nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

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.

Hmm

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

 

 

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

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

?

[Notional]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

?

Those cases are not comparable. What NVidia was doing, was forcing third party vendors to put AMD in a worse position. The case you are linking, has nothing to do with NVidia at all. It has to do with Gainward going out of spec with the 4850 chip, which was supposed to come with GDDR3 memory, instead of the much faster GDDR5 Gainward put on their cards, thus propelling them into a higher tier of cards than they should. This was certainly against the contracts between ATI/AMD and Gainward back then.

 

No one's allowed to do custom stuff to NVidia's Titan cards either. That has nothing to do with AMD, and isn't anti competitive, at least in that regard.

[Razor01]

17 minutes ago, Notional said:

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.

Hmm

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

 

 

Not by themselves, a law like this, anti competitive based on segmentation of markets due to adverting and branding , a prosecutor (AG) would go to judge and ask them based on a precedent or more than one precedent to show a pattern of behavior to bring up such a case if a law isn't broken.  Once that is done, then a law or possible statute or addition to the anti trust laws will be drafted/added.  And then the company will be formal charged.

 

Now in a lawsuit situation, no law has to be directly broken,  it doesn't even need to be proven either.

 

Its not AMD's need to prove something was done to hurt them.  They just need to show the possibility of being hurt and how it was done in theory.

 

nV must prove they did not do anything to hurt AMD is such ways.  And there is no straight forward way of going about this. Civil cases in general don't have strict guidelines to follow.

 

EU the opposite of that is true, AMD must prove with an abundance of proof.

 

On Intel and Dell, that was easy to prove, and that is why the FTC and EU went after Intel.  Intel broke 3 out of the 4 or something like that, anti trust laws.

 

All the anti trust laws are based on previous precedence on other cases as well.

[pas008]

Just now, Notional said:

Those cases are not comparable. What NVidia was doing, was forcing third party vendors to put AMD in a worse position. The case you are linking, has nothing to do with NVidia at all. It has to do with Gainward going out of spec with the 4850 chip, which was supposed to come with GDDR3 memory, instead of the much faster GDDR5 Gainward put on their cards, thus propelling them into a higher tier of cards than they should. This was certainly against the contracts between ATI/AMD and Gainward back then.

 

No one's allowed to do custom stuff to NVidia's Titan cards either. That has nothing to do with AMD, and isn't anti competitive, at least in that regard.

lol stopping chips and contracts between nvidia and aibs are teh same and both are none of our business

aibs been using different memory forever on models fyi

how was gpp forcing amd in worse position? you mean aibs have to spend some to market their amd products? that isnt anti competitive lol

[Razor01]

9 minutes ago, Notional said:

Those cases are not comparable. What NVidia was doing, was forcing third party vendors to put AMD in a worse position. The case you are linking, has nothing to do with NVidia at all. It has to do with Gainward going out of spec with the 4850 chip, which was supposed to come with GDDR3 memory, instead of the much faster GDDR5 Gainward put on their cards, thus propelling them into a higher tier of cards than they should. This was certainly against the contracts between ATI/AMD and Gainward back then.

 

No one's allowed to do custom stuff to NVidia's Titan cards either. That has nothing to do with AMD, and isn't anti competitive, at least in that regard.

 

Gainward going out of spec with GDDR3 really, the tier 1 AMD partners were allowed to use GDDR5 with that chip, why wasn't Gainward?  That was up to AMD, that had nothing to do with out of spec.

 

not only that there was nothing in the contract about it that is why Gainward did what they did, just that AMD didn't want them to and then hurt them by not supplying them with chips.  That is truly anti competitive behavior, Gainward expected a certain amount of chips and they were producing boards based on that.  They were out of money for that reason.  At the end they had it with AMD and dropped them.

 

For us it didn't matter because Gainward was a small AMD partner.  AMD didn't care either that is why they did that to Gainward.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

lol stopping chips and contracts between nvidia and aibs are teh same and both are none of our business

aibs been using different memory forever on models fyi

how was gpp forcing amd in worse position? you mean aibs have to spend some to market their amd products? that isnt anti competitive lol

How is AMD stopping Gainward/Palit from making NVidia cards or branding them? Did you even read your own sources? You're trying too hard, but just failing too hard.

 

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

EU the opposite of that is true, AMD must prove with an abundance of proof.

Actually, AMD doesn't have to do anything. EU can and will on their own behalf start these court cases. Sure, it helps if a company accused said company, but it's not necessary.

 

But yeah, Nvidia might have broken 20 different laws in the EU. They might have broken 0 (that can be proved). We will only know if EU takes action.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Gainward going out of spec with GDDR3 really, the tier 1 AMD partners were allowed to use GDDR5 with that chip, why wasn't Gainward?  That was up to AMD, that had nothing to do with out of spec.

 

not only that there was nothing in the contract about it that is why Gainward did what they did, just that AMD didn't want them to and then hurt them by not supplying them with chips.

