corsairs logo

See? That's where Nvidia fucked up. Should have said the GPP was cruelty free. Make the GPP great again. 

[pas008]

Just now, Notional said:

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.

fyi all we know was nvidia brand exclusively for nvidia

but losing market share and aligning marketing shit isnt anti competitive period

[WMGroomAK]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

See? That's where Nvidia fucked up. Should have said the GPP was cruelty free. Make the GPP great again. 

They only use the best free range AIBs in their products?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

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.

It's like your saying you don't have the knowledge to claim they are doing something illegal,  but are basically saying at the same time they are doing something illegal. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

See? That's where Nvidia fucked up. Should have said the GPP was cruelty free. Make the GPP great again. 

Nope, gluten free was definitely the way to go.  No one wants Anal cancer of the 1080.

[Notional]

Just now, pas008 said:

fyi all we know was nvidia brand exclusively for nvidia

but losing market share and aligning marketing shit isnt anti competitive period

Nah, we know NVidia coopted the primary gaming brand for exclusive use at third party vendors. It wouldn't surprise me if that cooption demand is illegal in and of itself (remember the vendor would be heavily disadvantaged, if they refused). Coopting marketing would disadvantage AMD heavily. Such a thing is just what EU generally beat the crap out of the tech companies for.

 

Well, that is your subjective opinion. It is not based on fact, nor law.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

It's like your saying you don't have the knowledge to claim they are doing something illegal,  but are basically saying at the same time they are doing something illegal. 

It's only illegal if you get convicted in the eyes of the law, right? 

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Nah, we know NVidia coopted the primary gaming brand for exclusive use at third party vendors. It wouldn't surprise me if that cooption demand is illegal in and of itself (remember the vendor would be heavily disadvantaged, if they refused). Coopting marketing would disadvantage AMD heavily. Such a thing is just what EU generally beat the crap out of the tech companies for.

 

Well, that is your subjective opinion. It is not based on fact, nor law.

and so is yours

but I look at apple's cases and how they just outright took branding and logos away from many companies that existed throughout the years

[Notional]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

and so is yours

but I look at apple's cases and how they just outright took branding and logos away from many companies that existed throughout the years

Asked and answered already:

20 minutes ago, Notional said:

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.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

It's only illegal if you get convicted in the eyes of the law, right? 

There is a difference between claiming something is illegal (based on whatever perceptions and experiences you have) and knowing something is illegal based on actual evidence.    There is no evidence they have broken the law. Regardless of whether it makes it to court or not, claiming they absolutely have is as assumptive as claiming they absolutely haven't. 

 

You need to decide if you are agnostic and sit with the evidence or wish to get in a corner and defend absolute claims.

[Razor01]

27 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.

 

 

Ok take this as an example, RICO, there are 35 precedents that created that statute lol.

 

So you are telling me precedence doesn't create laws?

 

You are confusing what I'm saying.  The laws are created by the executive branch, based on previous precedence created by the judicial branch.

 

They don't just make laws out of thin air and take them to court lol.

 

Doesn't work that way, because of there is no basis for the court to judge on, kinda defeats the purpose of even going to court.  It would be something impossible to win.

 

So either nV broke a law or they didn't simple as that.  If they broke a law anywhere doesn't need to be in the anti trust documentation, show me where.

 

Its not anti competitive, its anti competitor though.

 

It is stopping the ability for AMD from marketing their cards with the same branding as nV cards.  Which was what nV wanted right from the start.  They even stated that.  And I think many of us even stated the same thing.

 

 

[Mihle]

I am thinking this was Nvidia plan from the get go.

Make AIBs to make new brand and then pull it afterwards to limit the negative reactions.

[WMGroomAK]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

The laws are created by the executive branch, based on previous precedence created by the judicial branch

I think you mean legislative branch...  The executive branch is more in line with administering the laws that are passed and the judicial branch interprets those laws.  Thing is, the executive branch can propose new laws to the legislative branch to pass, however, the legislative branch can rewrite what is proposed and so long as there is a veto proof majority approval from the legislators, the law is passed as the legislators write it.

[Razor01]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is a difference between claiming something is illegal (based on whatever perceptions and experiences you have) and knowing something is illegal based on actual evidence.    There is no evidence they have broken the law. Regardless of whether it makes it to court or not, claiming they absolutely have is as assumptive as claiming they absolutely haven't. 

 

You need to decide if you are agnostic and sit with the evidence or wish to get in a corner and defend absolute claims.

 

This is why AMD went to the press, because well it just confuses the shit out of everything.  In the court of public opinion there needs to be no proof, they can pretty much say anything they want to and get a way it as long as they don't make an direct allegations.

[Razor01]

Just now, WMGroomAK said:

I think you mean legislative branch...  The executive branch is more in line with administering the laws that are passed and the judicial branch interprets those laws.  Thing is, the executive branch can propose new laws to the legislative branch to pass, however, the legislative branch can rewrite what is proposed and so long as there is a veto proof majority approval from the legislators, the law is passed as the legislators write it.

 

 

Sorry yeah

 

That is correct!

[Notional]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is a difference between claiming something is illegal (based on whatever perceptions and experiences you have) and knowing something is illegal based on actual evidence.    There is no evidence they have broken the law. Regardless of whether it makes it to court or not, claiming they absolutely have is as assumptive as claiming they absolutely haven't. 

 

You need to decide if you are agnostic and sit with the evidence or wish to get in a corner and defend absolute claims.

