AMD: Former execs handed trade secrets to Nvidia

Corporate intrigue doesn’t get much more exciting than this, folks. According to ZDNet, AMD has filed a lawsuit against four former staffers—one VP and three managers—who allegedly handed confidential documents to Nvidia.

over 100,000 confidential documents.

Here are the Cliff’s Notes, in ZDNet’s words:

AMD said it had “uncovered evidence” that the four had “transferred to external storage devices trade secret files and information in the days prior to their leaving AMD to work for Nvidia.”
“The volume of materials that these three defendants collectively transferred to storage devices, each of which is unaccounted for, as they left to work for AMD’s competitor exceeds 100,000 electronic files.” AMD also said in the filing that the files “include obviously confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret materials relating to developing technology and/or highly confidential business strategy.”

Yikes. According to AMD, one of the employees even searched the web for ways to “copy and/or delete large numbers of documents.” I’m guessing the searches were conducted from AMD’s corporate network. The thief may not have been particularly stealthy.

Still, the damage may already be done. AMD’s complaint states, “All of this confidential information would provide an unfair advantage if improperly used for or disclosed to a competitor, like NVIDIA, or if used by an NVIDIA employee in furtherance of NVIDIA’s competitive interest.” AMD adds that it “has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately redressed at law.”

You can read AMD’s complaint in full here at Scribd.

Comments closed
    • spigzone
    • 7 years ago

    Occurs to me this might help AMD secure the Steam Box if a grand jury starts sending subpoenas Nvidia’s way … or even if not, I suppose. Doubt if Gabe’s keen on building his system with a partner whose contract might be overhung by a legal cloud for the next several years.

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    [url<]http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/01/apple-inc-aapl-ceo-tim-cook-to-be-questioned-in-civil-suit/[/url<] "Attorneys for the five plaintiffs in the civil case say damages could reach into hundreds of millions of dollars" Poaching is what those 2 nvidia VP and Senior director are accused of by AMD... I would be surprised if this case stop at the individual level.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Judge Lucy Koh[/quote<] Hmm... sounds familiar..

        • Game_boy
        • 7 years ago

        Despite the outcome being wrong, she’s handled the Apple-Samsung case quite fairly so far judging by the frequent Ars Technica stories documenting it.

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    Looks like it’d save everyone some time if there was just a plugin to automatically downvote every comment Silus makes in this thread.

    • Black Applesauce
    • 7 years ago

    *******ATTENTION**BREAKING NEWS*******

    Hello, my name is Clive McNewscaster, and I’m here bringing you tonight’s story.

    A recent post has been put up on the moderately popular technology site titled “Tech Report” by a man of the name Cyril Kowaliski. Many great points have been made discussing this particular story, but a certain poster by the name of Silus has been wrecking havoc among the comments section.

    “I was just trying to add to a nice comment, says poster dpaus, when I was suddenly targeted by this man named Silus.

    Dpaus then told us about the insulting language that was used on him such as “LOL”.

    Be wary of this obvious troll, who’s downvotes can range anywhere from 1 to 30.

    It is also advised that if you ever come into contact or an argument with Silus, downvote all his posts and turn off your PC immediately.

    Thank you for your attention, this is Clive McNewscaster, signing off.

    Stay tuned for your local weather forcast, tonight at ten.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      “[i<]moderately[/i<] popular"?? I should -1 you just for that, but I won't 🙂

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Oh.

        • Chrispy_
        • 7 years ago

        Em.

    • NovusBogus
    • 7 years ago

    So they can prove (presumably) that the docs were lifted but they can’t prove that nVidia has done anything with them or ever actually received them. Sounds like the most they could get these guys for is breach of contract, maybe. Or scare them out of their new jobs at nVidia, which is probably the real goal here.

    And speaking of breach of contract, doesn’t nearly every tech company make its employees sign a no-compete agreement?

    • marvelous
    • 7 years ago

    criminals should be punished by death and or life in prison.

      • ULYXX
      • 7 years ago

      Our prisons are full over in my area, nor are they unpleasant. If only prisons looked like the ones in the movie Idiocracy.

    • OU812
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Nvidia isn’t a defendant in the case.[/quote<] [url<]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/advanced-micro-devices-sues-ex-workers-over-trade-secrets.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url<]

    • anotherengineer
    • 7 years ago

    Cyril, I was expecting some more cool cold war words from you like

    -defectors
    -espionage

    or maybe even double agents or something 😉

    • beck2448
    • 7 years ago

    All of this confidential information would provide an unfair advantage if improperly used for or disclosed to a competitor, like NVIDIA, or if used by an NVIDIA employee in furtherance of NVIDIA’s competitive interest.”

    IF and MAY?????? Nothing definitive here. And why would Nvidia want AMD’s crap anyway?? Nvidia should just continue what its doing and let AMD blunder along.

    • wintermane666
    • 7 years ago

    The thing is amd has to PROVE this. And how exactly do they do that? 3 usb drives that could be anywhere on the planet… data that could be anywhere on the planet… and I doubt they have any legaly solid PROOF of anything.

    Sounds to me more like 3 ex amd employies who were realy angry at amd and maybe not all of them were all that bright. But again proof isnt exactly going to be easy.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      AMD wouldn’t be accusing NVidia ***Senior Director of engineering*** and a NVidia VP with those very damaging allegation if they didn’t have solid proof.

      Can you image what nvidia would do if AMD had nothing solid and took down a senior director and a VP to court ?!

      I think this case will be interesting to follow.

      For example will nvidia back those guys 100% in court, of will nvidia bail on them and kick them to the curb ?!

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 7 years ago

    So THIS is what happened to AMD’s frame-time R&D!

    • piesquared
    • 7 years ago
    • mika8311o
    • 7 years ago
      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Was it made using stolen AMD technology?

    • internetsandman
    • 7 years ago

    ITT: Fanboys of either side saying Nvidia needed these trade secrets to compete/don’t see what’s wrong with Nvidia accepting them/AMD is lying to get more money, and other people who know what they’re talking about in the matter

    I admit I know very little about the legal system or corporate competition (so the following is all speculation on my part) but, if what AMD claims is true, then man these guys are in some incredibly deep ****, including all those at Nvidia involved in accepting these trade secrets, especially if one of them is a former VP, I expect some truly massive fines being laid down as well as possible prison time. If AMD were to be lying about this, then this really would be an all or nothing move designed to extort massive sums of money at the risk of being caught for false allegations and related crimes.

    I’ve never known a corporation to put all it’s chips on one move, even if it has a 99% chance of success, so all the people saying AMD is falsely accusing people for personal gain, it’s a really far out statement. This topic is so filled with fanboys and trolls it’s ridiculous

    • ULYXX
    • 7 years ago

    I came here for the comments. 🙂

    • flip-mode
    • 7 years ago

    Here’s what I think would be cool (Bruno, please get on this, asap):

    1) A counter that shows how many times each person has posted on a topic

    2) Each person’s total karma

    3) A counter that shows each persons topic-total “karma” (or whatever term you use).

    Example:

    Silus: topic posts: 57; karma: -9001, topic karma: -1817

      • blitzy
      • 7 years ago

      Kinda pointless on a site that has extreme bias, e.g. write something like “i enjoy playing games on console more than pc” and you will get neg rep. Even though that is a perfectly valid opinion. All it would prove is that you don’t agree with the majority of this sites audience, which is not representative of real world demographics.

        • flip-mode
        • 7 years ago

        Karma is one thing, the huge post count is a separate curiosity.

          • blitzy
          • 7 years ago

          yea, it would be funny to see at least

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            [s<]OH MY GAWD I WUNT WUN![/s<]

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Even though that is a perfectly valid opinion. [/quote<] You so wrong. Here's a -1 for you

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Kinda pointless on a site that has extreme bias, e.g. write something like "i enjoy playing games on console more than pc" and you will get neg rep.[/quote<] Certain things, like murder, molesting children, and playing on a console really are just wrong.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Ah the persecution! The typical internet bully.

      “Look, someone is commenting on this and I don’t “like” that person, so I must attack how many times he’s posted”

      It’s probably worse than the other internet MO of not valuing a person’s opinion just because he/she just joined to some forum, so his/her “cred” is not enough to have an opinion….

      Should you also be interested in counting how many of those posts of mine were replies after insults ? Also, care to count how many times I was insulted, without justification as the discussion went on ?

      And maybe you should also count the number of other people’s posts, you know, the same that immediately downvote without even reading what I write ? Although that should be harder to do, as I doubt TR’s comments section has the ability to have those kinds of statistics.

        • Spunjji
        • 7 years ago

        I’ve read every single one of your posts so far! I liked one of them and upvoted it. The rest added nothing to the debate and were downvoted.

        YMMV.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          And can you tell me what exactly does this “new thread” by flip-mode add to the discussion ?

          That’s right, it adds absolutely nothing, yet I’m still being downvoted and he’s being upvoted, along with everyone that agrees with him. Sure shows how great his suggested (and pathetic) new karma system would work.

            • A_Pickle
            • 7 years ago

            Actually, flip-mode’s thread here is meta-discussion. Your conduct throughout this ENTIRE thread appears to be along the lines of “I don’t like AMD, therefore AMD’s accusation against some former employees must be false.” You’ve made no attempt to understand the case or even put yourself in AMD’s shoes, you’ve just already decided that they’re the bad guy in this — because you made up your mind long ago that you don’t like their products.

            Or at least that’s what it seems like to me. Don’t worry, I was an opinionated 16-year old at one time too.

      • dashbarron
      • 7 years ago

      I actually really like this idea. If we have ratings for comments we might as well have the rest, in for a penny…. It might be quite interesting, and if the idea of ratings are to find good comments and maybe encourage people to do post intelligently (unless you’re trolling), then this might further encourage good behavior.

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        You know there is a “Top Comments” for recent posts with lots of positive “karma,” right? jdaven, Deanjo, chuckula, and dpaus are filling it up right now.

        Although sometimes intelligent posts get in there, most of the time it’s the funniest comments.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      I’d like to have my total number of comments be measured (and those comments be searchable) from within my profile, but that is completely for “watching numbers go up” aspect.

    • Peldor
    • 7 years ago

    Honestly this article makes me think worse of AMD than anything. If one guy decided to steal a bunch of documents and run off with them, okay a bad apple happens. If two guys, yikes, that’s unlucky. Three? Four? What the heck is wrong with the work environment at AMD that management is actively seeking to ruin the company?

    I didn’t see the timing of the leaks. Was this after the last round of layoffs? Cause if these were the kind of guys they kept…

    • Sam125
    • 7 years ago

    After skimming the complaint, this is actually kind of funny. The 150,000 stolen files is due to the fourth idiot copying the entire contents of his laptop to an external drive. LOL Because of his clumsy behavior this seems like a pretty open and shut case.

    However, the not-so-funny implication here is that someone or someones at NV is either trying to actively steal trade secrets or are complicit with the behavior as long as it’s kept on the down-low. Seems pretty sleazy if you ask me.

    • Wildchild
    • 7 years ago

    It’s interesting to think how Nvidia went from being a company who is notorious for making hot graphics cards to the most efficient in just one generation. Maybe that has something to do with these stolen documents?

      • RtFusion
      • 7 years ago

      Who knows. I think most of us are in agreement that at least one person who knew about the documents and hired them over should be sacked. I won’t be surprised if any of the documentation was enacted upon in ANY of nVidia’s projects; past, present, or future.

      If that is the case, more will and should be sacked as well.

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    time to pay the piper! i was wondering why so many of them were wandering off to the other side in suck a small time frame.

    • maxxcool
    • 7 years ago

    139 posts ?! must be a slow news day …

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      Not slow, just AMD vs. Nvidia. These things ALWAYS get bloody.

    • Mat3
    • 7 years ago

    This is why, when you want to lay people off, don’t tell them ahead of time. Call them for a meeting, tell them they are being let go, and at the same time the IT department should be cancelling their network logins. Escort them back to their desk to make sure they take only personal stuff. It’s what usually happens when someone is fired, it’s too bad it didn’t happen to these jerks.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Very true, but if I understand the situation here, they weren’t laid off, they quit to take jobs at Nvidia.

      • jihadjoe
      • 7 years ago

      AMD can’t even fire people properly!

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        They where not fired. its way more sinister then that.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Two where not fired but left for nvidia by their own personal choice.
      [url<]http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/07/24/amd-bob-feldstein/1[/url<] The other two where recruited by nvidia directly. Its also those two , VP and senior director at nvidia since mid 2012, that have allegedly coerced two engineer (One engineer still employed at AMD at the time of the filling, another an ex nvidia employ herself) to jump ship and work for nvidia. what we dont know is if AMD as evidence that its nvidia VP and senior director that instructing those AMD emploeye to leave AMD for nvidia and take with them confidential info. If this is the case, I dont see how nvidia will be left out of this untouched. Best case they have a VP and a senior director in jail. Worse case, probably a settlement/fine in the hundreds of millions ?

    • Geonerd
    • 7 years ago

    Here’s a small twist.
    Desai apparently worked at NV before moving to AMD.
    [url<]https://www.facebook.com/manoo.desai[/url<] Was she sent by NV specifically to hoover all the goodies? Perhaps she's just an ambitious freelance spy who also raided NV's computer before going green? Or is it just an innocent coincidence? (There are only so many companies in the industry.) Curiouser and curiouser...

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      Ooohhh… so she’s a lady. Couldn’t have figured that out based on her name.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      To be noted, some accused dont hold low key positions. (But read on why nvidia might be in big trouble.)

      “Rick Hagen – Senior Director of Engineering at nvidia” < spent the past 12 years at ATI/AMD

      “Bob Feldstein – Vice President Technology Licensing at nvidia” < spent the past 18 years at ATI/AMD

      We are talking about nvidia Directors & VP being put in prisons here.

      But here is the kicker , its actually key to the case:

      They are also accused of violating the non ‘no-solicitation of employees’…

      “Hagen and Feldstein directly recruited Desai and Kociuk”
      And Desai and Kociuk (still an AMD employee?) are accused of taking thousands of confidential documents.
      Kociuk was about to start his work at nvidia and he seem to be a design engineer.

      So its a case of nvidia VP and directors contacting and recruiting AMD employee , that took AMD intellectual property with them. So it seem that from AMD disclosure nvidia is directly liable for corporate espionage.

      I have to say, this doesn’t look good at all for this group of people and nivida.

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    Seems to me if they had any evidence that documents were actually used by their largest competitor they would be suing that corporation instead of the accused individuals. Even if successful, any settlement that they will get from the individuals is peanuts.

      • RDFSteve
      • 7 years ago

      The lawsuit could potentially bankrupt the individuals, and would certainly make them ‘persona non grata’ at any/every tech firm. The prospect of that just might be enough to inspire any one of them to turn and describe how the information was received at Nvidia. THEN they have a lawsuit against Nvidia.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        And that’s what AMD wants, even if they have no proof (hence why they only have a civil suit against the ex-employees)
        The problem is, they will need to prove that as well, if the individuals accuse NVIDIA of being the driving force behind document theft.

          • Spunjji
          • 7 years ago

          You keep accusing other persons on here of making biased, baseless judgements, and then you drop this crap out. Are you for real?

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        If nvidia benefited from them and the individuals were sent to personal bankruptcy (which again is not the end of the world) Nvidia could cover settlements through a discreet way. Bankruptcy of an individual does not make them ‘persona non grata’. There a tones of executives that have been bankrupt multiple times but still rule the roost.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          It’s not the bankruptcy, it’s the widespread industry knowledge that these guys betrayed their employer. Who the hell would want to hire them knowing they’d done that?

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Tons of employers who require their skills. We already know that many corporations lack any “morals”. If AMD wins against these individuals, chances are that they will just get the amount of their bonds which doesn’t effect there personal finances at all unless the bonding company wishes to sue the individuals and those individuals will more then likely just get a new bond from another bonding company.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Deanjo, I’m a little disappointed! This isn’t about whether a company has morals (which, I agree, too many don’t), it is nothing more than enlightened self-preservation. i.e., why would to hire them knowing they are much likelier than others to do the same thing to YOU one day?

            • MustangSally
            • 7 years ago

            If anything: the less moral a company, the more likely they are to think about doing this kind of thing at all, and thus the more paranoid they’d be about having it done to them.

            Do none of you guys ever read spy novels??

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            It still happens all the time dpaus. All one has to do is research a bit the history of many executives and you will see a lot of them continue on in their industry despite having civil suites placed against them.

      • Geistbar
      • 7 years ago

      What about the possibility of suing the individuals first (as they have evidence of such, or at least they think they do), with the intention that if NVIDIA has any guilt or culpability that it would very probably be revealed during the course of trial (pre, during, and post) proceedings? Finding the former employees guilty in court would also likely make it easier to win a case against NVIDIA.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      AMD got a duty to prosecute theft and illegal activities. They are a public company.
      If AMD knew their was corporate espionage and theft and turned a blind eye, AMD could be sued by shareholders.

      Even so this might only end with with a bunch of ex AMD employed behind bar and with a criminal record following them for life, AMD is obligated to do the right thing and prosecute.

      I just hope that this is not the tip of the iceberg….

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    So, if the allegations are true (and I doubt it would go this far if there wasn’t overwhelming evidence), that means Nvidia is in possession of stolen property. I have to wonder what idiot at Nvidia would put them in that position.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Could you possibly READ the allegations before you post ? There is nothing against NVIDIA. AMD is accusing their ex-employees of document theft and now they need to prove it. That’s it.

        • MustangSally
        • 7 years ago

        That doesn’t in any way change what dpaus said…..

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          I don’t see anything that says “NVidia the Company” is in possession of stolen property. Their new employees are, but to me it looks illegal activity was done by these four new employees – not their new employer in general.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            If they’re using the information contained therein (and again, for it to get this far AMD believes they are) then nVidia is in possession of not necessarily those 100,000 documents, but some of the trade secrets. And therefore, stolen property.

            • OU812
            • 7 years ago

            True, Nvidia isn’t a defendant in the case.

            [url<]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/advanced-micro-devices-sues-ex-workers-over-trade-secrets.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url<]

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            From what AMD tell us, NVIDIA Senior Director of Engineering , while working at Nvidia recruited Nicolas Kociuk, an AMD employee, that as prepared to leave with 10 to 100 of thousands of trade secret documents.

            This was done by an nvidia senior director, that just happen to have worked over a decade at ATI&AMD.

            Its NOT like those guys drove drunk and drove over someone on a sunday during their sabatical.
            The person injured cant sue nvidia for damages.

            But they acted as nvidia directors, representing nvidia, and broke the law only for nvidia benefit while employed at nvidia.

            The only thing that will save nvidia in this case is if they had a strong program in place to discourage those activities and show no sign that any data ended on their networks/systems.

            PS: put allegedly all over the place 🙂

            One thing for sure… AMD might not make the coolest CPU, but they are a great source of heated conversation 🙂

            • GeneS
            • 7 years ago

            The headline of the article?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            …is sensationalized.

            • MustangSally
            • 7 years ago

            So your complaint is directed at Cyril, then, not me?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            No complaint directed at you or Cyril; I was just disagreeing with what dpaus said.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          Really ? So even if AMD’s claims are true (against their ex-employees), does that mean that NVIDIA is in possession of stolen property ?

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      You are assuming that the documents were presented to Nvidia and not held by the former AMD employees but never forwarded on to Nvidia.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        Precisely. But hey, it’s the AMD fanboy justice league working! They can’t let justice walk its path. It’s already GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!

        • GeneS
        • 7 years ago

        True, but that’s probably a pretty safe assumption. The only thing dumber than just stealing the information would be to steal it and then do nothing with it.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          It is not a safe assumption at all as that is based on 100% speculation. Former employees of many corporations often delete or copy files for the simple reason of covering their a**es. It happens all the time.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          I wouldn’t say it’s a safe assumption. Maybe these folks thought this information would help them with their new job – say, contacting those large customers as NVidia representatives – and thought they needed the documents as references.

          Or is “guilty until proven innocent” the new normal?

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Or is "guilty until proven innocent" the new normal?[/quote<] Judging by the comments of some you would think it is "guilty and guilty by association until proven innocent"

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            This is why Rambus is crucified for life, regardless how AWESOME their technology is

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          Er…yeah that’s exactly what the guy that stole Intel’s secrets and went to work for AMD did. Although he clearly stated that he wanted to share Intel’s secrets with AMD, no proof was found of AMD’s direct involvement.

        • RDFSteve
        • 7 years ago

        Those four are now Nvidia employees, aren’t they?

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          And? Considering they worked in an industry that has very few competitors it is very reasonable to expect them to go to a competitor that is doing well and offers the most job security.

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        The files don’t necessarily need to be transferred to Nvidia for Nvidia to benefit from them. Having a permanent reference means the former AMD employees could have implemented something or directed the company to effectively counter AMD. You could also manually copy something or copy parts of a document into a new one in order to hide its true origin.

        Nvidia might not have know this was going on, either, but it definitely looks bad for them in both cases. If the evidence is overwhelming against these individuals, watch Nvidia, because [i<]they[/i<] may be the ones crucifying the individuals in question.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          To the same extent, since they were privileged to such information to begin with that risk is there if the documents were copied or not. Last time I checked mind wipes were not included in a severance package. I guarantee you that there are also probably a ton of documents on their personal systems that have been forwarded to their home system in regular day to day operations.

            • RDFSteve
            • 7 years ago

            These guys COPIED over 100,000 documents on their way out the door and tried to hide the fact. This is NOT the same as ex-employees going to work for a competitor with their personal knowledge intact.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Correction. AMD claims they did. Now they will need to prove it and also those ex-employees will need to be heard and tell their story and back it up too.

            • RDFSteve
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah, because that’s the kind of thing AMD would do with no evidence to back it up at all. Are you thinking at all here?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Where did I say that ? All I said is that right now, there are just claims. In a court both sides need to be heard and proof from both sides needs to be presented and that proof needs to hold in said court. You saying you have proof doesn’t automatically make it valid, although I don’t doubt it is.

            My point here is that the wording is key. You can’t accuse anyone and that someone is immediately guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty, so when whatever party just claims you did something, only when it is proven is that someone guilty. Not before, as the majority of comments show…

            • A_Pickle
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Where did I say that ? All I said is that right now, there are just claims.[/quote<] If you think these are "just claims," you're off your rocker, man. The stuff they're alleging took place sounds like it was lifted right out of an audit log on a computer somewhere -- that's admissable evidence in a court of law.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            I responded to similar points to Neely below, but there are two key things here:

            1. Files are better than human memory and contain details the individual will not remember.
            2. Nvidia hired these individuals, and therefore had value added to the company by thieves.

            I’m not arguing that Nvidia is responsible for any of this, just that it puts them in a bad place. Chances are they are doing internal investigations to make sure they aren’t inadvertently using AMD trade secrets just to cover themselves.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]If the evidence is overwhelming against these individuals, watch Nvidia, because they may be the ones crucifying the individuals in question.[/quote<] Clearly; nothing less should be expected. Regarding your other point: [quote<]Having a permanent reference means the former AMD employees could have implemented something or directed the company to effectively counter AMD.[/quote<] This is a tricky one, and that's why there are non-competition clauses in employment agreements. Even if these guys didn't copy any documents, they would still have extensive knowledge of what was in those documents. They could potentially use that knowledge to benefit NVidia anyway. Now, the followup question to this is: where to draw the line? These guys are valuable, skillful, productive folks exactly because of their experience in the industry. They know how the industry works, have experience in solving difficult problems etc. How much of their past experience and knowledge should they be allowed to use in their new job before it crosses the line..?

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            Not saying it isn’t a tricky situation, just that (going back to dpaus on the top) it puts Nvidia in a bad place.

            Experience is one thing, but files are better than human memory. The Devil is in the details, as the saying goes. The files could show exactly how AMD devices operate, they could map out several failures in R&D, or to step out of engineering, it could contain contract data showing AMD’s costs. Any of those things could be used to engineer specific advantages in Nvidia’s favor.

            But again, go to dpaus’s original comment. All of this puts Nvidia in a bad place. The fact that they employed people who stole AMD files is very bad PR.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        now why would ex AMD’ers take documents which immediately opened them up to potential prosecution?

        obviously given the legal ramifications those ex AMD employee’s placed a value on the information that is beyond personal and instead shared in view by the industry.

        it’s always humorous how ppl want to argue “see, see, you didn’t actually see them handing the documents over to Nvidia, they just happened to have stolen internal documents while being hired by Nvidia… it’s all coincidence…. but you didn’t actually SEE them hand those stolen documents to anyone at Nvidia so it must not have happened.”

        that may work in the court of law but in a court of common sense…. really?… c’mon, you can’t even grasp the potential…. can’t fathom it ever happening….. c’mon…. really?

          • MustangSally
          • 7 years ago

          Why would they…? Because they thought they could get away with it.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            yeah… while I agree sort of…..given the very likely chance of hassle and excluding the tangible gains to be had that particular little nugget of observation is limited to morons, infants, and sociopaths.

    • GeneS
    • 7 years ago

    It’s despicable that these former employees did this (if it’s proven that they did).

    With the same caveat, it is far, far worse that Nvidia appears to have accepted the data, and at a minimum did not immediately fire them and then turn them over to the police.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      I was once doing a job interview where the candidate slyly told me that he was currently working for a competitor and could bring some trade secrets with him if he got the job. I was so glad we interviewed in pairs; I looked at my colleague (who had a stunned look on his face), back at the candidate and said ‘Really?’

      He broke into a huge grin and said “Oh, yeah” and started describing what he would bring. I cut him off immediately, and my partner was already standing up and reaching for his arm. We frog-marched him out into the parking lot and told him we never wanted to hear from him again. I went right back up to my office and immediately phoned that competitor – who I hated with a passion – and told him what had just happened, and volunteered to repeat it in a phone call with the employee in his office. He curtly told me ‘not necessary’ and then, somewhat grudgingly, ‘thanks’ (years later, at a trade show, ho offered a more sincere ‘thank you’)

      At least 5 people at Nvidia need to suffer this same fate – the four ex-AMD employees, and at least one person at Nvidia who hired them. Personally, I suspect that several people at Nvidia are at least complicit in this matter, and they all need to be sacked, immediately. Given that one of the ex-AMDers was a very senior VP, it is extremely difficult for me to believe that Jen-Hsun Huang isn’t personally implicated. Given the corporate exposure, I’ll be equally surprised if at least some shareholders aren’t looking for his head (shareholder or not).

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        LOL, such ridiculousness cannot be made up!
        So when hiring these people, what you’re saying is that they didn’t hire them for their expertise or knowledge…they hired them for documents from the company they came from ? And you bring NVIDIA’s CEO into the mix too…out of thin air!
        Plus you use your “example” (true or not) to make assumptions and generalize on the current situation, of which you have no proof of.

        Thankfully any decent justice system is based on proof. AMD made its claim against their ex-employees and now they will need to prove them.

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          Seriously, I read your comments in this section – you are an ***** or just a troll. You have no idea how important trade secrets are in the industry.

          Pepsi Alerted Coca-Cola to Stolen-Coke-Secrets Offer

          “Coca-Cola (KO) and Pepsi (PEP) are usually bitter enemies, but when PepsiCo Inc. got a letter offering Coke trade secrets, it went straight to its corporate rival. Six weeks later, three people were scheduled to appear in federal court Thursday to face charges of stealing confidential information, including a sample of a new drink, from The Coca-Cola Co., and trying to sell it to PepsiCo. “Competition can sometimes be fierce, but also must be fair and legal,” Pepsi spokesman Dave DeCecco said. “We’re pleased the authorities and the FBI have identified the people responsible for this.”

          Read more: [url<]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202439,00.html#ixzz2IA6CGVrL[/url<] Considering your use of "LOL", I am guessing you are 16 years old. Go play COD with your Xbox 360 friends and stop spewing worthless opinion on matters outside of your area of expertise.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t understand how TR lets people like you around…a person that retorts to arguments with “you must be a kid” or “you don’t know anything”, without actual proof of knowledge. You could at least make an effort to read to what I was replying to and assert its context, but that’s too much effort I guess…
            Oh and the Xbox 360 friends part is priceless. But anyway, wasting time commenting on your drivel is actually not something I want to continue doing, except to end with this:

            Of course trade secrets are important, but not at the expense of not letting the justice system do its work. Even though we only know one part of the story, people like you are already assuming the guilt of the other parties. But that’s how it works around here: “Innocent until proven guilty” is quickly twisted into “Innocent until proven guilty, unless AMD is doing the accusations…in that case they are GUILTY”.

            Oh and LOL is a very common abbreviation in comments sections like this or forums, SMS, etc.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            Did you even attempt to read the details of the case? It will be very difficult to prove that Nvidia actually used those trade secrets for their own benefit/to advance its designs/gain an upper hand over AMD due to possession of such documents and materially hurt AMD financially as a result of gaining access to the said docs. However, proving that these individuals are guilty of stealing trade secrets with forensic evidence is almost a done deal.

            Notice how nearly no one else agrees with your viewpoint. I think it’s time you reassess what you posted in this thread and read the details and claims being made against these individuals on this case from other sources. It’s fairly obvious you are just basing all of your comments on the TR article which only briefly provided the extent of the accusations/details against the ex-employees.

            Most of your comments are simply uninformed when you claim “AMD still has to prove that they are guilty”. Of course they do — you take the evidence and present it in the court…..thanks for stating the obvious over and over. The process of presenting evidence in court is the process of proving your case legally. However, your argument is like saying Lance Armstrong was not guilty since while there was mounting evidence against him, it wasn’t yet proven that he was guilty. Once the case goes under way, it’s just a matter of time assuming the evidence is irrefutable.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          Silus, let me see if I can help you out by explaining my situation and the resulting perspective I have on this matter:
          [list=1<] [*<] I am the CEO of a tech company. Are you? [/*<][*<] I have personally been faced with this situation - from both sides. Have you? [/*<][*<] I spent thousands of dollars on lawyers who advised me in those situations. Have you? [/*<][*<] In one of those situations, I was advised to involve the police, and I did, and I worked closely with them on the matter. Have you personally done that? [/*<][*<] As a CEO, I know what my moral obligations are, and I know what my legal exposure is. Do you?[/*<] [/list<] So when I make a comment on this matter, that's the background I bring to bear on it.

            • MustangSally
            • 7 years ago

            Oh, Silus, do you want something to put on that 3rd-degree BURN?!?

            • HTarlek
            • 7 years ago

            I think that’s what’s called an ‘over-the-Internet-kick-in-the-nuts’ isn’t it?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah and by a CEO at that! It gives the person so much more credit on an internet comments section!

            • HTarlek
            • 7 years ago

            It certainly does when the subject is tech-sector corporate espionage and he’s a tech-sector CEO.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Dpaus went too far. Being a tech CEO doesn’t give him the right to act like he’s judge&jury&executioner

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            First of all, let me remind everyone that my very first words on the entire matter were:
            [quote<]So, [i<][b<]if[/b<] the allegations are true[/i<] (and I doubt it would go this far if there wasn't overwhelming evidence), that means...[/quote<] (after-the-fact emphasis entirely mine) So all this BS from Silus (and, to a much lesser extent, from you) about my leaping over tall conclusions with a single bound, is just that...BS. Having said that, when you're "in the position I am" (I'm not going to reference my job title again because that got some people upset) (also, there's now an "Occupy" protester in my executive parking spot), you are often put in the position of having to make a decision based on a judgement call, [i<]without[/i<] the benefit of exhaustive evidence, a jury of 12 peers to consider it for hours or days, etc. Sometimes, you have to make a decision that's going to have life-altering consequences for someone (and, potentially, their family), in a matter of a minute or two, without knowing all the facts. The situation is usually that, if you don't make any decision, you expose the entire rest of the company (and, often yourself) to all kinds of other life-altering harm. [i<]Not[/i<] making a decision just because you don't have all the facts literally isn't an option. Call it 'unfair' all you want, that's reality. When I first read it, I thought your "judge&jury&executioner" comment was a bit harsh, but, at least in the situation I described above, it is accurate. It is a serious responsibility to bear, and I can assure you that - at least for myself - the weight of sits heavily on your shoulders. So, sorry, but within my own company, on matters like these, yes, I am 'judge&jury&executioner', but it's not so much my 'right' as it's my responsibility, my obligation. But I'm also clearly aware that that is only within the corporation, not in an outside court of law.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            It’s not BS if you read the rest of your post:

            [quote<]At least 5 people at Nvidia [b<]need[/b<] to suffer this same fate - the four ex-AMD employees, and at least one person at Nvidia who hired them. Personally, [b<]I suspect that several people at Nvidia are at least complicit in this matter, and they all need to be sacked, immediately.[/b<] Given that one of the ex-AMDers was a very senior VP, it is extremely difficult for me to believe that Jen-Hsun Huang isn't personally implicated. Given the corporate exposure, I'll be equally surprised if at least some shareholders aren't looking for his head (shareholder or not).[/quote<] You immediately stated that the person who hired these four ex-AMD employees [b<]needed[/b<] to suffer some 'fate' (getting escorted out? getting fired). This is without even trying to find proof that (s)he knew about the stolen documents. [b<]You[/b<], as a tech CEO, simply [i<]decided[/i<] that (s)he must've known and hence had to go. Second, you [b<]suspected[/b<] that a bunch of people were complicit, and [b<]"all they need to be sacked, [i<]immediately[/i<][/b<]". This is what I referred to with the "knee-jerk witch hunt". Firing people have "life-altering consequences", and you need to at least try to figure out the truth behind allegations before making such critical decisions on a hunch. Overall, I got the sense that you were on a bit of a power trip because you are an alpha male tech CEO, jumped to conclusions quickly, and defended them aggressively because you have [i<]so[/i<] much experience to bring to bear and because you're just better than others. And before you whine about getting attacked for your title... you should've known that boombastically announcing that you're a "tech CEO" will make you an easy target for extra ridicule in the court of public opinion.. e.g. "how's that golden parachute working for you". Silus' comment right after yours is very much valid in most ways, in my opinion. Implying that you may have invented the interview story was kind of strange, though, and his was sort of mocking your comment. But I thought the underlying disagreement with your quick conclusions was very reasonable, and I don't think he deserved the massive downthumbing he got. You deserved upthumbs for yours because of the way you handled your interview event, but IMO you also deserved downthumbs for your quick judgement of various folks at NVIdia without a shred of proof... that's why I didn't vote either way.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            C’mon, are you seriously suggesting that I’d fire the person who hired them just for hiring them, with no indication at all that they knew about the documents? Who’s leaping to conclusions now?

            [quote<]Overall, I got the sense that you were on a bit of a power trip because you are an alpha male tech CEO[/quote<] 'alpha male' is something I cannot deny, but 'power trip'? Naw... [quote<]jumped to conclusions quickly[/quote<] <rollseyes> "..if the allegations are true..." he repeated... [quote<]defended them aggressively because you have so much experience to bring to bear[/quote<] I did state my experience as a way of justifying my comments and explaining my perspective, but 'defended them aggressively' is in the eye of the beholder [quote<]and because you're just better than others[/quote<] Bullsh!rt, and I don't even see anything I said that could be interpreted that way. If you do, kindly point it out.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]are you seriously suggesting that I'd fire the person who hired them just for hiring them, with no indication at all that they knew about the documents?[/quote<] That's sort of how you sounded. "I suspect" -> "they need to be fired immediately". Also, the whole spiel about CEOs having to make decisions in minutes without knowing "all the facts" and that "Not making a decision is not an option" make it sound like you'd be willing to fire people based on simple allegations because not doing so might risk your profits down the line. [quote<]"So, if the allegations are true (and I doubt it would go this far if there wasn't overwhelming evidence), that means Nvidia is in possession of stolen property. I have to wonder what idiot at Nvidia would put them in that position."[/quote<] The allegations in the lawsuit were focused on ex-AMD employees and their wrongdoings - not anything other NVidia employees did. Nowhere does AMD state thay they believe NVidia hiring/interviewing folks were aware of these documents. [b<]YOU[/b<] are the one who stated that some "idiot at Nvidia" (presumably the hiring manager) put the company in that position, implying they knew about the documents. So, when you talk about "if allegations are true", are you talking about allegations in the AMD complaint, or your own allegations that NVidia CEO/employees (other than the four mentioned in the complaint) were aware of the documents? You even imply that the "allegations" are probably true because there is "overwhelming evidence".. Because there is [i<]no[/i<] evidence that NVidia had anythying to do with this, other than unknowingly hiring these guys, your "allegations" must refer to those in AMD's complaint. So, if that's the case, then your "if allegations are true" has no bearing on the discussion in this thread that's focused on needing to fire NVidia employees because you suspect they had something to do with this.

            • DarkUltra
            • 7 years ago

            Pleade dont attack people or be provokative. Thank you!

            • GeneS
            • 7 years ago

            And you’re saying that to MustangSally??? (who, after all, was only offering First Aid LOL)

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            This is what you said, after mentioning your personal experience with someone that wanted to divulge secrets from another company to you:

            “At least 5 people at Nvidia need to suffer this same fate – the four ex-AMD employees, and at least one person at Nvidia who hired them. Personally, I suspect that several people at Nvidia are at least complicit in this matter, and they all need to be sacked, immediately. Given that one of the ex-AMDers was a very senior VP, it is extremely difficult for me to believe that Jen-Hsun Huang isn’t personally implicated. Given the corporate exposure, I’ll be equally surprised if at least some shareholders aren’t looking for his head (shareholder or not).”

            How can you extrapolate your experience to this case ? Do you know that these AMD ex-employees also did the same thing as the guy you interviewed i.e, when interviewed at NVIDIA, these AMD ex-employees also said they wanted to share AMD’s secrets with them ? And you even said that you have a hard time believing that NVIDIA’s CEO isn’t involved. I guess only you are the almighty moral compass that will never break, but NVIDIA’s CEO…how could he not know that these people might’ve stolen documents from AMD ?
            Of course that in your mind, if these ex-employees indeed stole documents from AMD, the interviews at NVIDIA couldn’t have possibly been normal procedure as usual, without talks of stolen documents from AMD…

            In short, you being a CEO of a company, doesn’t mean you can assume guilt of someone without proof, just assumptions, suspicions or vague connections to your own personal experience. And I certainly question your moral obligations when you do just that.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            Allow me to add this:

            6. I’ve had to make public statements about very negative things, usually with some public officials at my side (or me at theirs). And from that, I learned the incredibly important distinction between a court of law and the court of public opinion.

            I get that you’re trying to bring it back to what has to be proved in a court of law, and you’re right about that. But I think you’re sadly ignorant of the power of the court of public opinion, in which both these 4 guys and Nvidia are already tarred and feathered.

            For a handy (and relatively painless) example of the court of public opinion, take a look at the number of downvotes you are accumulating, regardless of what you say.

            • MustangSally
            • 7 years ago

            ^^ This. End of story.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            So because some clueless people already place the blame and guilt over these people AND directly associate it with NVIDIA, despite that no proof has been presented yet AND the civil suit has nothing to do with NVIDIA, there’s nothing to do but take what these ignorants say ? Again I have to question your morals, when you participate in such a display of ignorance, knowing full well that until it’s proven, nothing and no one is guilty of anything, despite what public opinion says.

            Then you even use the downvotes I get regardless of what I say, showing that you know most people are not even reading what I write, they are just down voting me on the basis of “it’s Silus”, as an argument that it’s public opinion that matters despite the fact that no proof was yet presented and most definitely no guilt was discerned. And I guess that in your brainless logic this also means that because you get so many up votes, you are right, right ? Laughable and pathetic are the words I use to describe that line of thought, which ignores reality and burden of proof, in favor of “public opinion”.

            Too bad the same “public opinion” didn’t have quite the same attitude, when it was AMD under investigation for the guy that “spied” on Intel, as he went to work for AMD. Worse even, when it was proven that the guy was guilty, with no proof was found against AMD, no one questioned if that was really the case.
            In the current case though, there’s no proof of guilt, no trial and nothing proving NVIDIA’s involvement in this, yet both these 4 people and NVIDIA are already guilty. Bravo!

            You basically defended “public hangings” if you will, based on assumptions and forced conclusions out of thin air. Actually let’s lock these people away right now based on the downvotes I get! Yeah that’s the proper way to do it in your twisted world!

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I agree with Silus on this one. No evidence has been shown that NVidia or its CEO is in any way guilty of wrongdoing here. Suggesting that JHH is personally involved is a pretty ridiculous claim, IMO.

            You being a tech CEO might lend you some extra credibility, but your statements about a bunch of people needing to be fired without knowing details of the case makes me question that credibility. Would you fire your own employees just because you had a hunch that they did something wrong? If so, I most certainly wouldn’t want to work in your company.

            I have a feeling that you’re projecting your own personal experience to this case, assuming that the same exact thing happened here, and announcing all these people are guilty and need to be fired. The fact, though, is that you don’t know what happened, and thus aren’t qualified to make those claims.

            As an executive, you should be promoting truth and honesty instead of the court of public opinion and knee-jerk witch hunts

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            OK, see post above about how my very first comments were
            [quote<]So, if the allegations are true...[/quote<] But, with that caveat, [i<][b<]yes[/i<][/b<], "if the allegations are true", then anyone actively and knowingly involved in the matter needs to be fired. Corporate espionage - especially in extremely competitive businesses - is like sexual assault (in the workplace or in society): it is a zero-tolerance matter, and it has to be addressed immediately, and often with extreme prejudice (and yes, I'm keenly aware of the implications of that statement), and [i<]too[/i<] often, without all the facts. [i<]Failing[/i<] to take strong and immediate action when faced with a certain level of evidence - even if that level is [i<]no where near enough for a court of law[/i<] can expose the rest of the entire corporation to grievous harm from various lawsuits and/or regulatory actions (which can obviously vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so, YMMV) As I understand it, one of the four was a senior VP at AMD, and he was recruited away to a senior VP role at Nvidia. If that is correct, it would be difficult for me to believe that JHH wasn't personally involved in his recruitment at some point. And like it or not, the charge often leveled against politicians in similar situations is valid (at least to some extent): he either knew about it, or should have known about it. It's certainly possible that someone one level below him did something and studiously kept it from JHH; that goes directly to my comment in my very first post about "what kind of idiot would put (Nvidia) in that position?" I'd like to give a blanket "I'm not letting my personal experience get in the way of my judgement" statement (especially since neither of the cases I dealt with were anything like this), but the reality is that executives should always do some deep soul-searching before saying things like that, so I will reserve comment while I do so. You don't think I promote truth and honesty? You'll get to know me better late this year over some beer and wings. But there's a huge difference between a 'witchhunt' (where, by definition, you actively go out looking for something), and having an ugly, steaming mass of crap dumped into your lap and being told that you have a few minutes to make a high-consequence decision about it. Be grateful for every opportunity you get to avoid the latter.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            It took me a while to find your “if the allegations are true” because it was nowhere in this thread.

            JHH may well have been involved in recruiting this SVP, but I don’t see why you imply he had any knowledge of the stolen documents.

          • maxxcool
          • 7 years ago

          your dense right ? the very second any of these doc’s were offered there should have been a firing and a immediate federal investigation and notification to AMD.

          To know that Nvidia took the docs means that in-fact there are collaborators at Nvidia that they will find and they should go to FPMITA prison as well.

          btw 10000 geek points to guess what FPMITA stands for 😉

            • way2strong
            • 7 years ago

            So rape is a justified punishment for corporate espionage?

            • maxxcool
            • 7 years ago

            booo you did not name the movie… and yes it is. prison is prison. period.

            • way2strong
            • 7 years ago

            That’s rather barbaric. I hope you will reconsider your opinion on this matter.

            • maxxcool
            • 7 years ago

            I appreciate your polite disagreement !

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Please tell me WHERE is this proof that documents were offered to NVIDIA and that NVIDIA knew that these people copied documents (if indeed they copied documents) ?

            Or, in your brainless world, when person A does something wrong and that person works for company B, that immediately means company B is involved in the same thing ?
            This already happened to AMD, where a guy that worked for AMD spied on Intel and wanted to supply the documents to AMD and was found guilty of that. There was no proof found of AMD’s involvement. Why is it so hard for your brain to process such simple information and infer just the opposite of that WITHOUT any proof ?

            Let the justice system do it’s thing and DON’T assume guilt based on nothing.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            while guilt can’t be assumed the question would be why?…. as in why did the ex AMD’ers take the documents which immediately opened them up to potential career ending, civil & criminal prosecution?

            obviously given the legal ramifications those ex AMD employee’s placed a value on the information that went well beyond personal and instead was perceived to be a shared view of value across the industry.

            it’s always humorous how ppl want to argue “see, see, you didn’t actually see them handing the documents over to Nvidia, they just happened to have stolen internal documents while being hired by Nvidia… it’s all coincidence…. but you didn’t actually SEE them hand those stolen documents to anyone at Nvidia so it must not have happened.”

            the ultimate strawman position.

            that may work in the court of law but in a court of common sense…. really?… c’mon, you can’t even grasp the potential…. can’t fathom it ever happening…. really?

            on a side note: Lance Armstrong finally admitted publicly that he cheated and took performance enhancing drugs, no more caveats or conditions… he willingly / actively cheated.

            guilt was not in question prior to his admission, it was assumed but regardless while skimming through a thread on the matter a few idiots were still demanding to see the proof and feeling sorry for poor persecuted (guilty) Lance.

            clueless ppl occupy both sides of the isle, suspicion & proof don’t matter because in general ppl choose to see and fight vehemently for a cause they’ve adopted regardless of either & especially once they’ve invested time & effort into the endeavor.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t see any evidence in the articles that NVidia has accepted/used the confidential documents, or even knew that these ex-AMD employees have them.

        Your story, though, is shocking. Did this guy actually think that offering the other companies’ trade secrets would help him land a job with you?! Some people are just…

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          Even if it was legal, there’s no way I’d hire someone who would so willingly sell out their former employer – knowing that they’d do the same to me down the road.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Once more, another assumption that, if these people really did steal documents from AMD, NVIDIA knew about it.

            Yeah, among other things, that’s something that needs to be proven.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I was actually talking about dpaus’ story, though I guess replying to NeelyCam who brought it back on OT it might look like I was talking about AMD.

            Regardless, your hyperventilation makes you look like you’re the one giving out secrets.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I agree with this, too.

            It’s interesting how nuked you get with the comment ratings, though

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            That’s how it is in here. The AMD fanboy community is strong @ TR. I’ve said it many times. And they don’t care what’s said, if it’s logical or actually based on known facts. I’m pretty sure they don’t even read my posts, they just see “Silus” so it’s an automatic downvote. But I don’t really care about that. Fortunately TR is a place where the up/down vote system isn’t binding to assert disturbances in the comments, but only the actual content of the comments themselves.

            • kfleszar
            • 7 years ago

            “I’m pretty sure they don’t even read my posts, they just see “Silus” so it’s an automatic downvote.”

            Aren’t you making an assumption without a proof here?

            • Spunjji
            • 7 years ago

            Jumping out with phrases like “AMD fanboy community” sure is a great way to delude yourself about precisely why you’re getting downvotes, for sure, but it’s not going to help you reassess what you’re saying.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I completely agree

          • MustangSally
          • 7 years ago

          Nvidia will look just as bad if it turns out that they even knew about the documents and didn’t immediately fire them and notify AMD.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Absolutely. It is expected that everyone reports these events to authorities.

            What I find interesting is that the public opinion has already crucified NVidia, witth the assumption that they in fact knew about the shadiness here. Does [i<]anybody[/i<] have any evidence of concrete wrongdoing?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Of course and no one is disputing that. You put it correctly as “if it turns out that they knew about the documents”. That’s the burden of proof on AMD’s side now, although AMD at this point is not accusing NVIDIA of anything, just their ex-employees.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Did this guy actually think that offering the other companies' trade secrets would help him land a job with you?![/quote<] Sadly, I have to admit that I remember the 80s, and that sort of thing was common in the 80s, and this guy was a child of the 80s. So, yeah....

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          The story state that its two nvidia VP and Director (that used to work for AMD with long ATI tenure) that broke their signed agreement and hired AMD employee that in turn have stolen trade secrets and documents.

          So I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes all the way to nvidia doorstep since the allegation have really been made against an nvidia company VP and Director.

          Robert Feldstein started working at nvidia as a VP in jult 2012 & Richard Hagen in october 2012.
          AMD said Nicolas Kociuk (one of the person AMD accuse of stealing tens of thousand of propriety documents) was recruited by Robert Feldstein / Richard Hagen
          Nicolas Kociuk was supposed to start as an design engineer for nvidia,
          so this doesn’t look good for nvidia.

          So Its clearly a scheme from two high level nvidia VP/Director that allegedly try to rip off AMD by scooping engineer from under AMD nose and have them bring confidential info..
          If AMD got proof , this is not looking good for those guys (and girl)

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        That story should be an example for anyone here who is going to be doing job interviews. You were spot on in doing exactly what you did and you saved your employer & yourself a lot of potential grief in the process.

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          Thanks for the vote of support. In this case, since I own the company, ‘saved my employer of lot of grief’ translates perfectly to ‘covered my own ass with bullet-proof Lexan’ 🙂

      • anubis44
      • 7 years ago

      Well, we’re talking about the same company that refused to recognize they were responsible for selling faulty GPUs and insisted they didn’t know anything about the bumpgate scandal: [url<]http://m.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137385/nvidia-bad-bump-misery-deepens[/url<] Frankly, Nvidia's cards have always seemed to be made with cheaper parts and lower specs than ATI/AMD cards. Their RAMDAC's were always lower quality, and produced crappier image quality.

    • Jon
    • 7 years ago

    Whilst reading this article did anybody else hear about 5 seconds of some russian lady speaking with generic office noise in the background?

