• 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 5 - 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
In the PDF. Linked Point 25 reads like this.

In response to paragraph25 NV denies the allegationin the first paragraph. With respect to second third sentence NV statesthat the bit-tech and Custom PC articlesare the best evidenceof there contents and denies all alegationsinconsitant with their content .

Now the courts are not going to look favorable on NV ramblings going on in this whole PDF. What the Hell does Custom PC or Bit tech have to do with whats in the contract . They never advised or were in the negosations of the cross license agreement. Read the dam PDF its greatcomedy and really bad lieing by NV . Any moron can see NV is trying to dance but they have 2 left feet and its more of a comedy act than anything.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
In the PDF. Linked Point 25 reads like this.

In response to paragraph25 NV denies the allegationin the first paragraph. With respect to second third sentence NV statesthat the bit-tech and Custom PC articlesare the best evidenceof there contents and denies all alegationsinconsitant with their content .

Now the courts are not going to look favorable on NV ramblings going on in this whole PDF. What the Hell does Custom PC or Bit tech have to do with whats in the contract . They never advised or were in the negosations of the cross license agreement. Read the dam PDF its greatcomedy and really bad lieing by NV . Any moron can see NV is trying to dance but they have 2 left feet and its more of a comedy act than anything.
Yeah. What you just said. :::searches through medicine cabinet for some excedrin:::
Why don't you just wait til the end of the court battle instead of all this preening?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
You and I both know This well never see a court house. Nv case is so weak they be insane to go beyond their bluff. FTC has only heard one side of the GPU argument . Problem is this really isn't about GPUs is it . Its about GPGPU a brand new field were players are preping for the game. I have at least furnished 1 Pdf from NV to the courts. Thats better than anyone else has done on this thread . If ya read the pdf I can understand why ya have a headache as it is only funny to some a guess. To others having this PDF available to public would be a headache. I am sure. There will be No back room deal by Intel . NV may give up the farm tho to get what it needs. AMD had Intel . NV has nothing . With 2300 people, searching the web for anything NV has done since 1993 the evidence for NV is shrinking fast. I would say this boat won't float.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Ya see guys here how it works If Intel did and has in the contract that NV /Intel cross licnese agreement has in what NV is denying and the courts agree with Intel thats the end of it.The NV case. No case to stop Intel from using NV ip none. Just read the PDF NV new and acknowledged it yet their in denial about it.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Ya see guys here how it works If Intel did and has in the contract that NV /Intel cross licnese agreement has in what NV is denying and the courts agree with Intel thats the end of it.The NV case. No case to stop Intel from using NV ip none. Just read the PDF NV new and acknowledged it yet their in denial about it.
Cmon dude. All you're doing is cheerleading right now. Shish boom bah, Rah Rah Rah.
Nobody seems to care about it as much as you do. But I'm sure there are reasons.
 

jones377

Senior member
May 2, 2004
438
2
81
Nemesis, did you realize that you went from claiming Intel didn't use Nvidia patents earlier in this thread to now claiming Intel can continue to use Nvidia patents without restrictions?
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
No I said that If what intel filed against NV is true . Than NV counter claim will be thrown out. Because Intel had the right to seek the courts help . If that is indeed the case. Than Intel still has rights to use NV IP.

Let me ask ya something . Befor 2004 did intel have a IGP chipset . Whos IP was that??? It surely wasn't Nividias. Just because Intel has rights to use NV IP. Doesn't mean they have . With all these goings on why hasn't one article said what NV IP that intel is using . Intel has access to alot of GPU IP. Surely they not using all of them . Just recently Intel /AMD settled differances. We know about the $$$$ But what about ATI,s IP that Intel recieved . Your not foolish enough to believe AMD just Gave that to Intel are you . IDC and myself discussed that here a few times . I have always mained tained this would never see court. But the amount of $$$ intel paid was more than I expected not alot but still more . If Intel got ATI IP . Surely AMD recieved more than what we know . This is what IDC and myself discussed below ; I have maintained for along time that ATIs tech was superior to NVs and in the end of generation that has proven out to be fact . So NV had to move on to NEW tech to compete.

