• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel charged of monopolistic practices: on account of both MPU and graphics

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Now if you say AMD owns fabs . I say BS. Because that would mean Intel owns Imagination
Tech . 30% Of GF ownership Vs. 25%+ of Imagination . You guys can't have it both ways like you seem to want . Not happening . and already have there own gpu IP. Isn't Imaginations and reals tech that intel is using . If you know better step up show proof.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
So Now its NV IP that real used and its NV ip that ATI uses And its NV ip that Imagination tech uses . Lets see the proof . All IPs belong to NV when talking about VPUs

Ya know what would be cool ? Is if AMD / Intel seen this coming and Intel was given access to ATIs IP. AMD would surely see that this would be their only recourse. Vs NV getting Intels X86 IP. NV is battling way more than INtel here way more companies going to frown on FCC actions . This things just starting . Oh by the way there is NO injunction of Intels 32nm clarkdale . NONE!!!!
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
So your stance is Intel should be allowed to illegally profit off of other's IP with no consequences to them whatsoever outside of being told not to do it anymore? Seriously?
No, but the consequence must be both moral and practical (the two need not be mutually exclusive).

A possible example may be:

1. Injunction - no new sales of items containing NV IP*.
2. Fine - equal to the proportional amount of NV IP contained in items Intel sold (only a certain percentage of an item's price is related to NV IP)

* - This borders on impractical, but it is more practical than return/replacement.

In my personal opinion, if what you say is true about it being almost impossible to make graphics hardware without using a patent from Nvidia, Nvidia has way too many of the cards in this particular deck. I say that as opinion, not because I think anything should necessarily be done about it.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
AMD and nV have full cross licensing agreements, IT has some access to nV IP based on a licensing agreement. This has all been discussed extensively- reality is in the patents that are freely viewable online, go look it up yourself or search for the discussion where everything you have brought up was covered.

BTW- who said anything about AMD owning fabs?

No, but the consequence must be both moral and practical (the two need not be mutually exclusive).
The consequences need to fit the crime. Perhaps jail time for the executives who are creating larger margins and hence benefiting their bonuses by their illegal action? We are talking about theft of IP for profit- on a legal basis Intel could be held liable for as much as $30Billion(300% of their gains from illegal activity). That is the legal element. On a moral grounds, forcing them out of the graphics market entirely is very reasonable. The percentage of the price would be close to 100% as the unit is non functional without nV IP if you want to look at it from a fine perspective.

In my personal opinion, if what you say is true about it being almost impossible to make graphics hardware without using a patent from Nvidia, Nvidia has way too many of the cards in this particular deck.
Are you seriously stating that in a discussion about Intel? Its' fine that they won't license x86 to nVidia but it isn't fine that nVidia holds far less lucrative IP and not only that but the government should break the law to prop Intel up further?
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Perhaps jail time for the executives who are creating larger margins and hence benefiting their bonuses by their illegal action?
Perhaps.

On a moral grounds, forcing them out of the graphics market entirely is very reasonable.
Only if Intel gets to keep Nvidia out of the x86 CPU business, too.

The percentage of the price would be close to 100% as the unit is non functional without nV IP if you want to look at it from a fine perspective.
No, the chipset/IGP is not close to 100% of the cost of the motherboard.

Are you seriously stating that in a discussion about Intel? Its' fine that they won't license x86 to nVidia but it isn't fine that nVidia holds far less lucrative IP and not only that but the government should break the law to prop Intel up further?
Don't put words in my mouth.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Well ben likes fair play and I am sure he agrees that NV should pay both Rambus and Opti for Stealing there IPs. Isn't that so Ben ? Rambus isn't that big a deal but opti Ip infringement is a very long one were NV made Billions off its Stolen IP from OPTI . NV should have to pay out billions for this theft.