Well if AMD gave certain GPU vendors extra privileges, then yeah, it coud be considered anti competitive towards the other GPU vendors. That, of course, is unacceptable. Do you know what vendors were allowed to use GDDR5?

 

But none of that had any influence on NVidia as such.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

How is AMD stopping Gainward/Palit from making NVidia cards or branding them? Did you even read your own sources? You're trying too hard, but just failing too hard.

 

Actually, AMD doesn't have to do anything. EU can and will on their own behalf start these court cases. Sure, it helps if a company accused said company, but it's not necessary.

 

But yeah, Nvidia might have broken 20 different laws in the EU. They might have broken 0 (that can be proved). We will only know if EU takes action.

EU won't take action unless the FTC will take action, its easier to prove the case here and the info must come out from nV's hands if it goes that far.  Without nV showing their hand its very hard to prove this now if its still on going.  See that is what AMD lost now, by going to the public this ruckus, now GPP might be underground lol.  As I stated, if you give the change for nV to change, its going to be very hard to prove.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

How is AMD stopping Gainward/Palit from making NVidia cards or branding them? Did you even read your own sources? You're trying too hard, but just failing too hard.

 

Actually, AMD doesn't have to do anything. EU can and will on their own behalf start these court cases. Sure, it helps if a company accused said company, but it's not necessary.

 

But yeah, Nvidia might have broken 20 different laws in the EU. They might have broken 0 (that can be proved). We will only know if EU takes action.

how is nvidia stopping amd from selling cards? marketing their own products how they want them to be marketed?

 

please tell me how they are stopping amd from selling cards? or aib from selling cards?

[Yoinkerman]

I also like to lie like a sidewalk

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

Well if AMD gave certain GPU vendors extra privileges, then yeah, it coud be considered anti competitive towards the other GPU vendors. That, of course, is unacceptable. Do you know what vendors were allowed to use GDDR5?

 

But none of that had any influence on NVidia as such.

Sapphire was definitely one of them

 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102901

 

This is normal practice in business.  If you don't get along with your partners and you have a hammer and they have a tin foil hat, hit them over the head till they submit or leave.

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, Notional said:

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.

Hmm

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

 

Whether you like it or not "Anti-competitive" carries a Legal definition in this discussion. To continue to use it without qualifying it as an opinion rather than a legal standing is you clinging to a mistake.  AS I said before:

 

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

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

how is nvidia stopping amd from selling cards? marketing their own products how they want them to be marketed?

 

please tell me how they are stopping amd from selling cards? or aib from selling cards?

By removing AMD from current and well established branding lineups.

[App4that]

 

[Razor01]

Just now, Drak3 said:

By removing AMD from current and well established branding lineups.

 

And that isn't breaking any laws ;).  It doesn't stop their products from coming to market, they just come to market with another name on them.

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

EU won't take action unless the FTC will take action,

Now you're just making up things. EU's fight against Microsoft's Explorer was unique. As was EU's "adjustment slap" in Google's face, when google prioritized their own store links on their own search engine. I have not seen FTC doing anything in that regard.

 

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

how is nvidia stopping amd from selling cards? marketing their own products how they want them to be marketed?

 

please tell me how they are stopping amd from selling cards? or aib from selling cards?

Not stopping, but severely hindering. Marketing matters. So when NVidia dictates that vendors have to invent new branding and create mindshare of that branding, just for AMD, it would cost the vendors a lot of money. It would also usurp the mindshare already created in the existing branding, exclusively for NVidia's benefit (ROG for instance). This would/will have an influence on sales on GPU's with AMD chips on them. That is abuse of market position and creates an unfair market advantage. Companies have been convicted for a lot less than that in the EU.

 

5 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Sapphire was definitely one of them

 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102901

 

This is normal practice in business.  If you don't get along with your partners and you have a hammer and they have a tin foil hat, hit them over the head till they submit or leave.

Yup, I don't like that. But there still is a big difference, in the descrete GPU market is a duopoly, where GPU vendors are closer to perfect competition. I still think it's somwehat anticompetitive between the vendors, but has little influence on the NVidia/AMD marketshare.

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Whether you like it or not "Anti-competitive" carries a Legal definition in this discussion. To continue to use it without qualifying it as an opinion rather than a legal standing is you clinging to a mistake.  AS I said before:

 

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

Dude, this isn't a legally binding court case, it's a tech forum. I'm not obliged to do anything. Everything I say here is my personal opinion, unless stated as factual with sources. You're being pedantic now.

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

And that isn't breaking any laws ;).  It doesn't stop their products from coming to market, they just come to market with another name on them.

Well, the point is, you don't know that. Any laws? So you know all laws? In all countries? On the entire earth? 

[Drak3]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

And that isn't breaking any laws ;).  It doesn't stop their products from coming to market, they just come to market with another name on them.

Given the use of supply manipulation, it qualifies as corporate level extortion.

 

And currently breaking laws doesn't change whether or not something is anti-competitive, it just signals the need for refinement in the laws.

[Razor01]

10 minutes ago, Notional said:

Now you're just making up things. EU's fight against Microsoft's Explorer was unique. As was EU's "adjustment slap" in Google's face, when google prioritized their own store links on their own search engine. I have not seen FTC doing anything in that regard.

 

Not stopping, but severely hindering. Marketing matters. So when NVidia dictates that vendors have to invent new branding and create mindshare of that branding, just for AMD, it would cost the vendors a lot of money. It would also usurp the mindshare already created in the existing branding, exclusively for NVidia's benefit (ROG for instance). This would/will have an influence on sales on GPU's with AMD chips on them. That is abuse of market position and creates an unfair market advantage. Companies have been convicted for a lot less than that in the EU.

 

Yup, I don't like that. But there still is a big difference, in the descrete GPU market is a duopoly, where GPU vendors are closer to perfect competition. I still think it's somwehat anticompetitive between the vendors, but has little influence on the NVidia/AMD marketshare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

 

You were saying?

 

It wasn't unique to the EU

 

Google search algo problems with EU wasn't unique either

 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/statement-commission-regarding-googles-search-practices/130103brillgooglesearchstmt.pdf

 

Quote

The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales (for at the time web browsers were not freeware, but payware). The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows

 

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Given the use of supply manipulation, it qualifies as corporate level extortion.

 

And currently breaking laws doesn't change whether or not something is anti-competitive, it just signals the need for refinement in the laws.

 

How is that supply manipulation?

 

Is nV directly telling AIB's not to get a certain supply from AMD for their graphics boards?

 

Or are you saying nV will manipulate supply to their partners?

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Now you're just making up things. EU's fight against Microsoft's Explorer was unique. As was EU's "adjustment slap" in Google's face, when google prioritized their own store links on their own search engine. I have not seen FTC doing anything in that regard.

 

Not stopping, but severely hindering. Marketing matters. So when NVidia dictates that vendors have to invent new branding and create mindshare of that branding, just for AMD, it would cost the vendors a lot of money. It would also usurp the mindshare already created in the existing branding, exclusively for NVidia's benefit (ROG for instance). This would/will have an influence on sales on GPU's with AMD chips on them. That is abuse of market position and creates an unfair market advantage. Companies have been convicted for a lot less than that in the EU.

 

Yup, I don't like that. But there still is a big difference, in the descrete GPU market is a duopoly, where GPU vendors are closer to perfect competition. I still think it's somwehat anticompetitive between the vendors, but has little influence on the NVidia/AMD marketshare.

this brand marketing isnt anti consumer or anti competitive

nvidia in their own right deserves their own branding period. name anything that gives same branding to a competitor that isnt generic lol

but these arent aibs cards to do so with lol already established that any aib can be dropped anytime like palit/gainward

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

By removing AMD from current and well established branding lineups.

see above

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Given the use of supply manipulation, it qualifies as corporate level extortion.

 

And currently breaking laws doesn't change whether or not something is anti-competitive, it just signals the need for refinement in the laws.

did you see the palit/gainward with amd links I put up ?

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Given the use of supply manipulation, it qualifies as corporate level extortion.

 

And currently breaking laws doesn't change whether or not something is anti-competitive, it just signals the need for refinement in the laws.

No. Just no. If they only want to let partners that give Nvidia different branding the latest architecture avalible, that's within their right as a company. You can't force a company to sell something. 

[Notional]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

 

You were saying?

 

It wasn't unique to the EU

In the Microsoft case, no. But I've yet to see the US vs. Google on the store thing. But several huge markets putting international companies in their place, is a good thing. For both FTC and EU to come to the same conclusion on something is great. Your initial statement has been debunked though.

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

this brand marketing isnt anti consumer or anti competitive

nvidia in their own right deserves their own branding period. name anything that gives same branding to a competitor that isnt generic lol

but these arent aibs cards to do so with lol already established that any aib can be dropped anytime like palit/gainward

see above

It's NOT Nvidia's branding, no matter how many times you state that nonsense. ROG is Asus' branding, and is owned exclusively by Asus, NOT NVidia. Your statement is incorrect and senseless.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

How is that supply manipulation?

One of the known details of GPP is that those that sign receive priority in supply.

 

Or written as explicitly as possible, for the stupid:

 

Those that don't sign will be sold fewer chips due to not submitting to Nvidia's whim.

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

did you see the palit/gainward with amd links I put up ?

Yes. It means jack shit. That is AMD/ATI dealing with an OEM breaking contract and manufacturing their final product outside of a prior agreed upon spec. It did not affect Nvidia in any form.

 

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

nvidia in their own right deserves their own branding period.

Nvidia deserves nothing.

 

Nvidia attempted to violate the right of manufacturers by way of extortion.