Some will say that NV has Cuda and ATI has really nothing . Sometimes ya have to read between the lines. If you read the FTC complaint there is one thing that JUMPS out . Why were intelcompilers mentioned. Other than the same old BS story . That were IDC and My descussions went Compilers . For ATI to compete with NV cuda one Key piece AMD lacked was a Great Compiler . I am betting that AMD now has that compiler just as Intel has ATIs IP now . AMD 6000 series should rock in the HPC market. NV knows this as does IBM the real danger to tech =IBM They took out Dec using Intels X86 . Dec should have never let loose of their IP never ever. They were the innovators Not AMD not Intel not IBM not Nividia.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Random things-

SANTA CLARA, CA—JUNE 8, 2009—NVIDIA today announced that Rambus has asked an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to terminate the investigation of NVIDIA relating to four patents stemming from a complaint filed in November 2008. Rambus has conceded that NVIDIA products do not infringe on its four patents before the ITC, and has also asked for termination of several claims from a fifth patent in the ITC action.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1244461304623.html

This is Rambus second round at nVidia, and they are getting the same results. Even they know they are wrong about the IP as they are requesting investigations to be stopped.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=nvidia&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

Those are nV's patents. AMD and nVidia have a cross licensing agreement(as did ATi and nV)- you can not make a 3D rasterizer without using their IP(both ATi and nV).

Intel offering IP built on a legally defined monopolistic platform and using it as a tool to gain enterance into another market is a very clearly laid out antitrust issue(corporations can not use an existing monopoly to gain leverage into another market). This case may never make it to court, but that would be because Intel was forced into submission before it did. How it turns out is entirely up to the court, but this is pretty much a straightforward text book case of what isn't allowed by monopolies by what every party- including Intel, has stated has happened.

The compiler issue was brought up as Intel reportedly made their compilers produce sub optimal code for AMD processors for the sole purpose of slowing them down. As far as AMD getting a hold of Intel's super secret compiler tech, heh-

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/buy-or-renew/

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that someone at AMD has figured out how to use Google and find out that they can get ahold of Intel's compilers anytime they want.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Cmon dude. All you're doing is cheerleading right now. Shish boom bah, Rah Rah Rah.
Nobody seems to care about it as much as you do. But I'm sure there are reasons.
Keys the only reason I care is because of all the Intel Bashing. Intel is the big boyon the hardware block and their software IP is grow to point they will rival IBM . TO be honest Its IBM that has me the most upset . They are very good at getting others to do the dirty work while they reap the rewards .

You guys are the ones cheerleading the FTC case against intel . If the FTC has its way and prevails I don't believe the ramafacations will aspply to only INTEL . IBM would also have to comply with the new rules FTC is tring to create .

You don't seem to understand that this would apply across the board to all hardware software companies this will not Push inavation forward but backwards . The Winners in this will be the Companies with LARGE Fabs . If FTC succeeds without breaking intel up . Intel will break itself up . Knowing Full well their fabs would be the the most sout after and fab pricies would increase per unit cost . This would be wonderful for Fabs .

But as for Innovation . Do you really believe Intel would continue spending on research if they have to share that research without being paid . Hardly! Wake up .
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Keys the only reason I care is because of all the Intel Bashing. Intel is the big boyon the hardware block and their software IP is grow to point they will rival IBM . TO be honest Its IBM that has me the most upset . They are very good at getting others to do the dirty work while they reap the rewards .

You guys are the ones cheerleading the FTC case against intel . If the FTC has its way and prevails I don't believe the ramafacations will aspply to only INTEL . IBM would also have to comply with the new rules FTC is tring to create .

You don't seem to understand that this would apply across the board to all hardware software companies this will not Push inavation forward but backwards . The Winners in this will be the Companies with LARGE Fabs . If FTC succeeds without breaking intel up . Intel will break itself up . Knowing Full well their fabs would be the the most sout after and fab pricies would increase per unit cost . This would be wonderful for Fabs .

But as for Innovation . Do you really believe Intel would continue spending on research if they have to share that research without being paid . Hardly! Wake up .
People bash Intel, BECAUSE they are the big boy on the block. A lot of people do occasionally like to see the little guy win, because this ALMOST never happens. Sometimes it's a good feeling when the little guy (in this case, Nvidia) somehow emerges with the lesser damage. This is similar to Intel/AMD. In comparison, Intel is a Titan, but people do like to see Titans fall occasionally. Fall to the smaller opponent.
Some people (although this may never ever happen) would love to see Nvidia compete in the x86/64 CPU ring. Some people could care less. Yes, I am stating the obvious here, but it seems that the obvious may have elluded you just a little. I have been using Intel products since my first PC in 1990 ~ish. I've probably owned dozens and dozens of computers over the last two decades. Sometimes (like now) many at one time. Right now, is the most AMD based systems I have ever owned at a count of 3. My son's, my daughter's, and my wife's computers are AMD based. One (my son's) is a newer Phenom X3 720. The other two systems are older X2's. The rest of my systems are Intel and they count 6 at the moment. And to be honest, the only reason I have AMD systems right now are because I aquired most of the parts in trade. Other than that, I usually don't go out of my way to avoid Intel.

That said, you should understand that I don't really understand why you are pre-determined to think that I bash Intel. I love their products. I use them. Same with Nvidia's products. Love the products and use them.

Anyway, my cheerleading comment was said, because that is just what I am reminded of when I read your posts. You call it comedy, and I'm sure this is all just for your entertainment only, but honestly dude, this is kind of boring.

Saying things like if the FTC does NOT break up Intel, Intel will break itself up?? WTF??
The guy with the LARGE fabs wins?? WTF??

It's fine to say this stuff but man- 0 -man just explain WHY you think these things. As of right now, ALL you say is just blather to us because it really makes no sense. It might make sense to you, but whenever I finish reading one of your posts, I'm usually just stuck there wondering WTF you are trying to say. Not trying to upset you or anything, but that's how I veiw your posts (most of the time).

Can you maybe clear things up? if you cannot say certain things because of NDA's or any kind of restrictions, then maybe you shouldn't be saying anything at all that leaves us with incomplete information or fragments. IMHO.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Keys I admit openly that you are pretty balanced, But when it comes to NV you do wear blinders . I understand that and except it.

Reread the FTC charges . Are the rule changes meant only for Intel . No their not . All will have to comply . Once president is set its almost impossiable to reverse it . Think about it . If these new rulesz are inforced its a blow to innovation if your competor can use what you spent your research dollars onat zero cost to themselves . Who is going to spend $$$ on research .

Why would Intel break itself up . Because of the Fabs. Fab tech will rule not hardware innovation. And fab pricies will increase. Intel with the new rules enforce would be foolish to Spend $$$ Billions. They could just set back let others spend the research $$ than simply use what they invented . Not a good idea. Intel could break itself up into many companies or Subsituaries. But its Fabs on the open market for anyones use . Being way ahead ot would be a natural orfer for others to use Intel fabs.

As for the other piecies of intels break up . Graphics /CPU's /Compliars / Game company/ SSD/ ect ect ect . Your foolish to think that these rules would only apply to a so called monoply. Thats not the case these rules would apply to all . Innovation would stall . Everyone waiting for some fool to spend research dollars so that all others can just use without cost . If the FTC rules that this applies to monoplies only . The moment intel falls below 80% market share they would no longer be a monoply and than they could play on level playing field again . The FTC should stay the hell out of things . The AT$T greak up was a disaster that resulted in higher pricies and slower service. But AT&T is back and playing by New rules . That is hurting innovation . Because they are No longer a monoply . Companies like Luvent were created and than couldn't stand on there own costing investors billions in lost share priceies. You really only become a monoply if you are !st at something or if you lead in certain areas . In intels case that would be 1st and Fabs . How can you put down a company that invented that which gives you so much pleasure . In Intels case even tho things occurr we all raise are eyebrows on . If other smaller companies do the samething its not correct to punish the orginal innovator of X86 tech . Intel Fabs is whats keep them ontop . I would love to see intel break itself up into a bunch of smaller companies . Just to see were it goes.

I would have also liked it if you would have adderessed the Link on intels Rasterizing shell with memory allocations from 2003. I want to see more links . In that manner I will post an offsetting link. Thats what debates are all about . Notice that my link was not just a number . It gave details I have 1000s of such links on the business PC right next to me.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Ben what exactly was this link for . http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1244461304623.html . It matters not that Rambus withdrew some complaints it felt it couldn't win .

The case is still going forward . Ya got a link saying Ramus has withdrawn If so I post it . The case comes to trail in california I believe in Jan 2010. Just like AMD/Intel was for Feb. of 2010 . But they settled. SO will Nividia just like AMD did in 2006. Intel also uses Rambus tech . But Unlike AMD/ NV they pay royalties. Amd settled in 2006 now they pay . NV is refusing to pay . and this thing is really old and its going to cost NV alot of money . The FTC case against Rambus was thrown out just recently by the courts. NV will pay before court date or they will pay hugh amount in back royalties .

AMD new they infringed and did the right thing . Intel paid royalties up front .

We are investagating the 4 ftc judges for corruption as their are to many coincedencies for this type of thing . Dating back to Voodoo.

I think its also prudent to mention that Many of NV patents have expired just like Intel X86 expired payents . The whole Vodoo package expires soon . Than what ???


This statement from NV right here is just retarded, On June 2, 2009, NVIDIA publicly announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had rejected 41 claims.
It doesn't matter what USPTO says . A judge rules on those 41 claims not a retard clerk. I don't recall Rambus withdrawing those complaints . You better learn how this thing works .
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
JIT compiler (J ust-I n-T ime compiler) A compiler that converts program source code into native machine code just before the program is run. In the case of Java, a JIT compiler.

Java . Who did Java? Sun were sun come up with Jit compiler . Sparc . Who does Sun have CL with

Intel . Who did Intel Buy ? Elbrus. Why did IBM back away from buying SUN . Its non transferable.

What is ATIs native machine code? VLIC whats is Itanics native Machine Code. EPIC . There about the same . ATI /AMD got what me and IDC were discussing but you have to wait for the ATI 6000 series to find that out.

What was Larrabee native language for the vertex engine VLIC . Who has a Jit Compiler for native VLIC/ Intel .
 
Last edited:

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
As you are proving to be unworthy opponent
Funny, sounds almost exactly what you used to say in Larrabee discussions too. I'll take my record of accurately analyzing events against yours any day- I'm not going to bother to respond to your inane drivel however, it is just a waste of time.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
So your good at throwing meaningless stones , We don't Know why Intel delayed Larrabee. It could be part of the Intel /AMD settlement . Were AMD said ya got a head start on us . Intel nor AMD want to have differant programms written for there Machines using SoC They don't want fragment industry neither gives a rats ass about NV.

Intel /AMD on SoC using same source code . Using same Jit compilers for Vlic . I can see Intel is willing to wait on ATI 6000 series. Since fermi isn't going to well . Besides Larrabee at 32nm sounds much better , It also gives developers time to develop programms with 45NM larrabee 1. It all adds up to some serious computing when AMD is ready with the 6000 series . It also gives intel time to improve its capabilities
 
Last edited:

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
JIT is great for cross platform compatability, it always has and always will suck horribly for performance.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Funny, sounds almost exactly what you used to say in Larrabee discussions too. I'll take my record of accurately analyzing events against yours any day- I'm not going to bother to respond to your inane drivel however, it is just a waste of time.
You haven't even come close .
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
JIT is great for cross platform compatability, it always has and always will suck horribly for performance.
Yes it has inso far as past tense goes But with that overstated GPU power it should do really good . Intels Ct will trounce cuda . And Ct is open to all x86 sources. You do understand that NV fermi will also have a jit compiler just not the compiler that has been worked on since 1982- Sparc(Elbrus) than From 2004 Intel (elbrus) All working with Vlic .
 
Last edited:

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
JIT is great for cross platform compatability, it always has and always will suck horribly for performance.
JITs have shown performance equal to or better than native C from time to time, it just requires a massive optimization effort to reach. (besides, it's compiled not interpreted, so I'd assume the first time the code is encountered, it's compiled and stored from then on)
From what I've heard, they have the potential to outperform native code at certain tasks.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
JITs have shown performance equal to or better than native C from time to time, it just requires a massive optimization effort to reach. (besides, it's compiled not interpreted, so I'd assume the first time the code is encountered, it's compiled and stored from then on)
From what I've heard, they have the potential to outperform native code at certain tasks.
Thats correct, 1 time than its stored as native
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
JITs have shown performance equal to or better than native C from time to time
JIT will always be a staggering amount faster then C, C is not machine code. What we are comparing is compiled code versus non compiled.

1+1+1 will always be greater then 1+1, every time.

From what I've heard, they have the potential to outperform native code at certain tasks.
Not compared to precompiled- you have to execute the same machine code in either circumstance, with JIT you also have to compile it before you can execute.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY