Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel

 
cegras
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:50 am

Here's a perspective from reddit:

Linus just did a surface overview of this in a video a short while ago, comparing "gaming" hardware with the vanilla stuff. Naturally, it was a dead heat, with the only big disparity between the "gaming" branded cards and the vanilla cards being MARKET SHARE where the gaming cards massively outsold the vanilla options
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:55 am

cegras wrote:
By your logic, there is no such thing as a monopoly since the TAM for any company is a subset of the entire global market.


I don't know what TAM is, so before I can tell you whether or not you are right about my "logic" you're going to have to help me out here champ.

cegras wrote:
Intel doesn't have a monopoly on server chips because its server chip shipments are only a small fraction of total chips of any kind shipped.


I only ever said the word "monopoly" once, and I said it as part of a phrase which I explicitly quoted: "Monopoly Power".

Here, let me help you:

Glorious wrote:
Even more importantly, in US regulatory law, "Monopoly Power" isn't simply a matter of a market dominance in a particular market,


I never said anything remotely like what you claim I did, which is "there is no such as a monopoly" or whatever it is you are deranging yourself with.

Good grief.

cegras wrote:
There's also a question of whether this practice is questionable or not, and a business lawyer should weigh in: are companies allowed to pay middle-men not to sell competitor's products? Naively, it would seem that ultimately customers should be the sole deciders of purchasing decisions, with advertising falling into a grey area.


The first sentence is a non sequitor: Kyle is not alleging that Nvidia is paying graphics card makers to not sell AMD chips.

The second sentence is gibberish. I honestly have no idea what you even think you are saying.

Why are you even posting?
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:58 am

cegras wrote:
Here's a perspective from reddit:


Uhhhhhh

You do realize that you are taking someone's two-sentence summation of someone else's video from a reddit discussion, and you are taking it out-of-context and without providing any explanatory reason why or how it's related. You don't even cite it.

I mean, this is not how cognitively normal people approach discussions...?
 
Ryu Connor
Global Moderator
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Marietta, GA
Contact:

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 pm

Glorious wrote:
Uhhhhhh

You do realize that you are taking someone's two-sentence summation of someone else's video from a reddit discussion, and you are taking it out-of-context and without providing any explanatory reason why or how it's related. You don't even cite it.

I mean, this is not how cognitively normal people approach discussions...?


I was disapointed it wasn't from 4chan.
All of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of my employer or any reasonable human being. All content and actions are my own.
 
ludi
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8646
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:03 pm

IANAL either, but seems to me both sides here have some points, such as:

- Kyle Bennett is a gleeful yellow journalist
- If AMD thinks there's a case here, they would take it to the courts, not the press
- Intel GPUs dominate the overall GPU market

While on the other hand, antitrust rulings tend to be pretty fluid depending on the mood of the court and their own understanding of the market sector at contest. What Nvidia is allegedly setting up with this program runs perilously close to at least two things the FTC likes to keep an eye on:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competi ... -supply-or
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competi ... o-products

Whether these or any related arguments would gain any traction is anyone's guess, particularly (a) under the present administration and (b) in a market distorted by cryptocurrency mining, where every medium and high end GPU is selling faster than both vendors can make them at double-plus MSRP.

My best guess is 'no,' and AMD knows it, which is why they're trying subterfuge instead. But that doesn't mean that the program particulars, if true, are any less dirty pool when enacted by a dominant supplier in a two-player market, and wouldn't be censured in a similar time and place where the legal mood is less favorable.
Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration
 
DancinJack
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4494
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:18 pm

Forbes and Kyle Bennet. I'll pass. Have fun in this thread.
i7 6700K - Z170 - 16GiB DDR4 - GTX 1080 - 512GB SSD - 256GB SSD - 500GB SSD - 3TB HDD- 27" IPS G-sync - Win10 Pro x64 - Ubuntu/Mint x64 :: 2015 13" rMBP Sierra :: Canon EOS 80D/Sony RX100
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:21 pm

ludi wrote:
While on the other hand, antitrust rulings tend to be pretty fluid depending on the mood of the court and their own understanding of the market sector at contest. What Nvidia is allegedly setting up with this program runs perilously close to at least two things the FTC likes to keep an eye on:


I have to respectfully disagree.

co-branding/co-marketing (which are very common business practices so if it was problematic why wouldn't the FTC have a write-up for it specifically?) are not perilously close to exclusive supply or consumer bundling, I honestly don't see the similarity even superficially.

ludi wrote:
Whether these or any related arguments would gain any traction is anyone's guess, particularly (a) under the present administration and (b) in a market distorted by cryptocurrency mining, where every medium and high end GPU is selling faster than both vendors can make them at double-plus MSRP.


Again, I respectfully ask what the argument likening this to either of those objectionable practices would actually be. If you like, I can describe in detail how they aren't.

This isn't because I'm against regulation or anything of the sort, I think we need much, much more anti-trust enforcement than we actually have, but while I have a laundry list of things to complain about, I don't see how this fits into it unless we entirely rely on the utterly unsourced rumor-mongering about wink/nod supply extortion. Which, I add, I am disinclined to believe because Kyle was so sensationalistic about pedestrian co-marketing.
 
cegras
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:34 pm

You should calm yourself, and possibly take a trip to google for TAM, such as when I did that with Ryu's retort. As I will repeat, Nvidia does not compete much, if at all, in the integrated GPU business. If it becomes the sole supplier of products in its market segment by pushing AMD out, it would by definition be a monopoly. My problem with your logic is that you keep moving the goalposts - that a company can never have a monopoly of some market segment because it would be part of another, larger, segment, i.e. integrated vs. discrete vs. total GPU space.

But, since as you say, and as US law says, it is not that a monopoly is bad per se, but how a company acquires a monopoly.

NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.


Most of these things seem to fall under some category here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _and_power.

The first sentence is a non sequitor: Kyle is not alleging that Nvidia is paying graphics card makers to not sell AMD chips.


What's the difference between paying someone to take a product, or offering a preferential discount on the product? According to intel's antritrust, not much.

The second sentence is gibberish. I honestly have no idea what you even think you are saying.


It's quite clear: should companies get to decide what products customers see to buy, or should customers see all choices before them? Can an electronics retailer (Dell) that (held) holds a dominant position in the PC market make a deal to only sell a certain company's products (intel)? Maybe you should think a little before getting so angry.
Last edited by cegras on Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
cegras
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:38 pm

Ryu Connor wrote:
Glorious wrote:
Uhhhhhh

You do realize that you are taking someone's two-sentence summation of someone else's video from a reddit discussion, and you are taking it out-of-context and without providing any explanatory reason why or how it's related. You don't even cite it.

I mean, this is not how cognitively normal people approach discussions...?


I was disapointed it wasn't from 4chan.


Sad that we can't debate the point and instead make fun of the source. TR forums are even worse than article comments.

Anyways, we could probe him for the source video: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comme ... n/dvfg3cp/

But it does seem quite reasonable that a gaming accessorized card would sell the most, and have the highest margins.
 
Ryu Connor
Global Moderator
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Marietta, GA
Contact:

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:47 pm

cegras wrote:
Sad that we can't debate the point and instead make fun of the source. TR forums are even worse than article comments.


What point is there to debate?

We can't even correctly judge cited statues, because we lack the appropriate knowledge of the surrounding precedent for interpretation. Even if someone does finally bother to cite even a singular example of a case we lack the appropriate knowledge of the statutes for interpretation of the precedent.

Kyle's piece and this thread is Dunning–Kruger personified.

To speak nothing of the fact that the law often uses words in a way that doesn't fit their common usage.

So you show up with a Reddit quote and expect what? An enlightened discussion? How is that random quote from some random dude of any substantive value?

If you're unhappy with the quality of this thread, I'd suggest you've played an equal part in the poor quality of it.
All of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of my employer or any reasonable human being. All content and actions are my own.
 
cegras
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:53 pm

If I offer poor arguments, I'd rather be corrected than insulted, or answered with an unexplained drive-by about monopsony. I remain confused as to why you and the other guy are so fixated on total graphics market share when nvidia only competes in a well defined subset of that market.
 
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:04 pm

cegras wrote:
I remain confused as to why you and the other guy are so fixated on total graphics market share when nvidia only competes in a well defined subset of that market.

Is a Federal court (should AMD ever get this to court) going to look at the market as a whole, or just a small specific slice of a much larger market, in reaching any anti-competitive findings?

Here's the deal: We won't know until it gets to said court and the pleadings get uploaded to PACER where we can all read and dissect. It'll be up to AMD to make the segmentation argument AND the anti-competition argument. That might explain why they've, at least to this point, taken the path of trying this in the court of Kyle Bennett [/hearty laughter].

Having testified in Federal criminal court several times for the day job, I can assure you that a Reddit thread and Kyle's rantings will not impress a Federal District Court judge with their evidentiary value.
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:11 pm

cegras wrote:
You should calm yourself, and possibly take a trip to google for TAM, such as when I did that with Ryu's retort.


I did google TAM, and it didn't provide me with anything useful.

Much like you not actually telling me what it is.

cegras wrote:
As I will repeat, Nvidia does not compete much, if at all, in the integrated GPU business. If it becomes the sole supplier of products in its market segment by pushing AMD out, it would by definition be a monopoly. But, since as you say, and as US law says, it is not that a monopoly is bad per se, but how a company acquires a monopoly


So.... it is not a monopoly ...now?

...I don't know what we are talking about? :|

Most of these things seem to fall under some category here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _and_power.


They do? Can you explain how?

This isn't an argument, it is just you citing wikipedia without any explanation as to the relevancy.

cegras wrote:
What's the difference between paying someone to take a product, or offering a preferential discount on the product? According to intel's antritrust, not much.


According to *ME* not much either, but that isn't what we are talking about.

If the money is for co-advertising it's not for the product.

cegras wrote:
It's quite clear: should companies get to decide what products customers see to buy, or should customers see all choices before them?


Wait....what?

I don't even.... are you saying that advertising, as a concept, is anti-competitive?

Seriously?

cegras wrote:
Can an electronics retailer (Dell) that (held) holds a dominant position in the PC market make a deal to only sell a certain company's products (intel)?


But that isn't what this is about.

so.....?

cegras wrote:
Maybe you should think a little before getting so angry.


It is *because* I think that I get so angry at those (like you) who neither think nor actually read the articles they are opining upon.

cegras wrote:
Anyways, you're just one guy, with a rather illogical opinion, so it really isn't worth my time trying to debate you. Let history decide - I won't read anything further.


Right, whereas it's totally logical for you to cite wikipedia's "Fruit" article in a debate over whether or not an Apple is an Orange or not.

"wait, but how is this actually anti-trust----THIS IS WIKIPEDIA'S ANTI-TRUST ARTICLE AND THIS DUDE ON REDDIT WATCHED A VIDEO HERE ARE SOME SENTENCES LOL HISTORY WILL DECIDE U NUB"
 
Ryu Connor
Global Moderator
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Marietta, GA
Contact:

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:14 pm

cegras wrote:
If I offer poor arguments, I'd rather be corrected than insulted, or answered with an unexplained drive-by about monopsony. I remain confused as to why you and the other guy are so fixated on total graphics market share when nvidia only competes in a well defined subset of that market.


There isn't anyone participating on Reddit or these forums that can correct your arguments.

Anyone who could probably wouldn't bother any ways, because here's the dirty reality: people like arguing about how they want the law to be more than they like discussing what the law actually is. So it's sort of pointless to even wade into these debates, because people get all wrapped up in their ideals.

As to your final point, you do realize that's a Jon Peddie Research graph?

You do understand why they do market research? Who that research is supposed to help? Why people seek out that kind of information? Do you think JPR makes pointless graphs to carry out that job? Do you think markets exist in a vacuum? Why do you think an investor would be more diligent about the complete competitive picture of a business than the courts? Do you understand what would happen to NVIDIA's business if Intel announced tomorrow they will cease making CPUs with integrated graphics? Do you understand how that demonstrates NVIDIA competes against integrated graphics even though they don't make integrated graphics?