According to bens reasoning .
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Bottom Line:
Somebody will pay in the end. End of story.
Everyone is so seeeerrriooouuussss.. about this. Just everyone take a major chillax pill.
Some folks talk as if they own these companies. Well, I guess some do to an extent if they own stocks. But still, why do we care about this stuff? I really don't know the end result if either party wins/loses, or reaches a cross licensing agreement. And I doubt it will affect gamers very much. Will it?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Here is all I could find on Intels usage of NV tech . It has one neat part I like to share.

Intel launched Core i7 processors late last year for high-end desktops. In June, the chip maker said it will this year ship Core i5 and Core i3 processors based on Nehalem for less expensive systems.
The licensing agreement does not address the ongoing dispute between Nvidia and Intel regarding next-generation products from Intel that incorporate graphics technology on the same piece of silicon as the main processor.((( Intel claims that current licensing between the companies doesn't cover those future products.))) I asume Intel is also referring to its use of NV IP here. Intel seems to have a grasp of reality here . They don't want or need NV IP at all. Plainly written . When did INTEl Buy Real ?????? When was real in business? When did NV start up . 1993 Whos tech did NV use and Why that lawsuite. RIVA anyone Silicon Graphics IP which intel also has . NV didn't really invent they Stole .

Intel licenses Nvidia's patent portfolio, including its 3-D and GPU technologies. Nvidia, on the other hand, licenses technology that makes it possible for it to ship graphics chips in Intel-powered PCs from major computer makers, such as Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and Toshiba.

Intel and Nvidia have been trying to settle the disagreement more a year and a half. Changes in the chip market are exacerbating the dispute. Intel has been boosting the graphics capabilities in its chipsets, encroaching on Nvidia's market in PCs, which have become increasingly focused on video, music, and other forms of entertainment. Nvidia, on the other hand, is trying to replace Intel chipsets.

At the 2009 InformationWeek 500 Conference, C-level executives from leading global companies will meet to discuss how they're delivering on the most critical business priorities of the day. Join us Sept. 13-15 at the St. Regis Monarch Beach, Calif. Find out more and register.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Here is Just one report on this issue , I swear that if these people were any dumber they could run for public Office. Read this And Wonder in amazement.

Pacific Crest analyst Michael McConnell this morning lifted his rating on Nvidia (NVDA) to Sector Perform, from Underperform in the wake of yesterday’s FTC antitrust lawsuit against Intel (INTC).

McConnell notes that the FTC wants Intel to both shares its IP and insure interoperability of its parts with those from other manufacturers. He notes that this approach would be directly applicable to the company’s dispute with Intel, which prevents customers from using Nvidia chipsets with Intel’s Nehalem-class processors.

“Since Intel’s Nehlaem architecture uses Nvidia graphics IP, the likely outcome of a favorable court ruling for Nvidia and/or the FTC would be an immediate shipment injunction against Nehalem, which would force Intel to either choose to comply, or in a more likely scenario, pay a royalty to Nvidia for its graphics IP embedded in Nehalem,” which he thinks could be $1-$2 a unit at minimum.

NVDA today is up 25 cents, or 1.5%, to $17.16. Yesterday, the stock rose $1.26, or 8%.


All sounds real good for NVuntil you understand how its being twisted around .

Intel is using NV IP on Nehelem yep thats true enough after Intel and NV came to agreement On Sli for Nehalem . Intel had already filed against NV at this time .

SO its all BS. The bottom I love . Were intel pays NV for every processor using said tech from NV . Well Nehelem C doesn't use it . On the 2 core chips. We don't know if 6 cores does either. So Intel Pays NV 1-2 $ for every chip it sells.

Well because NV is using Intels tech so its GPU run on intel processors seems to me the judge could tell NV it has to pay Intel for every NV card used on Intel systems . It the exact same thing . The Bad thing here is the above statements as all this occurred after intel filled suite against NV . The SLI licinse for Nehalem . You guys remember right its only been a year. So I hope this isn't what NV is trying to push because its all AFTER the FACT A new agreement INFACT.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
This is from Xbit. Notice the very bottom were it says Intel now has access to ATI IP.

Its a good read hard on intel which it should be . But a good read . Heres one part.

The new pact between Advanced Micro Devices and Intel Corp. is praised by the partners of two chipmakers. The attitude is hardly surprising, considering the fact that suppliers of personal computers greatly reduced their risks of low x86 chips supplies when Intel and AMD signed the new agreement.

“The settlement is a win-win for both [Intel and AMD], although it may not have much effect on Intel's continuing governmental antitrust investigations around the world,” wrote Jack Gold, principal analyst for J. Gold Associates, in an early analysis of the settlement, reports CRN web-site.

Under the terms of the new agreement, AMD will be able to manufacture its x86 microprocessors on any factory and those production facilities do not have to be qualified as AMD’s subsidiaries. As a result, when Globalfoundries, at present a joint venture between AMD and Advanced Technology Investment Company, absorbs recently acquired Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing and AMD will become a minor shareholder, the contract maker of chips will be able to manufacture x86 processors. Intel, on the other hand, now has access to patents of ATI, graphics business unit of AMD.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Only if Intel gets to keep Nvidia out of the x86 CPU business, too.
I'm sure nV would be quite agreeable to that, although Intel most certainly wouldn't. They would in effect be surrendering the low cost PC market entirely to AMD, not something I see them partaking in. Without an integrated solution for graphics Intel wouldn't be able to compete on the lowest ends of the PC spectrum- it also would cripple their laptop and netbook market if they continued to try and push nVidia out of the chipset business(which is the entire reason nVidia is involved in this at all).

No, the chipset/IGP is not close to 100% of the cost of the motherboard.
It is 100% of the cost of the IGP.

Don't put words in my mouth.
Is English not your first language? Those were both clearly interrogative, not declarative.

Well ben likes fair play and I am sure he agrees that NV should pay both Rambus and Opti for Stealing there IPs.
The Rambus suit was pretty much laughed out of court. nVidia doesn't make RAM, they were trying to sue nVidia for using other products that used their tech, it was absurdly laughable. The Opti case I don't know enough about how their memory fetches work on newer hardware, if they are using the IP of course they should pay the licensing. The question is if they are using the tech at this point or not, if they aren't they aren't liable to them for anything.

Here is all I could find on Intels usage of NV tech .
Check nVidia's patent portfolio. Every IGP Intel has ever made uses quite a bit of nVidia IP.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Nemesis, I think you might want to try looking into this a little more deeply. If you don't put much effort into finding your enlightenment, you'll never be enlightened. Especially if you try to argue a point unarmed because you haven't properly "informed" yourself. Do as Ben asked. Research Nvidia's patent portfolio. Find ALL patents currently used by Intel in their IGP's. Then maybe you'll better understand what all this law suit business is about. I know you do not like NV, and absolutely adore Intel, but please don't let that stop you from learning what you need to know if you are so interested in this topic.
No more off the hip responses without first knowing. Licensing goes both ways for numerous pieces of IP across most of these tech companies. It's when one company tries to shove another out of the way unlawfully, or using loopholes in the law (that can be remedied by govt.) that things start to go to court.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
It is 100% of the cost of the IGP.
Consumers don't buy IGPs, they buy motherboards and completely assembled computers. The IGP itself is worthless without a motherboard to use it in. Motherboard makers aren't really the behalf upon whose the FTC is acting.

On a moral grounds, forcing them out of the graphics market entirely is very reasonable.
On moral grounds, Intel has every right to be in the graphics business, integrated or otherwise. It is up to each company to work out for themselves whatever licensing or other cooperative agreements they wish. It is not right for the government to dictate the terms of any agreement, stipulate that an agreement must exist, or take punitive measures that go beyond the specific crime. Injunctions and fines, sure.. forced recall/replacement (something neither Intel, consumers, nor nVidia would like) and forced licensing agreements, no. The government also has no moral right to say which company can and cannot be in which business.

