AMD's official "eff you GPP" response: A Gamer's Choice

[Doobeedoo]

Well, different sub brand and name change only. I get brans build up is important but yeah, this will be interesting to see how it goes from here. 

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Except it doesn't. The US complies with the Hague conference rules, and so does China (And therefore Taiwan ). That legal body wrote guidelines to promote on international contracts. It is said in article 2 of their 2015 document on principles on choice of law in international commercial contracts, that in a context of a contract between actors of two states, each actor can choose which country a section of the contract can be read in, and this can change at any given time. Therefore, Nvidia can get sued in the US regarding their contract with MSI, a Chinese company, on a section of the contract that MSI decided should be regarded through the prism of Chinese law. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with that principle (It's even said in their document), since jurisdiction only determines which justice entity is responsible for the final decision. Said jurisdiction is determined by something else.

Whether it is drafted in the US or not does not matter, what matters is that it takes place between two bodies from different countries.

 

Those aren't bound by jurisdiction because non compliance with said laws lead to nullify the contract.

 

Retaining allocation is not illegal per se, but threatening to retain some if they do not sign the GPP contract, or retaining as a consequence of not signing it is arguably in the category of abusing their position in the market.

 

You are talking about Private International law, that has nothing to do with this......

[Kamjam21xx]

22 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

You can't convert all CUDA over directly there are features in CUDA and what nV can do with their architectures that don't work on other architectures.  Mostly due to special extensions that are only exposed in CUDA.

 

Also direct translation of one code to another, those things never work well.  Its better if the code is rewritten from scratch.

Well ive seen a shift away from nvidia in professional softwares and workflows. Nuke which was one of the softwares used to make the new starwars movies from disney specifically added gpu acceleration tailored to their wx pro cards, And just lots of other stuff like that.

 

Software companies are losing out snd switching over now, due to people not buying it if it doesnt support AMD gpu acceleration.

 

And we are talking about software that cost $3,000-$10,000 a year per person in your studio using it.

[Razor01]

34 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Well ive seen a shift away from nvidia in professional softwares and workflows. Nuke which was one of the softwares used to make the new starwars movies from disney specifically added gpu acceleration tailored to their wx pro cards, And just lots of other stuff like that.

 

Software companies are losing out snd switching over now, due to people not buying it if it doesnt support AMD gpu acceleration.

 

And we are talking about software that cost $3,000-$10,000 a year per person in your studio using it.

 

 

Yeah I use pro software all the time, and I have not seen AMD hardware not being supported, Nuke 11 added support for new features of AMD hardware but it always supported AMD hardware.

 

From 2 years back

 

http://www.rgbhq.com/blog/long-term-workstation-gpu-review-amd-w8100-vs-nvidia-quadro-m5000

 

AMD still has much to do on the workstation side of things.

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-pro-wx-7100,4896-3.html

 

Polaris vs Maxwell in pro settings, Maxwell is a gen old part compared to Polaris.

[laminutederire]

37 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

You are talking about Private International law, that has nothing to do with this......

What part of "Principles on choice of law in international commercial contracts" makes it not applicable here?

Nvidia is a corporation, which makes it act as a person if I remember right, and be tied legally as a person 

[Razor01]

24 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

What part of "Principles on choice of law in international commercial contracts" makes it not applicable here?

Nvidia is a corporation, which makes it act as a person if I remember right, and be tied legally as a person 

"principles"

 

they aren't laws.

 

Principles give guidance to which laws are used (from where) in the contract, this is what I was saying. 

 

EU and other courts outside of the US look at burden of proof differently, since the burden of proof is on the accused, in the US its the opposite.  A US company will never want to put jurisdiction outside of the US in a contract if at all possible lol.

 

AIB's will not go against nV anyways.

 

FTC will make sure they have the proof before they even remotely think about going to court, and the evidence must be very strong before they even start an investigation (nV had to do something for this to happen)

 

EU, because if the FTC doesn't win,  nV can point to the FTC case and say look what happened here.

[Kamjam21xx]

33 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Yeah I use pro software all the time, and I have not seen AMD hardware not being supported, Nuke 11 added support for new features of AMD hardware but it always supported AMD hardware.

 

From 2 years back

 

http://www.rgbhq.com/blog/long-term-workstation-gpu-review-amd-w8100-vs-nvidia-quadro-m5000

 

AMD still has much to do on the workstation side of things.

Specific plugins and softwares have gpu acceleration for cuda cores only. I always check their preferences. Im out and about today, so idk specifics to give atm.

 

The cheaper prices/faster speeds of the wx cards, the shift to supporting amd more, and the increased vram is just a lot better to me right now. Your scenes can easily get way too big for a quadro card, unless you wanna fork over an insane amount of money. 

 

Also caching a volumes, particle sims, etc on the gpu is really nice with the extra space (atleast where its supported). A single voxel fluid sim for an explosion can easily take up the 16gb or even 500gb, so i see a good value to the ssg also. But i wont be buying an ssg. 

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

"principles"

 

they aren't laws.

 

Principles give guidance to which laws are used (from where) in the contract, this is what I was saying. 

 

EU and other courts outside of the US look at burden of proof differently, since the burden of proof is on the accused, in the US its the opposite.  A US company will never want to put jurisdiction outside of the US in a contract if at all possible lol.

 

AIB's will not go against nV anyways.

 

FTC will make sure they have the proof before they even remotely think about going to court, and the evidence must be very strong before they even start an investigation (nV had to do something for this to happen)

 

EU, because if the FTC doesn't win,  nV can point to the FTC case and say look what happened here.

Sure but the US is one of the countries which has pledged to uphold those principles anyway which is supposed to go into their current laws.

I don't think the EU will care about the FTC result. The US is a corrupt country from the eyes of the rest of the world, nd current development in the Trump dossier surely isn't helping that impression. Therefore the EU will just discard the FTC result if it isn't going their way, solely because they will argue that the FTC hasn't done anything because there was huge lobbying involved.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Again legal terms that you don't understand.

 

Anti competitive, look it up on the FTC site and see if anything nV has done with the GPP even remotely fits into that. 

 

Give you HINT, it doesn't!

 

Throwing words around just because you think are correct doesn't make you correct.

 

Kyle did the same crap in his article, and its BS.  Some times people need  a wake up call when they are ignorant of what they talk about.

 

THERE IS NO anti competitive clause that can go against the 1st amendment which advertising (branding) is covered by.

 

Seriously shit if you live in the US, I would feel pretty sorry for you if you don't understand that.  If you don't then well before you start talking about laws and what not, know what jurisdictions they are going to be in and then figure these things out before you open your mouth.

 

So unless you want to rewrite the 1st amendment, there is Nothing anti competitive about what nV wants.

The fact that you are calling me ignorant without even defining the definition of anticompetitive practices is kinda silly. Anticompetitive practices at it's basic sense is any practice that is used to maintain ones market position in a means that isn't providing a better product or lower prices. GPP is definitely not providing better quality products or lower prices. It is simply just trying to infringe on AMDs capability to promote their product under well know gaming brands. This would be considered against the Clayton act so you would be wrong in saying there is no case for AMD. The only caveat being that a court would have to interpret that what nvidia is doing is going against that act. Again the way you talk about all this stuff like you are superior is kinda annoying. In the future attack the argument not the person because if you are trying to attack the person rather than the argument it indicates you have a week argument. This is a tactic that people use in arguments to get around having good points and supporting evidence. Not saying this is what you were trying to do just saying that it distracts from any real discussion. Now if you would like to respond to me feel free but please do so in a way that is actually disscusing the topic and not me or you. 

[Razor01]

14 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The fact that you are calling me ignorant without even defining the definition of anticompetitive practices is kinda silly. Anticompetitive practices at it's basic sense is any practice that is used to maintain ones market position in a means that isn't providing a better product or lower prices. GPP is definitely not providing better quality products or lower prices. It is simply just trying to infringe on AMDs capability to promote their product under well know gaming brands. This would be considered against the Clayton act so you would be wrong in saying there is no case for AMD. The only caveat being that a court would have to interpret that what nvidia is doing is going against that act. Again the way you talk about all this stuff like you are superior is kinda annoying. In the future attack the argument not the person because if you are trying to attack the person rather than the argument it indicates you have a week argument. This is a tactic that people use in arguments to get around having good points and supporting evidence. Not saying this is what you were trying to do just saying that it distracts from any real discussion. Now if you would like to respond to me feel free but please do so in a way that is actually disscusing the topic and not me or you. 

Wrong

 

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices

 

The definition you just used is too general to be considered as anti competitive.

 

There are extremely specific definitions that are tailored to different aspects of conduct.

 

If you want to keep using wrong words or using words incorrectly, please don't when talking about the law.

 

The law doesn't have room for negotiations of how they are executed.  You should not use those words arbitrarily.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Wrong

 

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices

 

The definition you just used is too general to be considered as anti competitive.

 

There are extremely specific definitions that are tailored to different aspects of conduct.

Did you even read the part about the Clayton act? That is the specific definition you are looking for. "The Commission is charged under Sections 3, 7 and 8 of this Act with preventing and eliminating unlawful tying contracts, corporate mergers and acquisitions, and interlocking directorates. This Act was amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, Pub. L. No. 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 13, 13b, and 21a, under which the Commission is authorized to prevent certain practices involving discriminatory pricing and product promotion. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR), adding Section 7A of the Clayton Act,  is listed separately." 

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Did you even read the part about the Clayton act? That is the specific definition you are looking for. "The Commission is charged under Sections 3, 7 and 8 of this Act with preventing and eliminating unlawful tying contracts, corporate mergers and acquisitions, and interlocking directorates. This Act was amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, Pub. L. No. 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 13, 13b, and 21a, under which the Commission is authorized to prevent certain practices involving discriminatory pricing and product promotion. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR), adding Section 7A of the Clayton Act,  is listed separately." 

LOL wow, do you know what that points to?  Mergers man everything must be disclosed when mergers happen about new pricing structures lol.

 

Ya know whats annoying, is when people talk about things like they "know" something and never went to school for it or ever been exposed to it in real life.

 

When was the last time you were in court or a court or lawyer asked you to get information?  I get this regularly because I help write contracts for the people I work with with our attorneys. 

 

Everything you have said so far is flippant, there is no serious thought involved other then an internet search, you need to know how contracts are worded, how they are governed, how they are executed, and the results of that execution.

 

You keep talking about the end result that isn't even there yet!

 

Too many steps are missing to even consider things

[WMGroomAK]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

If you want to keep using wrong words or using words incorrectly, please don't when talking about the law.

 

The law doesn't have room for negotiations of how they are executed.  You should not use those words arbitrarily.

I've been trying to stay out of this conversation as I don't see it being productive or anyone being able to successfully convince you of any errors, however, I will point out that laws do have lots of room for interpretation and usually are written with that in mind...  Statutes that are written by lawmakers and regulations that are adopted by executive branches of government to enact statutes usually have areas that are not specifically defined because you cannot account for every eventuality.  The courts serve as the balance on this by interpreting the laws when specific cases are brought before it in order to set precedence or require that new statutes or regulations be adopted to define legal grey areas.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

I've been trying to stay out of this conversation as I don't see it being productive or anyone being able to successfully convince you of any errors, however, I will point out that laws do have lots of room for interpretation and usually are written with that in mind...  Statutes that are written by lawmakers and regulations that are adopted by executive branches of government to enact statutes usually have areas that are not specifically defined because you cannot account for every eventuality.  The courts serve as the balance on this by interpreting the laws when specific cases are brought before it in order to set precedence or require that new statutes or regulations be adopted to define legal grey areas.

 

That is true, and also why advertising isn't remotely in the anti trust or anti competitive definitions.  There is a freedom of speech, which commercial speak is protected by, only when certain avenues of commercial speak is crossed can anti trust or anti competitive measures be taken against a company.  Those are also spelled out what can and cannot be done.

[pas008]

still dont know how this is still going

 

aib/aic(nvidia calls them aic on their website) like evga/asus/gb/msi are nvidia product manufacturers not consumers, its in nvidias right to protect their end product labeling/marketing/etc

if nvidia or the aib/aic wants out they finish their contract and not renew

 

eveyone acts like all aibs should have the right to manufacture products for any company

 

if nvidia doesnt want to supply them then thats their business, you cant force companies to use certain manufacturers

 

 

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

still dont know how this is still going

 

aib/aic(nvidia calls them aic on their website) like evga/asus/gb/msi are nvidia product manufacturers not consumers, its in nvidias right to protect their end product labeling/marketing/etc

if nvidia or the aib/aic wants out they finish their contract and not renew

 

eveyone acts like all aibs should have the right to manufacture products for any company

 

 

 

 

Exactly AIB's don't have a right to sell nV products period.  No company outside of nV has that right.  nV must give that right to those companies to license their products.

 

nV owns those products and makes them by themselves.  They don't need AIB intervention if the AIB's don't want to play ball.

 

We have seen this happen many times with AMD and nV when AIB's don't do what they want them to do, the AIB's are cut off.

[Dylanc1500]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Exactly AIB's don't have a right to sell nV products period.  No company outside of nV has that right.  nV must give that right to those companies to license their products.

 

nV owns those products and makes them by themselves.  They don't need AIB intervention if the AIB's don't want to play ball.

 

We have seen this happen many times with AMD and nV when AIB's don't do what they want them to do, the AIB's are cut off.

For all intents and purposes, NVidia could do what 3Dfx did and just start manufacturing them entirely themselves and drop the AIBs  altogether. 

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

For all intents and purposes, NVidia could do what 3Dfx did and just start manufacturing them entirely themselves and drop the AIBs  altogether. 

Yeah they can and the draw backs of what happened with 3Dfx won't be there with this much market share.

 

Essentially that is what they are telling these AIB's, GPP or you will be squeezed out.

[Brooksie359]

21 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

LOL wow, do you know what that points to?  Mergers man everything must be disclosed when mergers happen about new pricing structures lol.

 

Ya know whats annoying, is when people talk about things like they "know" something and never went to school for it or ever been exposed to it in real life.

 

When was the last time you were in court or a court or lawyer asked you to get information?  I get this regularly because I help write contracts for the people I work with with our attorneys. 

 

Everything you have said so far is flippant, there is no serious thought involved other then an internet search, you need to know how contracts are worded, how they are governed, how they are executed, and the results of that execution.

 

You keep talking about the end result that isn't even there yet!

 

Too many steps are missing to even consider things

I would consider gpp as a tying contract. I don't get why you are still trying to attack me and not the argument. 

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Exactly AIB's don't have a right to sell nV products period.  No company outside of nV has that right.  nV must give that right to those companies to license their products.

 

nV owns those products and makes them by themselves.  They don't need AIB intervention if the AIB's don't want to play ball.

 

We have seen this happen many times with AMD and nV when AIB's don't do what they want them to do, the AIB's are cut off.

 

1 minute ago, Dylanc1500 said:

For all intents and purposes, NVidia could do what 3Dfx did and just start manufacturing them entirely themselves and drop the AIBs  altogether. 

agreed this is about manufacturing a product

not antitrust/competitive/etc

 

 

[Razor01]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

I would consider gpp as a tying contract. I don't get why you are still trying to attack me and not the argument. 

You know what tying is, its when 2 products are associated together and must be sold together and are in totally different markets lol.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

You know what tying is, its when 2 products are associated together and must be sold together and are in totally different markets lol.

That is one form. The other is making them only buy said product from them and nobody else. If you treat gpus as the product and the gaming brands as their own separate entity then this would surely be the case. 

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That is one form. The other is making them only buy said product from them and nobody else. If you treat gpus as the product and the gaming brands as their own separate entity then this would surely be the case. 

 

Can you buy the boards from AIB's separately?  They are also in the same market man.  Need both to even function.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/the_wonderful_world_of_tying.html

 

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “the answer to the question whether one or two products are involved turns not on the functional relation between them, but rather on the character of demand for the two items.”[4]  Thus, the most important factor in determining whether two distinct products are being tied together is whether customers want to purchase the products separately.  If customers are not interested in purchasing the products separately, there is little risk the tie could foreclose any separate sales of the products.

 

[Dylanc1500]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That is one form. The other is making them only buy said product from them and nobody else. If you treat gpus as the product and the gaming brands as their own separate entity then this would surely be the case. 

Has there actually been anything that has shown NVIdia telling anyone that they can't sell the competition? If so I haven't seen it and I am genuinely curious.

[Dylanc1500]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

Can you buy the boards from AIB's separately?  They are also in the same market man.  Need both to even function.

Actually making socketed GPUs might not be a terrible idea. It would be pretty neat sight.