There's a big difference between actuality/praxis and the actual law. Stating that something is anticompetitive in praxis, doesn't mean it's necessarily against the law. I don't speak as a lawyer (again, we are talking internationally, so that's practically impossible due to different national and supernational legislation). No, I speak as a layman in law, but educated in business. In praxis the GPP skews competition just as much as Intel's bribes on Dell back in the days. The way NVidia did it is different, to the point where it might be legal. We won't know until (if) a court has ruled for or against.

 

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Ok take this as an example, RICO, there are 35 precedents that created that statute lol.

 

So you are telling me precedence doesn't create laws?

 

You are confusing what I'm saying.  The laws are created by the executive branch, based on previous precedence created by the judicial branch.

 

They don't just make laws out of thin air and take them to court lol.

 

Doesn't work that way, because of there is no basis for the court to judge on, kinda defeats the purpose of even going to court.  It would be something impossible to win.

 

So either nV broke a law or they didn't simple as that.  If they broke a law anywhere doesn't need to be in the anti trust documentation, show me where.

Your definition/understanding of precedent is still incorrect. Precedents does not make law. It defines how a law is used in praxis. That can be used as a basis to make additional law, sure. But precedent does not make or create law in and of itself. You are mistaken.

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, Mihle said:

I am thinking this was Nvidia plan from the get go.

Make AIBs to make new brand and then pull it afterwards to limit the negative reactions.

I think their goal was to showcase aib (nvidia calls them aic http://www.nvidia.com/object/support_aic.html) and possibly release other models at same time as reference with cross communication between partners and nvidia of what they did to make the overall product better (cooling/clocking)

along with branding of course imho competing products shouldnt have same sub brand at all

 

[WMGroomAK]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Sorry yeah

 

That is correct!

Of course, even that brief explanation is still probably an over simplification of the complexities of the governmental legal system...

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Notional said:

There's a big difference between actuality/praxis and the actual law. Stating that something is anticompetitive in praxis, doesn't mean it's necessarily against the law. I don't speak as a lawyer (again, we are talking internationally, so that's practically impossible due to different national and supernational legislation). No, I speak as a layman in law, but educated in business. In praxis the GPP skews competition just as much as Intel's bribes on Dell back in the days. The way NVidia did it is different, to the point where it might be legal. We won't know until (if) a court has ruled for or against.

 

Your definition/understanding of precedent is still incorrect. Precedents does not make law. It defines how a law is used in praxis. That can be used as a basis to make additional law, sure. But precedent does not make or create law in and of itself. You are mistaken.

Anti competitive in the vvery context of this discussion/topic is against the law, if you claim they are being anti competitive then you are claiming they have broken the law.  You can try splitting hairs, but the reality is you are now trying to argue pragmatics where before it was cut and dried.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

There's a big difference between actuality/praxis and the actual law. Stating that something is anticompetitive in praxis, doesn't mean it's necessarily against the law. I don't speak as a lawyer (again, we are talking internationally, so that's practically impossible due to different national and supernational legislation). No, I speak as a layman in law, but educated in business. In praxis the GPP skews competition just as much as Intel's bribes on Dell back in the days. The way NVidia did it is different, to the point where it might be legal. We won't know until (if) a court has ruled for or against.

 

Your definition/understanding of precedent is still incorrect. Precedents does not make law. It defines how a law is used in praxis. That can be used as a basis to make additional law, sure. But precedent does not make or create law in and of itself. You are mistaken.

 

 

No I never stated precedents make laws by themselves

 

if it was taken that way, my apologies, that was not my intent.

 

yeah just use things like crappy or slimy lol instead of anti competitive, cause I'm already thinking legal stuff when I hear that.

 

 

[pas008]

so amd was anticompetitive with gainward/palit?

have a read but then again just as much hearsay as kyles shit article

http://vrworld.com/2009/05/27/gainward-and-palit-blast-amd-for-their-gpu-product-policy/

or here https://www.tweaktown.com/news/12300/gainward_and_palit_angry_at_amd/index.html

 

oh and wait amd telling them what to do with amds product and result was no chips hmmm, along with naming

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

No I never stated precedents make laws by themselves

 

if it was taken that way, my apologies, that was not my intent.

 

yeah just use things like crappy or slimy lol instead of anti competitive, cause I'm already thinking legal stuff when I hear that.

 

 

If it helps I took you as saying precedents make laws. Probably on me though. 

[Razor01]

sorry that was my mistake then, I should have been more clear

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

yeah just use things like crappy or slimy lol instead of anti competitive, cause I'm already thinking legal stuff when I hear that.

 

 

In the context of this discussion it is about being legal/illegal.  It has a very legal definition and is mostly used in a legal sense.  The very first time GPP hit the forums the number of posts talking specifically about it being illegal because it was anti consumer was huge.   Semantics exist for a reason, fighting against common usage is futile.

[Notional]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Anti competitive in the vvery context of this discussion/topic is against the law, if you claim they are being anti competitive then you are claiming they have broken the law.  You can try splitting hairs, but the reality is you are now trying to argue pragmatics where before it was cut and dried.

Oh, but I do believe it's anticompetitive. But requiring me to prove it, when I'm not a lawyer, don't know what country of law we are speaking, have no access to the actual legal documents, and I'm not a judge, is simply not very serious. Intel's Dell deal was anitcompetitive in praxis, even if Intel would never be convicted of anticompetitive measures. I'm expressing myself on behalf of reality, not on behalf of de jure.

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

No I never stated precedents make laws by themselves

 

if it was taken that way, my apologies, that was not my intent.

 

yeah just use things like crappy or slimy lol instead of anti competitive, cause I'm already thinking legal stuff when I hear that.

Hmm

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

No, Precedent creates the Law

Anyways, yeah, scummy is a very useful term when it comes to GPP.

 

[TechyBen]

YES!

 

/nothing more need be said.