As I've already discussed, the Dunning-Kruger effect is in full swing in this thread. Maybe the competitive states of the entire graphics market would be irrelevant to a court of law. Maybe it wouldn't. You don't know and neither do I. There's really no room for argument on that point. There's nothing you can say that's going to somehow prove that graph does or doesn't have value. You don't have the knowledge base or experience to prove your point. All you have is like... your opinion, man.
All of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of my employer or any reasonable human being. All content and actions are my own.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:23 pm

cegras wrote:
Sad that we can't debate the point and instead make fun of the source. TR forums are even worse than article comments.


Where did I make fun of Kyle?

Where am I not debating the point? I am entirely debating the point.

cegras wrote:
But it does seem quite reasonable that a gaming accessorized card would sell the most, and have the highest margins.


Who cares?

Can you explain why that even matters?

Ryu Connor wrote:
We can't even correctly judge cited statues, because we lack the appropriate knowledge of the surrounding precedent for interpretation. Even if someone does finally bother to cite even a singular example of a case we lack the appropriate knowledge of the statutes for interpretation of the precedent.

Kyle's piece and this thread is Dunning–Kruger personified.


Perhaps, but it isn't as inscrutable as most people imagine. The problem isn't that a layperson can't understand the law, the problem is too many laypeople just make-up nonsense that doesn't refer to any statute or decision whatsoever. Sometimes yes their reasoning is wrong, but typically there just isn't any reasoning whatsoever.

cegras wrote:
If I offer poor arguments, I'd rather be corrected than insulted, or answered with an unexplained drive-by about monopsony. I remain confused as to why you and the other guy are so fixated on total graphics market share when nvidia only competes in a well defined subset of that market.


I'm not fixated on that at all, I am asking what is anti-competitive about this partnership's non-disputable (that is, the stuff that is officially known and accepted by both sides, not rumors about extortion and so forth) details?

Your answer is that it is something that it is not according to those non-disputable details.

That isn't even a poor argument. It isn't an argument.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:31 pm

Ryu Connor wrote:
There isn't anyone participating on Reddit or these forums that can correct your arguments.

Anyone who could probably wouldn't bother any ways, because here's the dirty reality: people like arguing about how they want the law to be more than they like discussing what the law actually is. So it's sort of pointless to even wade into these debates, because people get all wrapped up in their ideals.


Ryu, honestly, I'm not sure what his argument even is. I really think that's the primary problem here.

We totally can discuss what the law actually is. I mean, I understand where you are coming from, and it's a valid concern, but if the law was entirely purview of only an anointed elect, it wouldn't really be "law", ya know?

Law, if it doesn't regulate behavior, isn't really law. And if people can't even remotely understand it, they can't regulate their behavior by it. Right?

Yes, in a lot of cases, like this one, it's practically esoteric because no regular individual would or could ever be sued under anti-trust, but that's double-sided: Here, on the internet, we can therefore safely run the risk of being hilariously and idiotic wrong, no harm, no foul. You get lawyers in real life because the risk is real.

So, since we can probably get answer that's mostly right, why not try?
 
cegras
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:41 pm

I'm not fixated on that at all, I am asking what is anti-competitive about this partnership's non-disputable (that is, the stuff that is officially known and accepted by both sides, not rumors about extortion and so forth) details?


I cannot comment on how it legally stands, all I can do is reproduce what I feel is relevant text below. Can you give me a legal opinion on it?

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner.

NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.


Glorious wrote:
I don't even.... are you saying that advertising, as a concept, is anti-competitive?


Well, no ... I was wondering if it's illegal for a company to come to an agreement with a retailer so that I don't even have the option of purchasing a competing product at the retailer. Also, considering misleading advertisement is a thing, it seems that absolutely, advertising can be used in anti-competitive ways.

As to your final point, you do realize that's a Jon Peddie Research graph? Do you? Do you? Do you? Do you?


I understand why that JPR graph exists. However, do you know that JPR also reports on embedded, integrated, add-in-board, pc gaming, workstation, and server segments? However, as you have so eloquently stated, ultimately we will disagree on that graph's significance, and I acknowledge your opinion on the matter.

Is a Federal court (should AMD ever get this to court) going to look at the market as a whole, or just a small specific slice of a much larger market, in reaching any anti-competitive findings?


I don't know, and good point.

Ryu, honestly, I'm not sure what his argument even is. I really think that's the primary problem here.


The only thing I wanted to point out is that I don't believe total GPU share is relevant to the question of Nvidia engaging in anti-competitive practices against AMD in the discrete GPU space. I believe your arguments are moving the goalpost in the sense that you can keep expanding what kind of market nvidia and amd are competing in, i.e., you are embedding the market segment they compete in, discrete cards, in the total GPU market such that that interpretation suggests neither nvidia or amd could ever monopolize the entire GPU market. But, the more pertinent (I believe, although everyone here has rightly pointed out what I believe doesn't matter) question is, is nvidia pushing amd out of a market segment they both compete in?
 
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:51 pm

cegras wrote:
I cannot comment on how it legally stands, all I can do is reproduce what I feel is relevant text below. Can you give me a legal opinion on it?

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner.

NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

If you want an opinion, post a scan of a signed document containing that language. Absent actual documentary evidence (and Kyle "seeing a document" ain't evidence if he can't show it) of the bitched-about terms agreed to (or imposed on, in your world) by "partners", we're all idly speculating as to just why it all ended up as 42.
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:59 pm

cegras wrote:
I cannot comment on how it legally stands, all I can do is reproduce what I feel is relevant text below. Can you give me a legal opinion on it?


First, you obviously can, because you did.

Here, let me help you:
cegras wrote:
Most of these things seem to fall under some category here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _and_power.


Second, if you want my opinion, I already gave it:

Here, let me help you:

Glorious wrote:
1) Nvidia has a brand development co-marketing agreement for which it provides all or most of the funding in which the language involved suggests that dual-branding might be disallowed.

Of course, a) Kyle only quotes a context-less single sentence to substantiate this b) He provides only one example where this might even be a problem, ASUS's ROG, but he has no idea if it actually is or if ASUS is even a partner in this scheme c) he states his own non-tentative conclusion based upon his reading and his understanding of this sentence without referencing any source for it whatsoever.

The problem here is that, on the face of it, this is not anti-competitive. If I am co-marketing with you, I'm fully allowed to make restrictions on how you conduct that marketing. I am paying money to promote your X brand, of course I can insist that you don't also use X brand to market my competitor's products. If you don't like that, you just say no. This is common sense: If I make a new "Gusto"TM motor and pay for an ad campaign to say it is in Packard Vehicles's new "GoFAST"TM car, if it turns out that they are also selling "GoFAST"TM cars with another motor altogether and the ads just say "BUY THE NEW AWESOME GoFAST car!!!! *even better with Gusto motors which they may or may not have depending on dealership", yeah, that's wrong.


Let me further explicate: If you go to a judge and say that a journalist "saw a document" in which he alleges there is a single, context-less sentence that your ARGUMENT ENTIRELY HINGES UPON, can you guess the first thing the Judge is going to demand?

Oh, right: the actual document.

This is just the start of my argument, see?

cegras wrote:
Well, no ... I was wondering if it's illegal for a company to come to an agreement with a retailer so that I don't even have the option of purchasing a competing product at the retailer.


So you are wondering about something else entirely?

Again, I don't... what?

cegras wrote:
Also, considering misleading advertisement is a thing, it seems that absolutely, advertising can be used in anti-competitive ways.


I.... What?

What is the argument?
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:00 pm

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=120499&p=1376292&hilit=#p1376292
I wrote:
Companies (like NVidia) that are swimming in cash ($7 billion of it, just lying around doing nothing productive, representing 69% of the total assets of the company) can afford to make strategic choices for long-term benefit. Unfortunately, the sort of NVidia strategic choices that come to mind would be trying to parlay their current cash-rich position with the upper hand in the GPU duopoly into a true monopoly so that they could reap even more staggering margins in the future.
· R7-5800X, Liquid Freezer II 280, RoG Strix X570-E, 64GiB PC4-28800, Suprim Liquid RTX4090, 2TB SX8200Pro +4TB S860 +NAS, Define 7 Compact, Super Flower SF-1000F14TP, S3220DGF +32UD99, FC900R OE, DeathAdder2
 
Ryu Connor
Global Moderator
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Marietta, GA
Contact:

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:00 pm

Glorious wrote:
We totally can discuss what the law actually is. I mean, I understand where you are coming from, and it's a valid concern, but if the law was entirely purview of only an anointed elect, it wouldn't really be "law", ya know?

Law, if it doesn't regulate behavior, isn't really law. And if people can't even remotely understand it, they can't regulate their behavior by it. Right?

Yes, in a lot of cases, like this one, it's practically esoteric because no regular individual would or could ever be sued under anti-trust, but that's double-sided: Here, on the internet, we can therefore safely run the risk of being hilariously and idiotic wrong, no harm, no foul. You get lawyers in real life because the risk is real.

So, since we can probably get answer that's mostly right, why not try?


One of my objections stems from the fact that AMD wants us to have this discussion as part of their guerilla marketing efforts. It's like they're Geppetto and we're the dummies or useful idiots if you prefer that phrasing.

My other objection is the amount of time and effort it would take to pull together statues and precedents to even fumble in the dark. Would the Sherman Antitrust Act even apply here? What other statues would apply? How many precedent rulings were designed to be narrowly applied to the case at hand? Will we be able to recognize that? Are all the districts empowered to handle anti-trust? If so, what split decisions should we be mindful of? When it comes to precedent we have to look beyond just the trials, but also the appeals and supreme court. Are appeals heard by a specific district, like copyright being only handled by the CAFC? Whose going to spend their time digging around on FindLaw reading decisions looking for this crap?

There's no way this discussion by a bunch of laymen is going to be anything other than a battle of ideals devoid of facts. Boring and pointless. We'll just get more posts like Bauxite (or JAE) already made.

I'd also argue that perhaps cutting off this discussion in this way now, will help avoid this thread from finding it's way to R&P.
All of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of my employer or any reasonable human being. All content and actions are my own.
 
CScottG
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1252
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:53 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:16 pm

cegras wrote:
.. the more pertinent question is: is nvidia pushing amd out of a market segment they both compete in?


Probably not.

This is an issue of 3rd party branding. It's not like Nvidia is saying you can't brand an AMD device with RADEON (which is owned by AMD).

It's a limit on an OEM's ability to specialty brand products either with their own specialty brand or a licensed brand from another 3rd party (..at least that's the way it appeard in the "article").

In this respect then it still allows OEM's to "brand" with AMD's marketing - still very much a viable method of "up-sell premium" marketing that would and does compete with other 3rd party brands.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:17 pm

Ryu Connor wrote:
One of my objections stems from the fact that AMD wants us to have this discussion as part of their guerilla marketing efforts. It's like they're Geppetto and we're the dummies or useful idiots if you prefer that phrasing.


I like to think that we (well, some of us anyway) are successfully providing a properly critical response to that effort.

Because, like it or not, this is out there regardless, so the discussion is happening already. I would hope that here at TR we're doing a good job at providing some much needed light and analysis to this sort of situation. The discussion won't end just because the enthusiasts here aren't having it, but it might not have an informed & intelligent evaluation.

My other objection is the amount of time and effort it would take to pull together statues and precedents to even fumble in the dark. Would the Sherman Antitrust Act even apply here? What other statues would apply? How many precedent rulings were designed to be narrowly applied to the case at hand? Will we be able to recognize that? Are all the districts empowered to handle anti-trust? If so, what split decisions should we be mindful of? When it comes to precedent we have to look beyond just the trials, but also the appeals and supreme court. Are appeals heard by a specific district, like copyright being only handled by the CAFC? Whose going to spend their time digging around on FindLaw reading decisions looking for this crap?


Well, there is something in civil law called the burden of moving forward: even the court can't ever guarantee that both sides and the judge didn't completely miss some obvious controlling precedent or law at one step of the process or even the entire process altogether, right? So, as part of the actual process, the idea is that the complainant presents its case, then the other side rebuts, and then back and forth as we evolve the argument towards some sort of realization of truth. :P

So, even to the layperson, if the original complaint isn't... really a complaint (and by the way, this is why the courts allow so much nonsense through, maybe the precedents are all wrong because is this weirdly new or slightly but critically different!), it kinda become obvious if the matter is baseless, particularly when the rebuts start getting ... outlandish or nonsensical, right? :wink:

Ryu Connor wrote:
I'd also argue that perhaps cutting off this discussion in this way now, will help avoid this thread from finding it's way to R&P.


Hey, not my call, but I think we're keeping civil and on the level so far.
 
ludi
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8646
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:19 pm

Glorious wrote:
Again, I respectfully ask what the argument likening this to either of those objectionable practices would actually be.

There's certainly nothing wrong with co-marketing or even exclusivity contracts on principle, but when you control 70+% of a market sector (discrete GPUs in this case), then terms like these are easily weaponized against non-participants:

Yellow Journalist wrote:
if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF).

Again, not saying they will be, and still keeping a really big "allegedly" in front of all that, given the source.
Abacus Model 2.5 | Quad-Row FX with 256 Cherry Red Slider Beads | Applewood Frame | Water Cooling by Brita Filtration
 
cegras
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:21 pm

First, you obviously can, because you did.


That's just my opinion. I didn't give any sort of legal opinion with legalese.

Glorious wrote:
1) Nvidia has a brand development co-marketing agreement for which it provides all or most of the funding in which the language involved suggests that dual-branding might be disallowed.

Of course, a) Kyle only quotes a context-less single sentence to substantiate this b) He provides only one example where this might even be a problem, ASUS's ROG, but he has no idea if it actually is or if ASUS is even a partner in this scheme c) he states his own non-tentative conclusion based upon his reading and his understanding of this sentence without referencing any source for it whatsoever.

The problem here is that, on the face of it, this is not anti-competitive. If I am co-marketing with you, I'm fully allowed to make restrictions on how you conduct that marketing. I am paying money to promote your X brand, of course I can insist that you don't also use X brand to market my competitor's products. If you don't like that, you just say no. This is common sense: If I make a new "Gusto"TM motor and pay for an ad campaign to say it is in Packard Vehicles's new "GoFAST"TM car, if it turns out that they are also selling "GoFAST"TM cars with another motor altogether and the ads just say "BUY THE NEW AWESOME GoFAST car!!!! *even better with Gusto motors which they may or may not have depending on dealership", yeah, that's wrong.


The difference being nvidia would withhold things like sales rebates and marketing funds - both seem like monetary incentives to me.

In the event that such an agreement is published, then we can discuss further.

I always welcome opportunities to learn, but would appreciate if they were typed academically.
 
Glorious
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12343
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:58 pm

ludi wrote:
There's certainly nothing wrong with co-marketing or even exclusivity contracts on principle, but when you control 70+% of a market sector (discrete GPUs in this case), then terms like these are easily weaponized against non-participants:


Right, but look at what that journalist pointed out from that list:

HardOCP wrote:
MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.


Which is funny, because it's probably the least objectionable/weaponizable for the graphic cards makers (things like sale rebates, for instance, are much more troubling in theory), but, uh, that's the kind of stuff that indirectly funds his journalism, right? :lol:

ludi wrote:
Again, not saying they will be, and still keeping a really big "allegedly" in front of all that, given the source.


On this we agree, those sorts of things could be problematic, yes.

I'm just coming from the part where I address the few specifics he actually goes into, for lack of anything else to even sink my teeth into.

cegras wrote:
The difference being nvidia would withhold things like sales rebates and marketing funds - both seem like monetary incentives to me.


The former, ok, maybe, but it's also not something that our journalist went into at all, despite how on the face of it that's exactly where he *SHOULD* have gone: It's the most similar to the Dell/AMD/Intel fracas he kept swinging around. It's a rather striking omission, you see?

The latter? uhhh, yeah, I mean, if you are not part of a marketing initiative, no, you won't get those marketing funds...?

EDIT: I really have to reiterate this, it's *REALLY* bizarre to do this:

HardOCP wrote:
As you might recall, we have seen onerous terms such as those contained in GPP to have many similarities to Intel's once monopolistic business practices (versus AMD) in withholding MDF to partners. The results of that situation were huge multi-billion dollar fines for Intel. GPP has some striking similarities.


This is backwards, the AMD/INTEL thing was literally about sales rebates to Dell for not selling AMD chips (in fact, the SEC sued Dell because they were falsely categorizing these rebates as actual sales revenue)

...but yet, here we are saying the issue was Market Development funds....

Uh.. weirdnesssssssssssss
 
Convert
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:47 am

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:26 pm

just brew it! wrote:
Convert wrote:
I fail to understand the point of this program.

Does Nvidia really think they are saving someone from accidentally buying an AMD card by doing this? They think that someone out there beleives ROG always = Nvidia and so they just click buy on the first ROG card that shows up?

From the article:
Forbes wrote:
For Nvidia partners, the program is set to deliver social media promotions, engineering and marketing support, and early access to new Nvidia GeForce technologies.

IOW most of the tangible benefits are for the board maker, not the customer. The spin about how it benefits the customer is just that -- spin.

I read that originally, but I can see I wasn't very clear on what I'm confused about exactly.

How I see it is, all Nvidia wants is "ROG" to not be associated with both lines of cards from Asus as an example. They want ROGG for the GeForce cards and whatever else for AMD cards. That way when Nvidia gives Asus marketing funds and bolsters the ROGG line, it wouldn't somehow also benefit AMD. Seems fine, but I don't see it actually making a difference.

I suppose they are implying that when they say the "gaming brand must be aligned" then they are only allowed one and it must be Nvidia focused to be a partner. For some reason I didn't interpret it that way the first time through and figured they meant the gaming brands must be unique between the two.
Tachyonic Karma: Future decisions traveling backwards in time to smite you now.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:20 pm

Ryu Connor wrote:
There's no way this discussion by a bunch of laymen is going to be anything other than a battle of ideals devoid of facts. Boring and pointless. We'll just get more posts like Bauxite (or JAE) already made. I'd also argue that perhaps cutting off this discussion in this way now, will help avoid this thread from finding it's way to R&P.

:lol: The month-old quoted post had two facts: Seven billion dollars of idle cash. 69% of total company assets. The post in this thread stating the fact that I had previously posted those facts contained a hyperlink to that post. Had you dismissed those facts as irrelevant to the argument that you want to hold, then I would agree with you. You chose to deny the existence of the facts, which seems much less rational (though I will not dismiss it as boring). :wink:
· R7-5800X, Liquid Freezer II 280, RoG Strix X570-E, 64GiB PC4-28800, Suprim Liquid RTX4090, 2TB SX8200Pro +4TB S860 +NAS, Define 7 Compact, Super Flower SF-1000F14TP, S3220DGF +32UD99, FC900R OE, DeathAdder2
 
Ryu Connor
Global Moderator
Posts: 4369
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Marietta, GA
Contact:

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:02 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
:lol: The month-old quoted post had two facts: Seven billion dollars of idle cash. 69% of total company assets. The post in this thread stating the fact that I had previously posted those facts contained a hyperlink to that post. Had you dismissed those facts as irrelevant to the argument that you want to hold, then I would agree with you. You chose to deny the existence of the facts, which seems much less rational (though I will not dismiss it as boring). :wink:


Image
All of my written content here on TR does not represent or reflect the views of my employer or any reasonable human being. All content and actions are my own.
 
NovusBogus
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:37 am

Re: Nvidia Partner Program - Illegal?

Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:53 pm

Not gonna lie...between this, the GPU/mining situation, and a few other 'PC nerds vs. 200+ years of established commerce' situations in the last few months it has strained every ounce of my considerable resolve not to go full-on Troll Mode Engaged, out-arrogance the entire forum in one sitting as only a hardware engineer can, and promptly get the whole North American IP range banned on general principle. Just sayin' :lol:

But do carry on, I find it all highly amusing!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On