      • pins
      • 7 years ago

      No, but then I don’t work in an office in Russia, so…

      • RDFSteve
      • 7 years ago

      We did!

    • RtFusion
    • 7 years ago

    This is probably the one of the last things that AMD would have wanted to happen to them in their current state.

    I really hope they come after those guys and shut them down. Seriously, I don’t care what company you work for; if you pass trade secrets to another competitor during or after employment, you should be crucified.

    End of story.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      The sentence , if they get convicted, look like they will. Will be about 3 years .
      And they will carry a criminal record.

      In reality they might get away with little punishment compared to the magnitude of the crime.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        I wonder who is up voting you ? Certainly someone with AMD shares or something like that, because anyone that makes a decision based on a single party’s claim has some serious issues.

        • A_Pickle
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]In reality they might get away with little punishment compared to the magnitude of the crime.[/quote<] Except they'll never get a job at a serious tech firm ever again - that's the real punishment, if you ask me. I'm not a big fan of the government using force to deprive people of liberty, but I'm a huge fan of PEOPLE evaluating the past actions of other people, and acting accordingly. These guys betrayed a company that trusted them, if they're found to be guilty (which seems... likely). What other company, in its right mind, would then trust these guys with ANY information (and therefore, a job above "janitor") again?

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]if you pass trade secrets to another competitor during or after employment, you should be crucified.[/quote<] What if those "trade secrets" show potential anti-competitive activity..?

        • RDFSteve
        • 7 years ago

        Then you notify the trade commission. it needs to be public.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          I said “potential”. These employees may not be legal experts, and might not be able to determine if it is in fact illegal or not.

          If they pass that information to the new employer’s legal department, does that constitute an illegal transfer of a trade secret, or a legal disclosure of an illegal activity?

            • Spunjji
            • 7 years ago

            …that would be why you pass it to the Trade Commission, them being the specialists in determining that sort of thing. Passing it to the competitor is at best a hideous breach of trust.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    AMD is trying for a settlement from nVidia. Their cash must be getting very low for them to sink to this, but it’s hardly a surprise. When AMD is selling everything not nailed down and axing employees left and right (deliberately causing a brain drain at a firm built on R&D), eventually there are only a few options left.

    I imagine whoever winds up buying AMD’s assets will probably enjoy completing a suit against nVidia. Then again, it might just drive nVidia to spend top dollar to get said assets instead, right?

    I remember the last time nVidia bought out a major 3d competitor. They bought out all the assets of people, tech, and brands without buying the pesky need to support said customers through any kind of customer service or support for existing cards.

    I remember the wailing on the intarwebz which were still kinda new back then. 3dfx fans were duped and nVidia saw no need to make their mistake in choice any more palatable. I imagine nVidia would behave the same toward AMD buyers if they bought AMD cheap. If you want long term support for your cards, I think most anyone best stay away from AMD.

    That ship’s on its way down through the atmosphere as we speak and I think the heat shields are beginning to fail…

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Can you image if AMD knew about all that corporate fraud and espionage and just said “Nha, its ok, lets those guy give it to nvidia, Samsung, Apple, …”

      This is a case of fraud, and AMD want to make it clear, that if you broke (or break) your contract and the law you will be procecuted to the full extent of the law.

      BTW, they still have over 10,000 employees and large projects terminated. So for all we know they might actually have more R&D per project then 3 years ago.
      They are still about twice the size of nvidia, and nvidia not only design CPU (For mobile / desktop/ server) like AMD but they also design SoC elements like advance modems and analog circuitry.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]If you want long term support for your cards, I think most anyone best stay away from AMD[/quote<] That's been the case at least since AMD bought ATI. Long-term driver support is pretty bad.

        • BestJinjo
        • 7 years ago

        Please let us know how an 8800GT is maxing out Far Cry 3, and how you intend to use such a card for games like Metro Last Light, Crysis 3, etc. Long-term driver support is only relevant for 2D applications. On this website, predominantly dedicated to hardware enthusiasts, people don’t tend to buy a GPU and hold on to it for 5 years to play games at console level of graphics. Additionally, those who cannot afford to buy high-end GPUs every generation, aren’t savy enough to resell their GPUs and reinvest the resale value into a new card, shouldn’t be buying high-end GPUs in the first place. They should be upgrading mid-range GPUs ($200) more frequently (2-3 years).

        “Long-term” support itself is ambiguous in the instance of hardware enthusiasts who upgrade every 1-2 generations. Also, it’s not as if cards like HD4870/4890 became useless. You can still play non-GPU demanding/casual/2D indie DX9-10 indie games with those cards, without having Jan 2013 WHQL drivers. Because you haven’t tried, you automatically assume you can’t. All the performance from that level of cards has been squeezed. Since companies have limited resources, it’s actually expected that they focus on supporting their existing products rather than waste millions of dollars on legacy GPUs that are largely irrelevant for DX11 gaming to begin with.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          Funny how you contradict yourself and go back and forth. True, cards from 5 years ago aren’t going to run the newest AAA titles with great graphics settings, although they could run them at low settings and resolutions. Then you go on to say cards from a similar era are still useful. Which is it?

          [quote<]Long-term driver support is only relevant for 2D applications.[/quote<] That's the most important thing I was talking about, although using older cards with older games still matters - not from the performance improvement obsessed viewpoint you take but rather from the simple viewpoint of having WHQL certified drivers for older cards in new OSes that use new driver models and that's where Nvidia is miles ahead. Nvidia provides Windows 8 drivers for chips as old as the [i<]GeForce 6[/i<] series including all sorts of IGPs - those are chips released in 2004, and two generations before unified shaders! (I am typing this on a Win 8 PC using a cheapo passive GT210) AMD now provides WHQL Windows 8 drivers for chips as old as the HD 5000 series (I checked in early November and they only had them available going back to the HD6000 series) - their third unified shader series released in 2008. For older unified shader cards you get [url=http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/catalystlegacywin8.aspx<]this page[/url<] which states [quote<]"This AMD Catalyst™ driver version features Windows® 8 support for the AMD Radeon™ HD 4000, HD 3000 and HD 2000 series. Please note that the driver is not Microsoft® logo certified and only supports WDDM 1.1 driver level features."[/quote<] and [quote<]"This Driver is provided “AS IS” and under the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement provided therewith."[/quote<] Anything older and you're SOL for supported WHQL Windows 8 drivers. Nvidia clearly provides far better long-term support, period.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            I didn’t contradict myself. I am saying if you have a 5-6 year old card, you obviously don’t care to play the latest games at high quality settings. In those situations, you are a casual gamer. So why does driver support matter? You aren’t playing the latest games with DX11 effects, mods, high resolution textures, etc. If you fire up Braid, Minecraft, Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3, those games will run well on a 5-6 year old GPU on older WHQL drivers. What’s the point of having new WHQL drivers for new games on such old GPUs for modern games? No point at all.

            You are saying having WHQL drivers matters for 5+ year old cards, why? If you are a PC gamer on this website, it doesn’t matter. Additionally, anyone who is serious about PC gaming is more than likely using a modern generation Intel CPU, which already has a GPU for basic 2D work. You make it sound like you cannot use an HD4850 for 2D work? It’ll still work in Windows 8. The support you keep talking about is meaningless in the real world for gamers. Legacy drivers will still work without issues in Windows 7 and 8 as well for 2D functionality. Additionally, cards like HD4000 series still get driver updates, but they are on a separate schedule.

            Like I said, your entire argument is flawed. Knowledgeable PC gamers who play modern games don’t buy $500-600 GPUs and keep them for 5-6 years. Only noobs who started PC gaming would make such a mistake. People who only need to use their PC for non-gaming tasks would be perfectly fine with an AMD APU/Intel Core i3 and its HD2500 graphics. So your point for “Long-term” support of WHQL graphics is not logical. Everyone else who cannot afford to buy/resell $500 GPUs every generation/other generation buys $150-250 GPUs as the sweet-spot and upgrades every 2-3 years. For those users, long-term driver support for games is also irrelevant since they would have moved on to new gen parts.

            I am a PC gamer and I have no old GPUs. Why would I? I play modern PC games which means I have to be upgrading all the time anyway. What difference would it make to me if GTX680/7970 are supported for 5-7 years? Someone like my brother doesn’t play any PC games and his Intel Core 2 Duo laptop from 2008 works perfectly fine after we upgraded to Windows 7. He doesn’t upgrade GPU drivers for anything and they work just fine in 2D. He could care less if he has the latest January 2013 WHQL drivers or 2009 drivers since it makes no difference for what the GPU is used for (emails, browsing the web, 2D). So ya, your point that you cannot use 5-year-old AMD GPUs for Windows 7/8 is just not true.

            BTW, good luck playing PC games on a GeForce 6/7 when so many modern games require DX10 and 512MB of VRAM:
            [url<]http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2013/01/16/bioshock-infinite-pc/1[/url<] Your long-term driver support nit-picking will only become less relevant with time as by far the majority of CPUs sold will be APUs. As most of us upgrade to Haswell, etc. if we ever need a GPU for 2D in Windows 9-10, we can always just use Intel graphics to hold us over between upgrades. Finally, anyone who is actually buying GTX660-680/7850-7970 would want NV/AMD to focus on those products rather than spend money on fixing issues for GeForce 8-9. Sorry, it makes more sense to support customers who spend $200-500 on modern GPUs than those who bought a card 5 years ago and have no intention of buying any more of your products because they are not gamers. I would welcome it if NV and AMD cut off support after 3 generations of GPUs automatically to reduce the amount of $ they spend on legacy parts, so that those resources are rather diverted to modern cards because that actually helps real PC gamers.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            FYI – there are other uses for computers than gaming. Just because you myopically focus only that one use doesn’t change that, nor does it change the difference in long-term driver support. Let’s repeat that: LONG TERM. HisDivineOrder didn’t mention gaming, merely long-term support. AMD’s long-term driver support is not good and has not been good, proven by two simple numbers:

            Nvidia: 8 years (Geforce 6 – 2004)
            AMD: 4 years (HD 5000 – 2009)

            8>4, therefore Nvidia has better LONG TERM driver support than AMD. If you can prove that 8 is less than 4, be my guest :)…probably better to not reply and continue to look like a fool in the face of simple facts though.

            If you don’t understand why WHQL drivers that use new driver models matter for new OSes, that’s your problem. Writing a lot and resorting to lots of qualifications and assumptions doesn’t change facts either, it just over complicates a very simple question: Who has longer driver support? Answer: Nvidia, because 8>4.

            Repeat after me: 8 is greater than 4…8 is greater than 4…8 is greater than 4…

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            Your entire post is irrelevant as HD4000 series works perfectly fine in Windows 8 for 2D operations, not to mention that HD5000 series is also still supported. If you are complaining about 8 years support for 2D operations, you are just spoiled. This website is targeted at enthusiast gamers. If you need a card for 2D work in 8 years with latest features, just go out and buy one for $50 on the used market. I never once said that AMD has equal long-term support with drivers as NV cards do. I simply stated your comparison is irrelevant for 99% of people on this site since none of us are dumb enough to buy $500 GPUs and keep them for 8 years. That’s a money sink. And also, some people who use their cards for 2D work want Adobe flash acceleration and other cool features modern cards have. So only someone who is not into computers at all would be using a GeForce 6 today that also eats up a ton more power at idle than modern GPUs.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Your entire post is irrelevant as HD4000 series works perfectly fine[/quote<] I know - I have one in my NUC. Wait, what..?

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            From what I can tell people are using Radeon 9800 on windows7 64bit with WHQL drivers from AMD with WDDM 1.0 support.

            The 9 serie was realeased ~2002, so 10 years ago..

            Repeat after me: 10 is greater than 8…10 is greater than 8…10 is greater than 8..

            BTW, it doesnt matter if you have drivers for 8 year old cards, if the card dies after ~6 years or use.
            nvidia is not known for their product longevity… but this might have changed in the past few years.

            But for me, I will never buy an nvidia based laptop again, (I was going to say motherboard, but Intel made my choice easy), and GPU I’m on the fence.

          • jihadjoe
          • 7 years ago

          Aren’t we allowed to choose otherwise?

          I prefer to buy top-or near top-end compoments, and then hold on to them for as long as possible.

          Why? Because I hate the hassle that comes with re-selling stuff, or with doing frequent upgrades. If I buy a mid-end card, then it might be good enough for 1-2 years. A high end card will let me play games for 4-5 years without messing with the computer.

          I’m not just buying high end for the performance, I choose to buy high-end for the long-term convenience. And I’d like to think my way of thinking is just as valid as yours.

      • piesquared
      • 7 years ago
      • TO11MTM
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]If you want long term support for your cards, I think most anyone best stay away from AMD. [/quote<] This has been a good policy for quite some time.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        not even a little wee bit accurate.

          • A_Pickle
          • 7 years ago

          Agreed. I’m using next to nothing but ATI cards, harkening back to the a 3650, and they’re all working fine.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            haters gotta hate.

            I’ve never understood the passion attached to GPU’s and to a lessir extent CPU’s….. literally so much energy wasted regarding companies that care only about finding ways to take as much as possible from anyone they can find.

    • maxxcool
    • 7 years ago

    hmm, super conspiracy time… What *if* they let them “steal them” with the intent to then sue both the employees and seek damages from Nivida ? hmmm SCO in hardware ?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Third or fourth dumbest conspiracy theory ever.

        • GeneS
        • 7 years ago

        1.) Obama birthers
        2.) 9/11 was an inside job
        3.) Sandy Hook truthers

        Naw, it’s way further down the list….

    • dashbarron
    • 7 years ago

    NVIDIA’s biggest gain: Use red in the marketing and get AMD’s clients.

    • superjawes
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]According to AMD, one of the employees even searched the web for ways to "copy and/or delete large numbers of documents."[/quote<] Also in the employee's search history: "how do i hide thumb drives?" "how to i determine the value of confidential documents?" "nvidia jobs" "digital crime for dummies"

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 7 years ago

      You forgot:

      “How to securely erase a computer’s search history.”

      Oh wait. No, that’s them that forgot that.

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, it’s confounding how people who work at tech companies are so computer-illiterate.

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 7 years ago

          You don’t even want to know about the doctors in some hospitals I’ve been in. If it’s not their specialty, completely clueless.

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            “How to tell someone they’re going to die”
            “How to tell someone they’ve got an STD”
            “How to lie to someone that they’ll recover in no time”

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            That’s a little wrong…but I lol’d.

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    AMD investigator: Did you give Nvidia a secret document?

    AMD staffer: No.

    AMD investigator: Did you give Nvidia 100,000 secret documents?

    AMD staffer: Yes.

      • Fursdon
      • 7 years ago

      …Very yes.

        • jensend
        • 7 years ago

        ([url<]http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail118.html[/url<])

          • Kharnellius
          • 7 years ago

          Aahaha Yes!

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          lmao.

          COMPUTER OVER.
          VIRUS = VERY YES.

            • Kharnellius
            • 7 years ago

            Making out with Marzipan!!!

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          Have you been using the internet irresponsibly?

          No more irresponsibly than usual.

        • jessterman21
        • 7 years ago

        I wish I could thumbs-up this more. “And the Compy – just peed my carpet.”

    • Silus
    • 7 years ago

    Ah AMD in another desperate move!
    After spying on Intel and the guy suffering all the consequences, with AMD denying involvement of course:

    [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Espionage-Secrets-Stolen-AMD,6359.html[/url<] [url<]http://news.techeye.net/chips/intel-spy-gets-three-years-in-clink[/url<] Now comes another attempt at trying to justify their horrendous performance and extremely poor management decisions. Yeah, AMD it must be the universe against you! There's no other explanation! Everyone else is wrong and you're right! Now you just have to prove what you accuse others of!

      • poulpy
      • 7 years ago

      Not that I’m surprised but why don’t you take your biased hat for a second?

      The case you point to (in two different posts at that) was a legal case, in court, not something you talk your talk your way out of just by going “wasn’t me, didn’t know, kthxbye”.
      The person was found guilty and sent to prison for that, while AMD wasn’t found guilty.
      For that case you don’t blame Intel for pressing charges while you diss AMD thinking they did in fact spy on Intel and got away with it.

      Now this new case will also end up legal, in court, with lawyers, judge, etc.
      The persons and Nvidia will be tried and if found guilty will pay the price.
      Yet here you find AMD’s move to be just a frivolous attempt at hidding their “horrendous performance”..

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        It was a legal case because charges were made. Same thing will happen now. First a civil suit and if actual proof is given, criminal charges.

        And AMD was “not guilty”, because there was no proof of their involvement. Now AMD needs to prove NVIDIA’s involvement or NVIDIA has nothing to do with it, much like the case I pointed out that involved someone ex-Intel working for AMD that also “took” some documents.

          • mcnabney
          • 7 years ago

          No mention of the BILLIONS that Intel had to pay AMD due to their monopolistic sales practices?

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            That had nothing to do with industrial espionage and as you said, Intel was fined for it. It wasn’t billions though. It was “just” 1.25 billion. The only point that can be argued there is if AMD got enough to compensate for their losses over Intel’s monopolistic and illegal tactics, but as far as I remember AMD reached an agreement with Intel on the value they would get.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Exactly – it wasn’t a fine. It was a settlement AMD and Intel reached together, based on the strength (or weakness) of the claim.

          • poulpy
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]It was a legal case because charges were made. Same thing will happen now. First a civil suit and if actual proof is given, criminal charges[/quote<] Yes, well done, my point exactly: identical scenari, let the justice do its job. But yet: - you pass on Intel for pressing charges and shout that AMD did indeed spy (meaning both knew and used the data, based on what evidence?!) but go away with it. - you diss AMD for pressing charges and doubt of Nvidia's involvement. If that's not being biased I don't know what is.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            …Why should I criticize Intel for not pressing charges when that is done by the proper authorities, in this case the FBI, which it DID press charges ?

            Also, I doubt of NVIDIA’s involvement as much as I doubted AMD’s involvement in the case I pointed out. Not finding proof, does not mean that there’s no involvement. It might just mean that proof was either destroyed or covered up nicely.

            As I said, proof is key and it’s AMD making the claims so the burden of proof is on them. Also, AMD is not charging NVIDIA. They are charging the former employees. They just drag NVIDIA into this (which is no coincidence), because those people went to work for NVIDIA and it’s in AMD’s best interest to drag a competitor into these matters, truthful or not. Just look at all the other comments that state as fact that NVIDIA did receive said documents. And this alone, clearly says that AMD has no proof that the supposedly stolen documents were in fact handed to NVIDIA. If they did they would be after NVIDIA too.

            • SHOES
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dense[/url<]

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Ah the insult argument. Quite the regular tactic around here, when there’s no argument to be made. Here’s what I feel of your “argument”:

            [url<]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pathetic[/url<]

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Dont worry, those 4 guys will get prison time and Robert Feldstein, Manoo Desai, Nicholas Kociuk, and Richard Hagen will join Biswamohan Pani in a US prison.

      I think 3 years is a bit light. For the small fry’s its usually no big deal, but for Robert Feldstein having a criminal record with corporate spying, it will destroy his career at any reputable companies.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        So they’re already guilty ? Wow, AMD can make whatever claims that whoever they accuse is immediately guilty and will go to prison…

        Might as well skip a trial then. Just lock them up and throw away the key! That’s justice!!!

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          Just stop commenting if you don’t understand how the legal system actually works.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Ah yet another “you don’t know squat” argument! Who’s 16 again ?

            And I clearly understand it better than you do, when my arguments of “a claim isn’t enough to find someone guilty of anything”, “both sides need to be heard” and “proof needs to be given and accepted in a court of law” is being disputed.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            From all of your comments, it’s evident that you do not have a grasp at all on how the legal system works. You have only attempted to make yourself look knowledge in the matter by commenting on a trivial aspects such as “innocent until proven guilty” blah blah blah, which is just a general drivel any 16-year-old could write to make themselves sound knowledgeable/reasonable.

            “All three employees and one other manager, Richard Hagen, were also accused of attempting to solicit other AMD staff to join the competition. The result of all these accusations is that the quartet are up against charges for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Unfair Competition, Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Breach of the Employee’s Duty of Loyalty, Breach of Contract and – as if that wasn’t enough – Conspiracy.”

            Go ahead and please explain to everyone here why these charges are not serious, especially in the context of a case being filed with supporting evidence that will be examined in courts?

            You understand that it’s not just about Nvidia benefiting from these trade secrets but employees themselves are in violation of various laws? Generally speaking due to the high legal costs associated with these matters and the difficulty of proving that harm was done to the company, such charges are filed in the most serious cases with substantial evidence.

            “Using forensic analysis, AMD claims that “Desai and Kociuk conspired with each other to misappropriate AMD’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information; and/or to intentionally access AMD’s protected computers, without authorization and/or in a way that exceeded their authorized access.”

            As I said before, you keep commenting on a case and its related charges, but yet you do not even understand the details, the extent of the various charges or what those charges actually mean in a legal sense.

            • Spunjji
            • 7 years ago

            I will be interested to see if Silus can muster a reply to this that doesn’t somehow sound even more biased and uninformed.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Yes that must be it…By stating that you cannot accuse anyone without proving it afterwards and that before that proof is actually accepted in a court of law, you cannot assume the guilt of anyone, (as you and many others have done), I’m clearly wrong and have no understanding of how the legal system works…

            More, and before you edit your post another 15 times, you said this:

            “Go ahead and please explain to everyone here why these charges are not serious, especially in the context of a case being filed with supporting evidence that will be examined in courts?

            You understand that it’s not just about Nvidia benefiting from these trade secrets but employees themselves are in violation of various laws? ”

            Have I said otherwise ? Please quote me on where I stated that these charges are not serious ? You and others like you are champions in making things up. Unlike you I don’t edit my posts a thousand times, so please quote me on saying that these charges are not serious.
            By saying AMD now needs to prove these allegations and they need to be accepted in a court of law, somehow also makes me say they are not in violation of laws o that they are not serious accusations ??? What ??

            See, that’s exactly my point in most of my replies to this topic. You and many other people, assume too much and take conclusions out of thin air based on…well…nothing, or just one side.

            For once you actually agreed with me with this simple line – “supporting evidence that will be examined in courts” – yep, that’s right. It will need to be examined by courts. Until then, they are nothing more than accusations. That’s how a decent justice system works. Evidence can be real or fabricated and that’s why there are experts that will verify this. But that’s not AMD. That’s the actual justice system mandates. Based on a claim by one side you cannot assert that whoever is accused, is guilty, no matter how serious the accusations are. Simple as that.

            Although this is just drivel by a 16 year old to you. Logic and respecting the due process of the justice system…Pfff…how stupid and childish that is! Just burn those rats! already!!

          • Penut
          • 7 years ago

          In reality, a person is either guilty of something or he isn’t. This is true regardless of the conclusions of the justice system. If a person is guilty of something and the court finds him so he doesn’t assume the guilt the moment the verdict is read; he has been guilty since the moment he acted (or failed to).

          ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ actually means that a person is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. So that phrase isn’t an assessment or an assertion of actual liability and it doesn’t mean that they are actually innocent.

          If there is sufficient evidence which proves (in and of itself) beyond doubt and indeed establishes as an absolute fact (beyond a shadow of a doubt) the guilt of a person, and hence it is immediately clear that a person is guilty, because of due process, the legal system still presumes his innocence up until adjudication (whenever that is).

          While I acknowledge how dangerous it is for people to declare guilt prior to due process, there is a threshold after which barring an atypical conclusion due process is just a formality.

          This is of course criminal law, in civil law one usually only needs to prove that the assertion is more probable than its complement.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I think you are a winner. Because you sound like a lawyer, and lawyers always win

            • Penut
            • 7 years ago

            Heh. It’s just a hobby, which is why I couldn’t resist posting. Just to be clear though, I’m not saying this is the case now, but that sometimes evidence is conclusive enough that it’s pretty obvious that someone is guilty.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            with this case in the lime light
            [url<]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-apple-poaching-lawsuit-idUSBRE83I0VF20120419[/url<] and the fact that AMD seem to have evidence of poaching, AMD might become a prime example of the industry illegal activities and get allot of press attention. but I'm not sure AMD will get the "hundreds of million" this civil suit is seeking. Also [url<]http://semiaccurate.com/2013/01/17/amds-lost-documents[/url<] Seem to conclude that the judge that review the claim so far seem to side with AMD.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Perhaps AMD can come to a negotiation with Nvidia where AMD is ok with said documents going to Nvidia and Nvidia gives AMD tips on how to make drivers that pass TR’s frame time consistency/99th percentile tests?

      • Spunjji
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]https://techreport.com/review/24218/a-driver-update-to-reduce-radeon-frame-times[/url<]

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    They told NV, how to NOT build CPU…

      • nico1982
      • 7 years ago

      It is bad that I laughed?

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      That info would be from Intel, not AMD.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        No No No, Intel told Nvidia how not to build a [b<]G[/b<]PU. Combined with AMD's not-CPU technology, Nvidia is unstoppable.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 7 years ago

      AMD truly has perfected the ways NOT to build a CPU. They’ve spent the last five years perfecting this technological advantage over Intel. It was no cheap investment and for nVidia to have access to this privileged information… well, it could be a game changer.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    Wow! Feldstien was behind Amd getting into all the game consoles…

    Depends on the timing of it not sure when he was in contact with nvidia. Project shield has a whole new meaning for amd now

    Read more here

    [url<]http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145830-industrial-espionage-amd-files-suit-against-former-employees-for-alleged-document-theft[/url<]

    • ALiLPinkMonster
    • 7 years ago

    As if they didn’t have enough problems already. Poor AMD.

    • puppetworx
    • 7 years ago

    I wonder if the timing of this lawsuit has anything to do with AMD’s poor performance last year? Tech lawsuits seem to be dialled up when profit margins are down. In any case that’s a massive claim that could – and should if true – lead to some real cheddar.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Not really. They need to prove their claim of NVIDIA’s involvement, otherwise it’s just some guy taking documents (if he indeed took any documents)

      Remember, a few years back some guy spied on Intel and gave documents to AMD and only he got the penalty, because it couldn’t be proved that AMD was involved directly.

      [url<]http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Espionage-Secrets-Stolen-AMD,6359.html[/url<] [url<]http://news.techeye.net/chips/intel-spy-gets-three-years-in-clink[/url<]

        • BestJinjo
        • 7 years ago

        You keep focusing in on AMD proving Nvidia’s involvement or how Nvidia might have benefited from these trade secrets. You completely missed all the other charges in the case specifically leveled against the employees, not against Nvidia:

        – Misappropriation of Trade Secrets;
        – Unfair Competition;
        – Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;
        – Breach of the Employee’s Duty of Loyalty;
        – Breach of Contract; and,
        – Conspiracy.

        Thanks for playing!

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Makes me wanna punish these bastards by plugging in my AMD FX on their butts. All 940 pins!

      • chuckula
      • 7 years ago

      You just made the best argument I have ever heard for why leaving the pins on the CPU is a good idea: They make much better torture devices that way!

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Plus, AMD’s CPUs are hotter! Makes for better torture devices. Advanced Torture Devices, I say.

          • kristi_johnny
          • 7 years ago

          Advanced Maiming Devices :))

            • jihadjoe
            • 7 years ago

            Advanced Masochist Devices (if you prefer to be on the receiving end, of course).

      • chµck
      • 7 years ago

      ronchy

      • just brew it!
      • 7 years ago

      It might actually be more effective to use their butts as heatsinks. 😉

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 7 years ago

        Probably couldn’t be much worse.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Good idea. Somebody start applying TIM on their butts.

          • ermo
          • 7 years ago

          Mayonnaise will do the trick [url=http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Thermal-Compound-Roundup-February-2012/1490/5<]just fine[/url<]!

            • Stickmansam
            • 7 years ago

            why not use oil 😛

        • madmilk
        • 7 years ago

        Ah, so THAT was the new closed-loop liquid cooling product AMD was marketing…

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    Well, not surprising, seing how lesser nvidia hardware beats the best of AMD.

      • Helmore
      • 7 years ago

      Uh, I don’t really get your comment?

        • Arclight
        • 7 years ago

        Read the articles regarding GTX 660Ti vs HD 7950. Also look at the pictures of the cards side by side, not to mention the spex……

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      If true, that would either mean AMD did not implement its own ideas to make its products better than Nvidia’s, or Nvidia found a better way to implement AMD’s ideas and beat AMD with them.

      • ALiLPinkMonster
      • 7 years ago

      Because a GTX 650 can outperform a HD7970.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 7 years ago

        I think he’s referring to the fact that the 680 is based around hardware built to be the 560 Ti successor, but when AMD showed up with only the 7970, then nVidia could market the card as the 580 successor instead.

        Which strictly speaking would be lesser hardware matching the best AMD had.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          Which would be quite an idiotic claim to make, unless some sort of time machine was involved, because the people AMD is accusing went to NVIDIA in July+ 2012, several months after Kepler was already in the wild.

          But I don’ expect that actual known facts come in the way of rambling conspiracy theorists.

            • Arclight
            • 7 years ago

            Have you even looked up the [s<]Keplar[/s<] Kepler codenames? The direct sucessor for the GF 100 (used in full form in the GTX 580, the 480 was a crippled GF100) is the GK 110 which for now has not been included in the Geforce gaming lineup, instead they are selling it for the professional market as a Tesla product. The GTX 680 is actually based on the inferior GK 104 meant initially for the mid end and now marketed as high end (which is ridiculous if you look at the specifications but hey they didn't want to give gamers the GK110 cards since the GK 104 was competitive enough STRANGELY given the low spex).

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            And what does that have to do with stolen documents that, if indeed stolen, were several months AFTER Kepler was already in the market ??? Did you not read the civil suit document or what i said in the very post you replied to ???? You make such insane stretches that it boggles the mind.

            And low spec ? The only thing you can say about GK104 being low spec, is how crippled it is for compute. For gaming it’s quite a beast and enough to beat Tahiti or at the very least tie with it.

            • Arclight
            • 7 years ago

            I reffer you to Geonerd post.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            There are actually other reasons why NV likely delayed GK110 – margins and wafer constraints. Why do you think it took NV until October 2012 to start delivering Tesla K20/20X contracts to its corporate clients like Oak Ridge? Those highly important corporate customers ordered thousands of GK110 chips and I am sure they would have liked to use them in their research projects as soon as possible. NV officially announced that they sold 150,000 Tesla pre-orders all the way in March 2012, but they would fulfill those contracts to their clients only starting in October 2012.

            NV didn’t purposely delay GK110. It was done because it was simply not viable to sell GK110 on the desktop at reasonable prices that would have allowed NV to achieve its >50% gross margins. NV is not a charity – they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Additionally, NV was actually facing wafer constraints which is why in order to secure over 300 design wins with Kepler on the mobile side, they were forced to delay the introduction of sub-$300 Kepler desktop parts (GTX660Ti and below) by nearly 6 months. It is no coincidence that it took NV even longer to roll out GTX650/650Ti. Just look at NV’s mobile dGPU market share – that’s where they focused most of their efforts this generation and it paid off.

            I don’t disagree with you that GTX680 is not a true high-end Kepler part but all information points to NV having to use GTX680 as a high-end part because they had to, not because they chose to do so because HD7970 underdelivered. I mean NV did give up the single GPU performance crown this generation:

            [url<]http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57894-asus-hd-7970-3gb-matrix-platinum-edition-review.html[/url<] Are you suggesting NV gave up the single GPU performance crown voluntarily? No, it was done for financial, wafer constraints and GK110 volume manufacturing issues.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            It’s Kepler, not Keplar!

            “Johannes Kepler (German: [ˈkʰɛplɐ]; December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630) was a German mathematician, astronomer and astrologer. A key figure in the 17th century scientific revolution, he is best known for his eponymous laws of planetary motion, codified by later astronomers, based on his works Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. These works also provided one of the foundations for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.”

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Kepler[/url<] Let's pay respect to a great scientist/astronomer by not butchering his last name. 🙂

            • Arclight
            • 7 years ago

            My apologies.

            You Sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

            • Spunjji
            • 7 years ago

            I would just like to jump in here and point out that you’re arguing with an nVidia fanboy now and still getting down-votes. Fanboys of all stripes in them thar hills…

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      There’s no way they could have used the information to produce better hardware yet in only one year when their latest gpu refresh is a couple of months away (presumably).

        • Arclight
        • 7 years ago

        I’m thinking of drivers/TWIMTBP program that helped lesser hardware capable cards equal or best AMD by praying on their weakness. Like they did back when AMD cards had bad tesseletion performance (you know, underground tesselated sea and whatnot). Well this would be short term.

        Long term we have no idea how big the damage could be.

          • erwendigo
          • 7 years ago

          Mmm… Ok. Aren´t you thinking of drivers/”gaming evolved” program that helped inferior capable cards, that are incapable of manage well tessellation or geometry, against equal of best nvidia cards by praying on their weakness?

          You know, the overexploitation of GPGPU-3D change of context of “gaming evolved” titles (many times for frame), that use GPGPU for any small detail (b.ex, MLAA by GPGPU, OVER MSAA and SSAA, a fxxx madness).

          Or the implementation of effects that demands very high bandwith. Another trick in the AMD hat.

          Yes, it´s a lot better than the “promotion” of lack or weak tessellation exploitation of the “gaming evolved” program.

          Because SSAA and GPGPU effects ARE DX11 techniques (sarcarm), and tessellation isn´t. ¬¬

            • Arclight
            • 7 years ago

            I know both camps play dirty. All i’m saying is that i believe that nvidia got ahead using inside info stollen from AMD, as per article above. If you disagree fine, it’s just my belief based on the difference between the GTX 660Ti and the HD 7950.

            • erwendigo
            • 7 years ago

            It´s your BELIEF, not facts. And you’re making accusations without proof.

            Can you say me WHERE in this AMD complaint they are saying that these ex-employees gave these documents to the nvidia hands?

            [url<]http://es.scribd.com/doc/120535155/AMD-lawsuit[/url<] I read it now, and no, in any paragraph AMD makes this accusation. The ex-employees make two bad movements: 1.- Offer work to their peers in the competency. It still requires solid evidence. And in this complaint it isn´t in any place. It isn´t the same to talk with peers about the laboral future and perspectives that to make a specific job offer. The last one is the unique that AMD would make a complain against it. 2.- "Steal" corporate information. AND the hipothetic damage that AMD argues against them, It must show proofs of a bad use of the information (selling i to a competitor), not only that "they took it". About the more than 100.000 "secret documents" that AMD argues as the pillar of its complaint. Well: "16. Mr. Feldstein´s Outlook emails, which almost certainly contain a wide array of confidential information, were also, apparently, transferred to one of the storages devices." Yeah, this man is guilty. Outlook is te worst of the worst. BUT he only makes a backup os his email account. You know, not only "top secret" stories, the funny/stupid jokes-mails and the personal mails too. "24. Aproximately twho weeks before Mr. Kociuk turned in his resignation to AMD, more than 150.000 files-believed to be full copies of AMD laptop and desktop computers- were transferred from his AMD computer to an external hard drive." Page 5 of the AMD complaint. A fucking integral backup of his system. Not a "top secret" fucking storie. And: "18. After Defendant Desai decided to work for NVIDIA.....emailed about how Ms. Deais could manipulate and elimintae certain data on her computer" Another proof of NOTHING. If this data was critical, then AMD said it in the complaint. "Certain" data, bullshit about the "proof" of.... what?? Clean your data/desktop when you leave a job? "19. The day before Ms. Desai´s last day at AMD, an external storage device was attached to her AMD computer" Everyday in every office this happens.... ¬¬ and, WHAT? "20. A folder called "Perforce" (note: I see in it an inferiority complex.)-which is the name of an AMD internal database containing the confidential technological work and development of AMD process and product-was created on the external device" And, WHAT?? she created a folder with the same name of a very important database in her job. BUT she has copied some archive to it? Not a mention about this. "21. AMD has confirmed that a folder on Ms. Desai´s desktop, also called "perforce", contains more than 200 files, many of which bear confidentiality designations on their face" Annnd, WHAT? She works with these documents. I see that AMD has a database named "perforce", that Ms Desai make a folder in a external device with the same name, and in the desktop of her AMD computer existed a folder with the same name and documents. BUT AMD has not established any connection between these points. And what is more important, AMD has apparently well controlled what was done in each AMD system. And therefore, if not mentioned that file copy, it is not made​​. I only see the backup of her job, the same with the other allegations of "stealth secrets" of this paranoic AMD. AMD is desperate, and acts as such with its attempts to fuck the life of its ex-employees, it lost and fired thousands of workers between 2011 and 2012, and very of them were very high skilled engineers. So it´s normal that the few that AMD keeps with employment, with the Damocle´s sword over they head, were searching for a more stable employment. Proofs of industrial espionage in this complaint and its allegations, zero.

            • Essence
            • 7 years ago

            I cant believe people like you still exist in so many forums (nvidia fanboys), the same kind of fanboys that are sinking APPLE. The mentality these people have are bad for the companies they so viciously protect (Take a look at Apple), through lies, propaganda, mass voting down or off topic subjects etc, etc.

            Its clear that these nvidia workers, were working for nvidia whilst being on nvidia and AMD salary at AMD. These people have been passing info onto nvidia for 6+ months prior to leaving their jobs from the looks of it

            Do people honestly think GK104 was put forward by coincidence? or the nvidia shield project? or the Micro Server Market? etc etc

            • erwendigo
            • 7 years ago

            And I cant believe that people like you have this lack of intelligence

            WTF, nvidia fanboy? you are trolling like an AMDfanboy, in the AMD complaint isn´t any accusation about “nvidia”, READ the F…ing complaint.

            “Do people honestly think GK104 was put forward by coincidence? or the nvidia shield project? or the Micro Server Market? etc etc”

            Yeah, because this things like a new arquitecture of gpu and a SoC are designed in one/two days.
            This funny your blinding fanatism and need of “faith”.

            Nvidia steals docs to AMD 6 months ago because nvidia needs the AMD docs for design the Tegra 4, or the GK104 (it´s the same that AMD gpu, no? hahaha). Because AMD has a great expertice with SoCs and GPUs that nvidia lacks. Yeaaa!!! man, go to sleep.

            • Arclight
            • 7 years ago

            Speculations……just like my post, but equally unproven.

            Still you don’t sound impartial or like you’re playing the devil’s advocate…..I understand the need to give counter arguments but the fervour with which you express your opinions, like Silus, indicate some sort of bias.

            I’m no champion of justice either but i would have no problem believing that they didn’t sell the allegedly stollen documents to nvidia, if it is so concluded at the end of the trial. But from where we stand now….well, even the title of the story reads [quote=”Cyril Kowaliski”<]AMD: Former execs handed trade secrets to Nvidia[/quote<]

            • erwendigo
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah, Cyril Kowaliski is a legal expert.

            Well, is about “innocent until proven guilty”. Cyril ignores this, or maybe writes a very dramatic headline for the “good” of a lot of clicks to here.

            It is about what is proven and what not. I´m not making “speculations”, I´m talking about the lackness in the complaint of serious proofs about the more serious accusations.

            I´m not saying that this persons are innocent like a fact. They are innocent until proven (with evidence) otherwise.

            And yes, In the lawsuit appears to be sufficient evidence that the defendants violated several clauses of their contracts, but there is no proofs of industrial espionage, possible indications only (or not, a email backup isn´t a very solid “proof” of nothing).

            • Spunjji
            • 7 years ago

            Your post betrays a complete lack of understanding about how I.T. security is supposed to work in large organisations in a highly competitive marketplace. The I.T. department is meant to deal with the things you think are “every day” occurrences. If you don’t understand why someone taking a full backup of their work PC and all of their documents home with them is nothing short of criminally stupid, not to mention incredibly suspicious, then I can’t really help you.

            • erwendigo
            • 7 years ago

            And your post betrays a complete lack of undertanding about how legal issues works. If you didn´t have any proof of this “sell” of intellectual property, then you don´t win this particular accusation.

            Yes, you can prove that the ex-employees violates this and that clauses, and yes, you can win about this. BUT charges of industrial espionage is a different point.

            You must show, not only suspect, even with evidences of this (but not proofs).

            But maybe in the USA, it´s different, maybe you are guilty until proven innocent. Maybe, it´s about USA, and “all is posible” in the land of freemen.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Fact are facts, you can write as much as you want, they dont change because you want them to.

            You also cant change the law by saying “so what”
            If those guys lawyer argue like you do, they are sure to face prison.

            “So what your honor, he just copied all the files from his AMD desktop and laptop computer , those didn’t include any AMD documents, just 150,000 copies of gangnam style”

            Reality is this, an AMD employee, a design engineer was recruited DIRECTLY by a Senior nvidia director that just happen to have worked for over a decade at ATI/AMD itself.

            They are going to need really good lawyer to fight for them, because it seem AMD got all the evidence… You dont bring down VPs and senior directors of a multi billion $ company without hard facts.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      So AMD’s proven crappy driver support is somehow a work of industrial espionage, as if someone else made AMD’s drivers crappy ?

      Wow, just wow! The fanboy is strong in you!

        • Arclight
        • 7 years ago

        Yes i’m the AMD fanboy that only owned nvidia cards. Well done, you sure showed me.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          That’s highly irrelevant and unprovable on some tech news comments section. I can also say I always owned a Radeon and you’ll probably not believe me.

          Anyway the point was that you now use these claims of espionage to justify the PROVEN WITH ACTUAL DATA sorry state of AMD’s drivers that make a supposedly theoretically superior product, inferior, when compared to a “lesser” (as you called it) product.

          Only a fanboy can make such a stretch.

            • Arclight
            • 7 years ago

            [quote=”Silus”<][...]Only a fanboy can make such a stretch.[/quote<] Or someone who sees the truth: HD 7950 [url<]http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7950/Pages/radeon-7950.aspx#/3[/url<] GTX 660 Ti [url<]http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-660ti/specifications[/url<]

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            So you’re still arguing about this, even though Scott (and eventually others too) presented irrefutable proof that despite it being a “superior product” (specs only), the HD 7950 was inferior to a “lesser” GTX 660 Ti where it matters (games) ?
            Is reality so harsh that you try to dismiss it entirely, even though the proof that it is indeed real, is so overwhelming ??? It’s just a graphics card….let it go…

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            Jeeze, you two. Stop it.

            You’re both basically agreeing that Nvidia is making better drivers than AMD. Arclight is just suggesting that confidential or trade secret information might have given Nvidia an edge.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            minimal differences are the foundation for almost every hard core prolonged discussion on the web.

      • spugm1r3
      • 7 years ago

      What kills me about these hijacked conversations, from fanboys on either side of the argument, is the failure to realize that the industry needs competition. Espionage is bad for the industry because it precludes innovation; rather than devoting research efforts towards novel solutions, they spend their time combating the other guys novel solution.

      I’m not saying NVIDIA got anything of value from these yokels jacking files, but we, as the consumer, aren’t helped any by corporate espionage. If you know what the other guy’s hand looks like, there’s no reason to gamble.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        The problem is that you’re already assuming that NVIDIA is even involved in this and that AMD is the poor little guy…And this only if those guys really took any documents at all, which at this point there’s no proof of…They need to prove their claims now.

          • spugm1r3
          • 7 years ago

          Actually, I’m not making that assumption at all. NVIDIA doesn’t have to be involved in order for the industry to be hurt. And you’re right, there is no proof that AMD documents were taken… because we all have 100,000 personal documents residing on work computers when we leave a company.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            I’m thankful that you are not in any way connected with any kind of justice system (or at least I hope you’re not), otherwise all that it took to take you to jail would be for me to say “hey that guy did this”.

            AMD needs to back up their claims against the ex-employees (which their civil suit targets) and actually prove that those documents were used against them.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            And your the expert on our justice system. give me a break.

            “Judge, yes he stole the money, but you cant prove that he spent it or even had the intention to spend it… hence, no crime was committed. my client need to be acquitted. I rest my case”

            Your interpretation of the law is just laughable.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            So let me get this straight. Proving what is claimed is NOT the way “your” law works ?

            If that’s the case, then sorry, but we are not talking about the same thing. We are talking about countries where the law can be applied only when a certain claim was proven in violation of said law. A claim by itself is not sufficient. I understand that certain third world countries call “proof” to something that someone said, but that’s not what we’re discussing here.

            After making that clear, you need to prove that someone actually stole something before he/she is found guilty of it. You can’t just claim something and whoever is accused is immediately found guilty. My “interpretation” is the valid one.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            Are you a lawyer? You sure are making yourself look like a legal expert, discussing minute details in this article as if you have inside information. Did you even bother doing external research on the case? Obviously not.

            “On his last day working for AMD, Feldstein attached two external hard drives to his work machine and “onto those storage devices, three highly confidential files – two licensing agreements with significant customers and a document outlining proposed strategies to AMD’s strategic licensing – were transferred,” says the 15-page lawsuit.

            Feldstein, alongside managers Manoo Desai and Nicolas Kociuk allegedly swiped over 150,000 files across six months before leaving the company,

            Desai is also alleged to have bought a hard drive to the office on her last day, where she created a “folder called Perforce – which is the name of an AMD internal database containing the confidential technological work and development of AMD process and product.”

            Kociuk is accused of pinching 150,000 files across his two work computers, and AMD’s cyber-detectives say he ran “several internet searches about how to copy and/or delete large numbers of documents.” It’s basically Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V, Nicolas.

            Using forensic analysis, AMD claims that “Desai and Kociuk conspired with each other to misappropriate AMD’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information; and/or to intentionally access AMD’s protected computers, without authorization and/or in a way that exceeded their authorized access.”

            “AMD needs to back up their claims and actually prove those documents were used against them” – yes that’s how the legal system works. Thanks for stating the obvious Mr. Obvious. AMD already has forensic evidence. The next step is the legal prosecution of the defendants.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            Do you understand that AMD claiming they have evidence does not mean it will hold up in court ?? Also, that the other party (ex-employees) also have to share their part of the story ? It’s not that obvious when you and others fail to grasp such simple concepts…

            Also, I stated the obvious, because the previous poster actually challenged the idea that a simple claim isn’t enough to find someone guilty of something, but of course you did not notify that poster for obvious reasons.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            That’s what the court is for — to assess the evidence and issue a ruling. Who said this is a simple claim as you keep implying?

            “US District Judge Timothy S. Hillman of US District Court, for the District of Massachusetts, which issued the restraining order, ordered three of the former employees among other things to refrain from using or divulging any AMD confidential information. The fourth employee, Richard Hagen, who had also joined Nvidia, was indicted along with two other employees of persuading other AMD workers to leave their jobs, which was in total violation of their agreement with the company. The parties have been asked to appear before the court on January 28, when the ex parte order expires.”

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      If the NVidia hardware beats the AMD hardware, it is the exact opposite of ‘lesser.’

        • BestJinjo
        • 7 years ago

        Nvidia lost this generation in single GPU performance, which means the claim that “lesser” NV hardware (GTX680 aka GK104) beats the best of AMD (HD7970GE aka Tahiti XT2) is false.

        [url<]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/VTX3D/Radeon_HD_7870_XT_Black/28.html[/url<] You cannot directly compare actual physical specs (TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth, CUDA cores vs. Steam processors) as those factors can never be compared between AMD and NV directly and sometimes not even between different generations of AMD vs. AMD cards or NV vs. NV cards. Theoretical specs and real world performance are separate. To imply that GTX660Ti is a "lesser card" only based on specs to HD7950 is misleading since it assumes those physical GPU specs (TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth) can be directly compared between AMD and NV -- it's been shown many times you can't compare cards like that. That's basics of GPU design. Just look at 32 ROPs in Cayman vs. 32 ROPs in Tahiti. Even with the same number of ROPs and a similar theoretical performance limit (29.6 vs 28.16), 7970 is pushing 51% more pixels than 6970 is. Completely different real world efficiency: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/26[/url<] You cannot accurately compare GPUs of different architectures based on specs alone.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          Actually, I was just correcting his stupid phrasing. If card A outperforms card B, card A is by definition not the ‘lesser’ one.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            problem being the leads have been swapping as updated drivers get released and will continue to swap in the future until all support for them ends.

            WAAAAAaaaaaayyyyy back… (ok 13 years ago) Radeon 8500 was initially slower than Geforce 3 but eventually finished faster than Ti-4200 having longsince left Geforce 3 in the toilet…. such is the history of ATI/AMD driver support, weak that eventually gets strong.

            I have to suspect AMD’s driver team is smaller than Nvidia’s… it certainly was before they doubled it’s size and even now I believe either their is a communication issue amongst the groups or it’s still smaller than Nvidia’s.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      While, given the date, it’s probably way too early to call, perhaps this should be filed away as a candidate for TR’s “Most blatant troll of the year” award?

        • Arclight
        • 7 years ago

        While i do appreaciate the remark, i have my doubts that i can provide a year round performance that would grace me with the honor of receiving the aforementioned award.

        But, in case i do, i have prepared a speech, here it goes:

        “Thank you, thank you so much. I don’t know what I did in this life to deserve all of this. I’m just a girl from a trailer park who had a dream. (i’m not a girl but it seems fitting to say that for such an award).

        Working with Silus was an absolute minute-by-minute education without him ever being grandiose about it.

        Right now I don’t know if I have dreamt about this or not. But when you are in the ocean you must swim. Being on the race for the TR’s Most blatant troll of the year, logically I want to win.

        Thank yo0u again.”

      • Arag0n
      • 7 years ago

      I don´t know why people down-vote you saying that if NVIDIA just copies AMD it´s not possible for them to get better performance… clearly you do not steal other companies designs and ideas to copy them, but to implement into your own products so the final product is your own plus the things you can add from your competition know how.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      I love how on TR the most downvoted trolls gets the most responses. I guess everything is working here as expected!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This