Is English not your first language? Those were both clearly interrogative, not declarative.
It was declarative in that you think that's what I'm saying. It's a cheat method in debates; to make accusations and hide them behind a question mark.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
LOL ! Rest assured Keys I will never find enlightenment In a Tech forum or a discussion on tech. Tech is just an interest . Will I been searching and searching and cann't find one article or one Ip NV has that intel is using . I here alot of claims but nothing concrete like a patent number . Just People saying Intel is using NV IP.

They are also using ATI IP Imagination Tech IP Real IP Silicon Graphics IP The list is rather long . Guess what all these companies also have Intels IP. Just because you have a licenses doesn't mean your using that IP/ Intels IGP are based on Imaginations Tech, As was Larrabee Unless you can NAME exactly what it is that Intel STOLE from Nividia I guess its all Fanboy Dreams of Nividia beating up Intel and forcing Intel into giving them X86. Now this is hugh problem as AMD stands to lose the most if NV gets a license. Than it will be all intels fault right. NOT! It will be AMD problem created by AMD. Nv is simplly forcing Intel into buying Imagination Tech . Which is going to happen anyway .

This kind reminds me of the Nividia Vodoo lawsuite were NV was forced into buying Vodoo because they stole Vodoo tech. NV pissed because they KNOW intel will not buy them out.

Just like you saying Keys I not Know . Is the Rambus /NV suite over . Well see come middle of January
 

jones377

Senior member
May 2, 2004
438
2
81
Ben, maybe you just ought to post the patent numbers instead of referring to older threads. I bet there are more people than Nemesis interested in reading about it. I know I am, and I believe you but I hate trying to wade through the patent office trying to find the relevant ones.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
LOL ! Rest assured Keys I will never find enlightenment In a Tech forum or a discussion on tech. Tech is just an interest . Will I been searching and searching and cann't find one article or one Ip NV has that intel is using . I here alot of claims but nothing concrete like a patent number . Just People saying Intel is using NV IP.
You don't think Nvidia's suit is based on air, do you?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20090326185111_Nvidia_Counter_Suits_Intel_for_Patent_Infringement.html

They are also using ATI IP Imagination Tech IP Real IP Silicon Graphics IP The list is rather long . Guess what all these companies also have Intels IP. Just because you have a licenses doesn't mean your using that IP/ Intels IGP are based on Imaginations Tech, As was Larrabee Unless you can NAME exactly what it is that Intel STOLE from Nividia I guess its all Fanboy Dreams of Nividia beating up Intel and forcing Intel into giving them X86. Now this is hugh problem as AMD stands to lose the most if NV gets a license. Than it will be all intels fault right. NOT! It will be AMD problem created by AMD. Nv is simplly forcing Intel into buying Imagination Tech . Which is going to happen anyway .
So you mean, Intel has licenses to Nvidia patents, but they don't use them?
I don't think anybody said (unless I missed it) that Intel STOLE from Nvidia.
This is a counter-suit against Intel's suit that alleges that their chipset license does not extend to Nehalem processors with IMC's. You are not allowed to use the term "Fanboy" as you are an extreme example of that very term. It is you who are dreaming that Nvidia in fact has NO chance of a win in this dispute, or even both parties reaching an agreement. Anything is possible and you should be open to that.
This suit isn't about Imagination Tech, or ATI, or AMD, or Betty Crocker.


This kind reminds me of the Nividia Vodoo lawsuite were NV was forced into buying Vodoo because they stole Vodoo tech. NV pissed because they KNOW intel will not buy them out.
Believe it or not, I don't think Nvidia WANTS Intel to do anything except lose their ability to produce IGPs. At least using current methods. Let alone being bought by them.

Just like you saying Keys I not Know . Is the Rambus /NV suite over . Well see come middle of January
Last I heard, unless anything has changed or been appealed, this was thrown out of court. Oh, but I see they started new litigation. Since July of 08. If Rambus hasn't been able to nail Nvidia in the past decade with patent infringements, I don't see that changing anytime soon. But, you never know. I do have an open mind.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
You don't think Nvidia's suit is based on air, do you?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20090326185111_Nvidia_Counter_Suits_Intel_for_Patent_Infringement.html



So you mean, Intel has licenses to Nvidia patents, but they don't use them?
I don't think anybody said (unless I missed it) that Intel STOLE from Nvidia.
This is a counter-suit against Intel's suit that alleges that their chipset license does not extend to Nehalem processors with IMC's. You are not allowed to use the term "Fanboy" as you are an extreme example of that very term. It is you who are dreaming that Nvidia in fact has NO chance of a win in this dispute, or even both parties reaching an agreement. Anything is possible and you should be open to that.
This suit isn't about Imagination Tech, or ATI, or AMD, or Betty Crocker.




Believe it or not, I don't think Nvidia WANTS Intel to do anything except lose their ability to produce IGPs. At least using current methods. Let alone being bought by them.



Last I heard, unless anything has changed or been appealed, this was thrown out of court.
You did miss it . Someone did use that word and we all know who . take off blinders please.


Keys Novidia doesn't have a licinses for Nehalem chipsets Zero none and Its written into the contract NV signed . Whats Intel suppose to do when NV is telling everyone they have Nehalem rights . Its a pure lie and its spelled out in the contract . Fine print . Clearly for all to read . Intel didn't Sue to stop NV from making Chipsets . Just to stop them from saying they could make parts for any ondie memory controler . Like Nehalem . Its A FACT NV was lieing to many saying they have those rights . Its plainly written in contract they do not.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
As for the NV rambus . its goes to court in jan . No courts haven't done anything . The only people talking are the patent office people who have Zero say in this manner . There just idiot clerks.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Hay jones. Lots of talk here without proof . Here is what I will do . I have 2 pdfs here one Intel one Nividia . I will toss a coin to see which one I link. But I will post only 1 pdf on this subject. Nividia won . Great because this read is almost classic comedy. Nividia is bad for the industry period .

http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/69443/NVIDIA_public_answer_and_counterclaim.pdf
I'm sure this is some kind of twisted fun for you, but why didn't you just post both pdf's?
Can you just please turn off the "weird" for just a teensy weensy while?
We'll, that's all the posting for me today. Kids are now up and Christmas is underway. Merry Christmas everyone.
 

jones377

Senior member
May 2, 2004
438
2
81
The one thing I don't understand is, Intel publishes roadmaps for products several years out in public and possibly even longer to OEMs and partners. It has been known for a long time that Intel would go the IMC route and eventually integrate graphics too. Why would Nvidia sign away their IGP patents to Intel in return for a platform that they must have known would be EOL eventually? They must have known that Intel need their patents for their integrated GPUs regardless of whatever platform Intel migrates to.

So this doesn't make sense to me. Either the cross licensing agreement doesn't specifically say Nvidia is limited to the FSB platform *OR* there is a time limit put on it that coincides with Intel changing platform, allowing for re-negotiations at that time. Anything else and Nvidia has made a HUGE blunder and I just don't buy that.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Well Nividia did make a hugh blonder. I to thought the same as you. Why would NV do this ? What year are we talking about here? 2004-2005. Penryn wasn't known yet. But was known is that Intel was using Fsb . there are a few other agreements between intel and others that show wording of agreement that are easy to find on google . Read those and you will see how Intel words things in them . Its plain simple easy to understand wording . But NV screwing up recently isn't news . Look at Fermi. pretty big blounder so far.

Keys why should I give links . Ben hasn't and you never said jack shit to him about it . I got lots of stuff I could show . But I would loose ability to get that info if I blabbed about it. This thing will not go anywere. Case is being built against NV now for doing exactly what they claim intel has done . Lots and lots of eviadence mounting against NV. With game developers , How they handled the Vodoo lawsuite ect ect ect.

Me I really don't care as I don't care how it turns out . If NV wins AMD loses If Intel Wins Nividia loses . Its a NO win thing were no matter the outcome Intel will be the Bad BOY . No denying that . What can be debated is weather Intel; has the right to do as all others are doing .

Example IGP vs. discrete graphics . Most would say they not the same . But by LAW they are .

Same with Intel being monoply not true if you count all cpus made . So why is X86 differant than IGP Vs discrete graphics? A cpu is a cpu . It matters not what code they run . If people want things changed do what NV is doing now, Do a cuda . Or like Intel tried with Itanic . To blame intel over software makers refusel to migrate away from X86 isn't intel fault . Intel did try to get away from X86 . But AMD screwed that Up . Infact if you look at this correctly it was AMD who caused all this and they come out smelling like a rose. Pure BS . and misinformed people . All most all of us guys know this . But Its intel that clings to X86. Thats so laughable its outragious . When clearly intel tried to leave X86. But soon you will finf Intel is in fact leaving X86. Thats the real problem this really isn't about X86 its about compilers, What intels has and others want . Bit it is intels and there not licensing it . Sun was one that had a license because illeagal dealing with sparc durring the cold war . But Intelowns all that IP now . Its also non transferrable as IBM found out and backed away from buying Sun. Niagra Intel owns alot of those patients. But Sun intel signed agreement when Intel bought Elbrus.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Well Nividia did make a hugh blonder. I to thought the same as you. Why would NV do this ? What year are we talking about here? 2004-2005. Penryn wasn't known yet. But was known is that Intel was using Fsb . there are a few other agreements between intel and others that show wording of agreement that are easy to find on google . Read those and you will see how Intel words things in them . Its plain simple easy to understand wording . But NV screwing up recently isn't news . Look at Fermi. pretty big blounder so far.

Keys why should I give links . Ben hasn't and you never said jack shit to him about it . I got lots of stuff I could show . But I would loose ability to get that info if I blabbed about it. This thing will not go anywere. Case is being built against NV now for doing exactly what they claim intel has done . Lots and lots of eviadence mounting against NV. With game developers , How they handled the Vodoo lawsuite ect ect ect.

Me I really don't care as I don't care how it turns out . If NV wins AMD loses If Intel Wins Nividia loses . Its a NO win thing were no matter the outcome Intel will be the Bad BOY . No denying that . What can be debated is weather Intel; has the right to do as all others are doing .

Example IGP vs. discrete graphics . Most would say they not the same . But by LAW they are .

Same with Intel being monoply not true if you count all cpus made . So why is X86 differant than IGP Vs discrete graphics? A cpu is a cpu . It matters not what code they run . If people want things changed do what NV is doing now, Do a cuda . Or like Intel tried with Itanic . To blame intel over software makers refusel to migrate away from X86 isn't intel fault . Intel did try to get away from X86 . But AMD screwed that Up . Infact if you look at this correctly it was AMD who caused all this and they come out smelling like a rose. Pure BS . and misinformed people . All most all of us guys know this . But Its intel that clings to X86. Thats so laughable its outragious . When clearly intel tried to leave X86. But soon you will finf Intel is in fact leaving X86. Thats the real problem this really isn't about X86 its about compilers, What intels has and others want . Bit it is intels and there not licensing it . Sun was one that had a license because illeagal dealing with sparc durring the cold war . But Intelowns all that IP now . Its also non transferrable as IBM found out and backed away from buying Sun. Niagra Intel owns alot of those patients. But Sun intel signed agreement when Intel bought Elbrus.
I didn't ask you, or Ben, for links. YOU brought it up and said you had two. Flipped a coin like that had any meaning, and posted one. Why not post both? If you shouldn't have even brought them up in the first place, then you just half screwed yourself in doing so. Not our problem.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
How did a screw myself . Did ya read that PDF . NV acknowlegde this but denied that . The other PDF shows what NV is referring here on all counts . Its just to good. Someone will post the other PDF.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
How did a screw myself . Did ya read that PDF . NV acknowlegde this but denied that . The other PDF shows what NV is referring here on all counts . Its just to good. Someone will post the other PDF.
"I got lots of stuff I could show . But I would loose ability to get that info if I blabbed about it."

Helllloooooo????
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY