AMD GPU might get their own gaming brand under GPP

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, zzrhardy said:

That is my understanding of the word "exclusively" but I am not a smart man.

The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There's no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program.

 

having a manufacturers subbranding name solely tied to their product is what I read

[Uzume]

Just now, pas008 said:

The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There's no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program.

 

Your being deliberately obtuse now.

 

The entire point of GPP is to give Nvidia exclusive access to gaming brands by making the AIB's an offer they can't refuse. Yes, AIBs can ignore it and be sent to Nvidia chip procurement purgatory. 

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, zzrhardy said:

 

Your being deliberately obtuse now.

 

The entire point of GPP is to give Nvidia exclusive access to gaming brands by making the AIB's an offer they can't refuse. Yes, AIBs can ignore it and be sent to Nvidia chip procurement purgatory. 

lol obtuse?

gaming brand aligned only for geforce is being obtuse?

this should have been long time ago

remember they are manufacturers that nvidia allows to make their final product

did you get pissed when akg outsourced to china too?

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

did you get pissed when akg outsourced to china too?

When premium brands start bending to the masses and start making low tier products then yes I actually do, not that I've brought anything from AKG recently but I'm a huge self confessed audio snob so moves like that actually do damage my perception and trust in the brand and makes me less likely to recommend their products.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

When premium brands start bending to the masses and start making low tier products then yes I actually do, not that I've brought anything from AKG recently but I'm a huge self confessed audio snob so moves like that actually do damage my perception and trust in the brand and makes me less likely to recommend their products.

own both q701s

please tell me what I am  suppose to be missing

am I suppose to be mad about made in austria label?

product quality control is whole different story

cough razer

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, pas008 said:

own both q701s

please tell me what I am  suppose to be missing

am I suppose to be mad about made in austria label?

product quality control is whole different story

cough razer

Nothing, it's purely a trust thing and why I start using a brand in the first place. Outsourcing no matter how well done is counter to why I would buy an AKG product. I've used AKG products other than headphones, in fact I've used very few of their headphones. If it's not made by AKG themselves through their existing and established manufacturing process then I'm not buying it no matter how good it is, I pay more for AKG just like I would for Sennheiser or Shure or Rode or any other brand I trust but not for an outsourced company.

 

As to bring it back to topic it's always been a brand trust thing, for all the hate that Nvidia gets they have done very few things to warrant that from customers however the accusations of what is or was in GPP is the first thing I can point to and say that is something that damages my trust in their brand. Not even GameWorks does that to me, I might not like the end result of it for a lot of games but it's completely fair for Nvidia to offer it and help developers just like it would be equally fair for AMD to do the same thing so all games are equally optimized and balanced for both architectures.

Edited April 1, 2018 by leadeater

[Trixanity]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is a surprise to nobody who actually looked into GPP even slightly (as in, read more than just the headlines).

 

 

[Citation Needed]

I have not seen any evidence that Nvidia are demanding that their partners are removed from existing brands. From what I know, Nvidia has only demanded that Nvidia products are not carried under the same brand as their competitors. That could have been achieved by creating new brands for Nvidia products and kept AMD products under the existing ones. It seems like manufacturers would rather give the existing brands to Nvidia though, but that seems to be a decision made by them and not Nvidia.

Oh please. I'm not sure why I'm even replying to this but you obviously didn't read the entire post. The last paragraph specifically stated we don't know the details in full hence no citation needed nor does it exist.

 

Also, please don't be naive. Just because "but they could just totally do this very horrible idea of cutting ties to existing branding and play fair despite being the dominant player in the market". There is a good reason to do this to begin with and you'd diminish the effect if you started a new brand to achieve it. Nvidia's brand isn't hurt by coexisting with AMD but AMD's brand is hurt considering the position it is in and having to build a new brand. This is a calculated move yet you act as if the timing is a coincidence. By the time consumers can buy cards again suddenly the only ROG or Gaming X cards they can buy are Nvidia. That's why Nvidia put the pressure on partners. They need Nvidia; Nvidia doesn't really need them. Would you piss off the supplier of 80% of the product you sell or will you piss off the other guy? Naturally you say "okay boss".

 

Ok, so they make up some new branding for AMD but can they advertise it as being for gaming? Can AMD cards ship in a ROG laptop? Seems like the answer is either a no or a maybe with a big asterisk. 

 

Maybe I should restate that neither of us know the answer. We can make assumptions but if we can't make assumptions (if that's your point) then this forum is about to be devoid of content. I'll repeat we don't know the full details because it's kept quiet nor do we yet know the full ramifications (for obvious reasons).

 

I'm only responding to you because you usually bring something well thought out to the table so I was surprised to see this. At least you're not ranting about law and ethics up and down every page I guess.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Oh please. I'm not sure why I'm even replying to this but you obviously didn't read the entire post. The last paragraph specifically stated we don't know the details in full hence no citation needed nor does it exist.

Ehm, you might want to read your post again. That last paragraph you're referring to does not exist. Here is your post that I responded to in entirety:

19 hours ago, Trixanity said:

You've kinda flipped it. If the program is at it appears, Nvidia is dictating that their partners' branding can only remain with Nvidia products. Nvidia isn't changing their own branding. It wouldn't be an issue either if Nvidia requested their partners come up with new branding for Nvidia products. The issue is they demand partners remove competition from existing branding. They do so from a dominant position; that makes it worse. 

 

Nvidia is welcome to change their own products but they can't interfere with their competitor's. However that's exactly what they're doing. I think that's a pretty concise description of the problem.

 

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Also, please don't be naive. Just because "but they could just totally do this very horrible idea of cutting ties to existing branding and play fair despite being the dominant player in the market". There is a good reason to do this to begin with and you'd diminish the effect if you started a new brand to achieve it. Nvidia's brand isn't hurt by coexisting with AMD but AMD's brand is hurt considering the position it is in and having to build a new brand. This is a calculated move yet you act as if the timing is a coincidence. By the time consumers can buy cards again suddenly the only ROG or Gaming X cards they can buy are Nvidia. That's why Nvidia put the pressure on partners. They need Nvidia; Nvidia doesn't really need them. Would you piss off the supplier of 80% of the product you sell or will you piss off the other guy? Naturally you say "okay boss".

I am not naive. I am just saying that your statement seems to be false and there is no evidence to support it.

You yourself said that it wouldn't be an issue if Nvidia requested partners to create a new brand for their products, but you have an issue with GPP because they demand AMD to be removed from existing brands.

Everything I have seen points towards Nvidia being completely hands off with how the existing and new brands gets allocated. That they are NOT forcing partners to remove AMD products from existing brands. Telling partners "we want a brand exclusive to Nvidia products" and then letting the partners decide how to manage that makes far more sense from a legal perspective.

 

What you are saying is happening = "Nvidia told partners to remove AMD products from existing brands".

What I am saying is most likely happening = "Nvidia told partners they want a brand exclusive to Nvidia products, and OEMs themselves chose to hand their existing brands to Nvidia".

 

The outcome is the same, but both from a legal and ethical point of view it makes a massive difference.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Ok, so they make up some new branding for AMD but can they advertise it as being for gaming? Can AMD cards ship in a ROG laptop? Seems like the answer is either a no or a maybe with a big asterisk. 

The way I see it, and the way it would make sense legally speaking, the answers are:

Can a new branding for AMD be advertised as being for gaming - I don't see why it wouldn't. Even the citation with no context from HardOCP doesn't specify that all gaming branded products has to be Nvidia-only. That idea is completely grabbed out of thin air.

 

Can AMD card ship in a ROG laptop - I think that will depend on whether or not an Nvidia product is in the laptop as well. I'll get to this at the end of the post.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Maybe I should restate that neither of us know the answer. We can make assumptions but if we can't make assumptions (if that's your point) then this forum is about to be devoid of content. I'll repeat we don't know the full details because it's kept quiet nor do we yet know the full ramifications (for obvious reasons).

I have no problem with people making assumptions, as long as they make it clear that they are making assumptions, and that the assumptions are somewhat logically sounding. Not all assumptions are equal.

 

 

At the end of the day, I think you and I have completely different assumptions of why GPP exists.

You seem to believe it exists because Nvidia wants to harm AMD. They do a hostile takeover of brands so that AMD gets less exposure.

 

I believe it exists because Nvidia wants to simplify their marketing efforts. Right now, if Nvidia does a campaign endorsing ROG, then they are inadvertently endorsing all ROG products, including those that might not have anything to do with Nvidia. By forcing all products under a brand like ROG to have Nvidia products in them, they do not have to worry about such things happening. They can easily make a big campaign for ROG and have peace of mind that only their products gets exposure. Instead of doing PR for a specific product, they can focus more on the brands and boost sales of other Nvidia products as well.

That's why I think AMD products can be in ROG laptops for example. I don't think Nvidia cares whether or not the CPU is from AMD or Intel, as long as the GPU is from Nvidia. I mean, Nvidia will have shot themselves in the foot if they don't want any parts from any other company inside let's say a ROG laptop. It will be hard to find a "gaming CPU" from Nvidia to use in the ROG laptop.

[Razor01]

6 hours ago, zzrhardy said:

Reading that was what gave me that impression in the first place. Specifically the stipulation of: "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." 

 

We don't know what that means because Gaming Brand might have an annotated definition which Kyle didn't get into in his article but muttered something that gave it a totally different meaning in the Full Nerd video

 

6 hours ago, zzrhardy said:

That is my understanding of the word "exclusively" but I am not a smart man.

You don't twist things around to fit what you think is happening without knowing the full context of contract.  Just like what Kyle did, taking a part of the contract out of context without the definitions of what is annotated he would have read the contract wrong.

 

If the AIB's are making new gaming brands for AMD cards, then he read the contract way wrong!  And this will put his article as libelous.

[Razor01]

double post please delete.

 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

If the AIB's are making new gaming brands for AMD cards, then he read the contract way wrong!

Why would AMD be specifically mentioned in a Nvidia contract? It's not like Nvidia can actually put such a thing in one of their contracts because it would hold about as much weight as wet paper. They can put in a requirement towards branding of the own products there by forcing a re-brand of their products or AMD's but the actual wording itself will make no mention of AMD.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why would AMD be specifically mentioned in a Nvidia contract? It's not like Nvidia can actually put such a thing in one of their contracts because it would hold about as much weight as wet paper. They can put in a requirement towards branding of the own products there by forcing a re-brand of their products or AMD's but the actual wording itself will make no mention of AMD.

I think the only way it makes sense is for it to be the way you say. That the requirement is that Nvidia's products are under their own branding. Then it is up to the manufacturers to decide if they accomplish this by either kicking AMD from the existing brands, or creating new brands for Nvidia products. Some people think the contract says that manufacturers has to kick AMD out of their existing brands though, and that idea seems to come from the HardOCP article which is clearly citing half a sentence.

[Razor01]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why would AMD be specifically mentioned in a Nvidia contract? It's not like Nvidia can actually put such a thing in one of their contracts because it would hold about as much weight as wet paper. They can put in a requirement towards branding of the own products there by forcing a re-brand of their products or AMD's but the actual wording itself will make no mention of AMD.

AMD wasn't mentioned in the contract not that I'm aware of. 

 

AIB's are making new gaming brands in the new "rumor" leak in the news

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Ehm, you might want to read your post again. That last paragraph you're referring to does not exist. Here is your post that I responded to in entirety:

 

 

I am not naive. I am just saying that your statement seems to be false and there is no evidence to support it.

You yourself said that it wouldn't be an issue if Nvidia requested partners to create a new brand for their products, but you have an issue with GPP because they demand AMD to be removed from existing brands.

Everything I have seen points towards Nvidia being completely hands off with how the existing and new brands gets allocated. That they are NOT forcing partners to remove AMD products from existing brands. Telling partners "we want a brand exclusive to Nvidia products" and then letting the partners decide how to manage that makes far more sense from a legal perspective.

 

What you are saying is happening = "Nvidia told partners to remove AMD products from existing brands".

What I am saying is most likely happening = "Nvidia told partners they want a brand exclusive to Nvidia products, and OEMs themselves chose to hand their existing brands to Nvidia".

 

The outcome is the same, but both from a legal and ethical point of view it makes a massive difference.

 

The way I see it, and the way it would make sense legally speaking, the answers are:

Can a new branding for AMD be advertised as being for gaming - I don't see why it wouldn't. Even the citation with no context from HardOCP doesn't specify that all gaming branded products has to be Nvidia-only. That idea is completely grabbed out of thin air.

 

Can AMD card ship in a ROG laptop - I think that will depend on whether or not an Nvidia product is in the laptop as well. I'll get to this at the end of the post.

 

 

 

I have no problem with people making assumptions, as long as they make it clear that they are making assumptions, and that the assumptions are somewhat logically sounding. Not all assumptions are equal.

 

 

At the end of the day, I think you and I have completely different assumptions of why GPP exists.

You seem to believe it exists because Nvidia wants to harm AMD. They do a hostile takeover of brands so that AMD gets less exposure.

 

I believe it exists because Nvidia wants to simplify their marketing efforts. Right now, if Nvidia does a campaign endorsing ROG, then they are inadvertently endorsing all ROG products, including those that might not have anything to do with Nvidia. By forcing all products under a brand like ROG to have Nvidia products in them, they do not have to worry about such things happening. They can easily make a big campaign for ROG and have peace of mind that only their products gets exposure. Instead of doing PR for a specific product, they can focus more on the brands and boost sales of other Nvidia products as well.

That's why I think AMD products can be in ROG laptops for example. I don't think Nvidia cares whether or not the CPU is from AMD or Intel, as long as the GPU is from Nvidia. I mean, Nvidia will have shot themselves in the foot if they don't want any parts from any other company inside let's say a ROG laptop. It will be hard to find a "gaming CPU" from Nvidia to use in the ROG laptop.

The fact remains that this would be simple to refute from Nvidia if they responded. Yet they remain quiet.

 

You're speaking from a contractual standpoint. Nvidia would put themselves neck deep in shit if they actually made other companies sign something that barred competition. That's why I'm saying it's more of an implication than an explicit demand. You speak as if it's completely unintentional that what's happening is actually happening. As if it's an unfortunate side effect. I'm saying it's very intentional. Nvidia has the upper hand and it's the more important customer. So being asked for brand separation would obviously lead to AMD getting the short end of the stick. AMD has had a particularly bad roadmap for GPUs for years now. I, as a consumer, do not wish for the final death blow to come now during a GPU shortage through shady means. The timing is too good to be Nvidia just having thought "why not branch out our branding now". It'll leave AMD stranded when supply improves in the coming month. But I've already touched upon this so let's not go in circles.

 

It doesn't really simplify marketing all that much. It does in some aspects as they don't need to specify either specific SKUs or refer to ROG GeForce cards specifically but can now just say buy ROG because it'll be pure Nvidia. It's however not rocket science and has worked for like a decade so far. I mean I'm sure Nvidia will spin it as being coincidental and a desire to streamline marketing but Nvidia isn't known to be neither innocent or ignorant.

 

But let's just leave it at that. We don't see eye to eye on this. I'm very pro consumer and this is horrible for consumers no matter how you or Nvidia twist it. There is no upside to it. 

[Razor01]

29 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

The fact remains that this would be simple to refute from Nvidia if they responded. Yet they remain quiet.

 

You're speaking from a contractual standpoint. Nvidia would put themselves neck deep in shit if they actually made other companies sign something that barred competition. That's why I'm saying it's more of an implication than an explicit demand. You speak as if it's completely unintentional that what's happening is actually happening. As if it's an unfortunate side effect. I'm saying it's very intentional. Nvidia has the upper hand and it's the more important customer. So being asked for brand separation would obviously lead to AMD getting the short end of the stick. AMD has had a particularly bad roadmap for GPUs for years now. I, as a consumer, do not wish for the final death blow to come now during a GPU shortage through shady means. The timing is too good to be Nvidia just having thought "why not branch out our branding now". It'll leave AMD stranded when supply improves in the coming month. But I've already touched upon this so let's not go in circles.

 

It doesn't really simplify marketing all that much. It does in some aspects as they don't need to specify either specific SKUs or refer to ROG GeForce cards specifically but can now just say buy ROG because it'll be pure Nvidia. It's however not rocket science and has worked for like a decade so far. I mean I'm sure Nvidia will spin it as being coincidental and a desire to streamline marketing but Nvidia isn't known to be neither innocent or ignorant.

 

But let's just leave it at that. We don't see eye to eye on this. I'm very pro consumer and this is horrible for consumers no matter how you or Nvidia twist it. There is no upside to it. 

 

 

I suggest you view the Full Nerd Interview of Kyle

 

he reads out the sentence " GPP agrees ship GTX exclusively on AGREED gaming brand"  @ 12 minute market

 

It did not need to be their main brand.  But since nV has 70% + market why wouldn't AIB's give them the main brand and make a new brand for AMD?

 

Wouldn't it be foolish for AIB's and OEM's to have the potential to get hurt by 70% loss vs a 30% loss?  (less than that but total % wise that 70% will show more of a hit)

[LAwLz]

25 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

The fact remains that this would be simple to refute from Nvidia if they responded. Yet they remain quiet.

The absence of a response does not imply that it is true.

 

26 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

You're speaking from a contractual standpoint. Nvidia would put themselves neck deep in shit if they actually made other companies sign something that barred competition. That's why I'm saying it's more of an implication than an explicit demand.

I think you should have said that in your post then, because as it is written right now you are saying something very different (that Nvidia has in the contract that AMD are not allowed access to existing brands, and you would be OK with GPP if it was Nvidia got new brands and AMD kept the old).

 

27 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Nvidia has the upper hand and it's the more important customer. So being asked for brand separation would obviously lead to AMD getting the short end of the stick.

Absolutely agree with you there.  Never said the opposite.

 

28 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

It doesn't really simplify marketing all that much. It does in some aspects as they don't need to specify either specific SKUs or refer to ROG GeForce cards specifically but can now just say buy ROG because it'll be pure Nvidia. It's however not rocket science and has worked for like a decade so far. I mean I'm sure Nvidia will spin it as being coincidental and a desire to streamline marketing but Nvidia isn't known to be neither innocent or ignorant.

First you say it doesn't simply marketing, then you go on to explain why it does... Make your mind up.

 

29 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

But let's just leave it at that. We don't see eye to eye on this. I'm very pro consumer and this is horrible for consumers no matter how you or Nvidia twist it. There is no upside to it. 

I am pro consumer too. I don't think GPP is a good thing. The difference is that I want people to fully understand what is going on, so that they can understand why it is bad on their own. I don't think exaggerations and deceit are a good way to make people join your side, even if it is the correct side.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

AMD wasn't mentioned in the contract not that I'm aware of. 

 

AIB's are making new gaming brands in the new "rumor" leak in the news

I know but you were talking about Kyle and his interpretation of the GPP contract he claims to have and bring up AIBs re-branding AMD cards. It's the relationship and timing of these different factors is what I was really pointing out.

 

Speaking in terms of pre this news story:

 

As far as we know there has been no AMD contractual changes with AIBs but there is this rumored GPP so an AMD triggered re-brand is not part of the equation. So not only is AMD not going to be mentioned in an Nvidia contract it's not possible to misinterpret any of this as an AMD re-brand on both accounts. 

 

Even if AMD was pushing through re-branding why would that make it through to the GPP terms, it would be a redundant clause because if either company does it the net effect is equivalent for both however only one has to go through the expense of actually doing the re-branding.

 

Speaking in terms post this news story:

 

So lets not forget GPP as far as we know came first, it has the contractual requirement of dedicated branding which then inherently requires some one to re-brand so it comes as no surprise that a short while later one of these companies has announced re-branding is happening.

 

No matter which way you spin it though or in which order things happened if there is a requirement in the GPP to align AIBs gaming brands exclusively with Nvidia then that is not an acceptable term in my opinion.

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I know but you were talking about Kyle and his interpretation of the GPP contract he claims to have and bring up AIBs re-branding AMD cards. It's the relationship and timing of these different factors is what I was really pointing out.

 

Speaking in terms of pre this news story:

 

As far as we know there has been no AMD contractual changes with AIBs but there is this rumored GPP so an AMD triggered re-brand is not part of the equation. So not only is AMD not going to be mentioned in an Nvidia contract it's not possible to misinterpret any of this as an AMD re-brand on both accounts. 

 

Even if AMD was pushing through re-branding why would that make it through to the GPP terms, it would be a redundant clause because if either company does it the net effect is equivalent for both however only one has to go through the expense of actually doing the re-branding.

 

Speaking in terms post this news story:

 

So lets not forget GPP as far as we know came first, it has the contractual requirement of dedicated branding which then inherently requires some one to re-brand so it comes as no surprise that a short while later one of these companies has announced re-branding is happening.

 

No matter which way you spin it though or in which order things happened if there is a requirement in the GPP to align AIBs gaming brands exclusively with Nvidia then that is not an acceptable term in my opinion.

I suggest you view the Full Nerd Interview of Kyle

 

he reads out the sentence " GPP agrees ship GTX exclusively on AGREED gaming brand"  @ 12 minute market

 

 

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, zzrhardy said:

I thought the entire point of GPP was to lock away all "gaming" branding from AMD and make it Nvidia exclusive. Ie, doesn't matter if they call it "ROG Strix Aurous Gaming+" or create a new "My Little Radeon Gaming" brand. If they put the word "gaming" on an RTG product then they get sent to Nvidia's gulag in Siberia.

The original writing we got, it was. Looks like Nvidia backtracked slightly to (try to) avoid legal and appease the idiots that don't understand the power of branding.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

The original writing we got, it was. Looks like Nvidia backtracked slightly to (try to) avoid legal and appease the idiots that don't understand the power of branding.

 

 

Nah it was right there in the contract as stated above, the Brand that will be exclusive to nV must be agreed upon by the AIB, so it didn't need to be the main gaming brand.

[DildorTheDecent]

As long as Ruby makes a return <3

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I suggest you view the Full Nerd Interview of Kyle

 

he reads out the sentence " GPP agrees ship GTX exclusively on AGREED gaming brand"  @ 12 minute market

 

It did not need to be their main brand.  But since nV has 70% + market why wouldn't AIB's give them the main brand and make a new brand for AMD?

 

Wouldn't it be foolish for AIB's and OEM's to have the potential to get hurt by 70% loss vs a 30% loss?  (less than that but total % wise that 70% will show more of a hit)

This response has nothing to do with what I quoted and responded to.

 

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

If the AIB's are making new gaming brands for AMD cards, then he read the contract way wrong!  And this will put his article as libelous.

You're implying that Kyle misinterpreted the Nvidia GPP contract and that it somehow relates to AMD re-branding. My response to this is why would AMD be mentioned in the GPP contract, they wouldn't, and there were zero rumors of AMD re-branding at the time he was reading that contract.

 

I'm not talking at all who gets what brand, you're implying malice behind his actions by bringing up libel and my issue with that really only relates to the logical leap of future knowledge to past action which would have had to be known at that time to be a factor. In the absence of knowledge about AMD re-branding then this cannot be a factor in the misinterpretation of the GPP contract, even though realistically it wouldn't effect it anyway.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Again this response has nothing to do with what I quoted and responded to.

 

You're implying that Kyle misinterpreted the Nvidia GPP contract and that it somehow relates to AMD re-branding. My response to this is why would AMD be mentioned in the GPP contract, they wouldn't, and there were zero rumors of AMD re-branding at the time he was reading that contract.

 

I'm not talking at all who gets what brand, you're implying malice behind his actions by bringing up libel and my issue with that really only relates to the logical leap of future knowledge to past action would would have had to be know at that time to be a factor. In the absence of knowledge about AMD re-branding then this cannot be a factor in the misinterpretation of the GPP contract, even though realistically it wouldn't effect it anyway.

 

57 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

AMD wasn't mentioned in the contract not that I'm aware of. 

 

AIB's are making new gaming brands in the new "rumor" leak in the news

 

 

Which I replied to prior to what you stated.

 

Malice is not libel.

 

Malice by definition is to do harm on purpose.

 

Libel, by definition has nothing to do with Malice

 

Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.   It doesn't need to have Malice behind it to be Libel.

 

Libel can be done by taking things out of context

 

Here is the law definition of libel

 

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

 

Quote

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Malice is not Libel   If it was done on purpose to hurt someone then it become malice and its sue-able separately to the libel suits.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Which I replied to prior to what you stated.

That does not address what I was bringing up. You're just dodging the point, but what ever if you don't want to address it fine with me.

[Razor01]

Just now, leadeater said:

That does not address what I was bringing up. You're just dodging the point, but what ever if you don't want to address it fine with me.

I was editing my post, you are mixing up legal terms that should not be mixed together.