Sony being sued for removing features, nVidia question

[SparksIT]

Came across this while check up on Tech news:

The suit, filed on April 27 by Anthony Ventura of California, seeks to redress Sony for the "intentional disablement of the valuable functionality originally advertised as available" for the Playstation 3. The disabling of Linux support is not only in breach of the sales contract between Sony and its customers, the suit says, but also a deceptive business practice "perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers."

Full article here: http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Sony-Sued-for-Pulling-Linux-on-PS3/story.xhtml?story_id=13100EVA7YX6

My question...for those legal minded people, how likely and how helpfull would this be to a nVidia suit for removing physX from GeForce cards and the Agia PPU when an ATI card is detected has the primary card?

***I am not trying to turn this into a PhysX debate, so if possible please refrain.***

 

[tcsenter]

My question...for those legal minded people, how likely and how helpfull would this be to a nVidia suit for removing physX from GeForce cards and the Agia PPU when an ATI card is detected has the primary card?

None, as NVIDIA never advertised this capability.

 

[SparksIT]

None, as NVIDIA never advertised this capability.

And their Ageia PPU Card...it was adveritsed as a card that is a Physics Proccessing Unit..Hence the PPU part...didn't the update disable those cards aswell?

 

[SlowSpyder]

And their Ageia PPU Card...it was adveritsed as a card that is a Physics Proccessing Unit..Hence the PPU part...didn't the update disable those cards aswell?

Yea, the Aegia card was advertised as a PPU. Nvidia did advertise many of their cards as having Physx capable, they never mentioned AMD GPU's... we all know it worked fine.

I think it wasn't made into a big deal because Physx so minor in the grand scheme of things as it sits now.

Imagine this, you buy a Radeon 5750 for it's HTPC capabilities. You are using your 5750 happily with your Intel i5 rig, it makes a great HTPC. In AMD"s next driver they take away all of the HTPC capabilities, the bitstreaming, HD acceleration, 7.1 sound, etc. when it detects an Intel chipset. Or they take away 3D ability? Pretty shitty business practice, no?

Nvidia sold something with certain capabilities than made the requirements after they had their customers money, leaving some of those customers out in the cold.

It pretty much blew over because the population of AMD Radeon users with a GeForce or Aegia card for Physx is probably pretty low, not much of an uproar.

At least that's how I see the situation.

 

[SparksIT]

Nvidia sold something with certain capabilities than made the requirements after they had their customers money, leaving some of those customers out in the cold.

It pretty much blew over because the population of AMD Radeon users with a GeForce or Aegia card for Physx is probably pretty low, not much of an uproar.

At least that's how I see the situation.

Thats how I saw it to, but I also figured that PS3 users using the Other OS would have been small as well.

 

[extra]

Someone with enough money probably *could* sue (and win something, probably nothing huge though). It hasn't happened because no one cares about PhysX. The ps3 thing got mainstream media attention, which is why it happened. No one cares about PhysX, certainly not enough that common people would ever hear about it.

Think about it, to someone on the street:
you: "sony updated people's playstation 3 consoles and took away features they paid for!"
average guy: "my god! evil! sue them!"

you: "man, can't believe nvidia disables physx if it detects an ati card present in the system".
average guy: "the what is huh? Pie?"

=p

 

[MagickMan]

Some enterprising lawyer needs to start a class-action, sign me up.

 

[ViRGE]

You'd never find enough Ageia PPU owners to bother. Heck, I have one and even I don't care about the PPU at this point.

 

[Lonyo]

Thats how I saw it to, but I also figured that PS3 users using the Other OS would have been small as well.

Yes, but they are vocal users.
Most people who bought an Aegia PPU probably feel too embarrassed to make a fuss about it, while Linux fans who bought a PS3, and Linux fans who didn't buy a PS3 can be vocal.

 

[Genx87]

Came across this while check up on Tech news:



Full article here: http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Sony-Sued-for-Pulling-Linux-on-PS3/story.xhtml?story_id=13100EVA7YX6

My question...for those legal minded people, how likely and how helpfull would this be to a nVidia suit for removing physX from GeForce cards and the Agia PPU when an ATI card is detected has the primary card?

***I am not trying to turn this into a PhysX debate, so if possible please refrain.***

Not at all. Nvidia doesnt have an obligation to support ATI cards in a PhysX configuration.

 

[Lonyo]

Not at all. Nvidia doesnt have an obligation to support ATI cards in a PhysX configuration.

Not even when they are using an Aegia PPU?

 

[Genx87]

Not even when they are using an Aegia PPU?

What is so different between their PPU and doing it on a GPU?

Do they even manufacture the stand alone part? The last time I heard about the PPU was years ago before they were bought out by Nvidia.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not at all. Nvidia doesnt have an obligation to support ATI cards in a PhysX configuration.

Well thats what the class action suit would address.

 

[konakona]

Right, it's more about the principle of things. The vast majority of the gamers do not consider PhysX titles worthy at the current state (though that may change in either direction), but it's more of screw the customers mentality that people are upset about.

True about no obligations, but intentional and deliberate act of disabling is more work on their part than not doing anything about it, or say adding a disclaimer on not supporting Ati hardware. Should someone attempt to hold them responsible for whatever crazy issue that may arise from using an unsupported ATi card, nv could have ignored that in the same token.

They don't have to support ATi card, but neither they had to go out of their way to make so sure that it is definitely NOT supported (or even allowed at all). Simply doesn't make sense from the consumer's viewpoint, maybe it does for their shareholders. They are just paying the price of taking a flak for their customer unfriendly tactics.

Yea, the Aegia card was advertised as a PPU. Nvidia did advertise many of their cards as having Physx capable, they never mentioned AMD GPU's... we all know it worked fine.

I think it wasn't made into a big deal because Physx so minor in the grand scheme of things as it sits now.

Imagine this, you buy a Radeon 5750 for it's HTPC capabilities. You are using your 5750 happily with your Intel i5 rig, it makes a great HTPC. In AMD"s next driver they take away all of the HTPC capabilities, the bitstreaming, HD acceleration, 7.1 sound, etc. when it detects an Intel chipset. Or they take away 3D ability? Pretty shitty business practice, no?

Nvidia sold something with certain capabilities than made the requirements after they had their customers money, leaving some of those customers out in the cold.

It pretty much blew over because the population of AMD Radeon users with a GeForce or Aegia card for Physx is probably pretty low, not much of an uproar.

At least that's how I see the situation.

 

[Genx87]

Well thats what the class action suit would address.

Really? I dont remember many class action lawsuits addressing or forcing a company to support a competitors product. Most class actions I have seen or been part of are about a quality issue, defect, or misrepresentation of what the product does.

Did Nvidia ever advertise PhysX can run on ATI hardware?

 

[MrK6]

Really? I dont remember many class action lawsuits addressing or forcing a company to support a competitors product. Most class actions I have seen or been part of are about a quality issue, defect, or misrepresentation of what the product does.

Did Nvidia ever advertise PhysX can run on ATI hardware?

They don't have the obligation to support their PhysX cards in configuration with other hardware, but disabling it altogether is just a cheap way out. It might not be to spite users of AMD/other hardware so much as they don't want to waste the resources fine tuning their PhysX drivers, but it shows the motives of the company and what they think of their customers and product. I mean, if NVIDIA doesn't take PhysX seriously, why would anyone else? In the end, as others have mentioned, PhysX is so small it doesn't really matter (ironic how it's cyclical like that).

 

[thilanliyan]

Did Nvidia ever advertise PhysX can run on ATI hardware?

The argument wasn't about whether PhysX can run on ATI hardware, it's why it is being blocked from running on nVidia hardware when an ATI card is present. It's even worse that they blocked PPUs from working when an ATI card is present.

 

[WelshBloke]

Really? I dont remember many class action lawsuits addressing or forcing a company to support a competitors product. Most class actions I have seen or been part of are about a quality issue, defect, or misrepresentation of what the product does.

Did Nvidia ever advertise PhysX can run on ATI hardware?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you misunderstanding the situation?

Noone wants PhysX to run on ATI hardware, they want it to run on the Nvidia hardware that its been advertised to work on.

Its also nice to see that you not only know the details of a non-existent legal case but the outcome as well!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Really? I dont remember many class action lawsuits addressing or forcing a company to support a competitors product. Most class actions I have seen or been part of are about a quality issue, defect, or misrepresentation of what the product does.

Did Nvidia ever advertise PhysX can run on ATI hardware?

No, they never advertised that it would run on ATI hardware. No one is discussing that here. Nvidia DID sell cards that advertised their ability to run Physx. Never was it mentioned in the requirements that it was not compatable with an AMD card also present. And that configuration (AMD card for rendering, Nvidia or Aegia card for Physx) did work for many people without issue.

Than, after Nvidia has the money from customers who may have bought a PPU or an Nvidia card as a PPU they changed the requirements and left those customers to hang. This is an Nvidia card running what it was advertised to be able to do.

What do you think of my hypothetical question above? What if you bought a Radeon and AMD disabled HTPC functions, 3D functions when it dectects an Intel chipset/CPU? This is after it's worked fine. This is after you bought the card and did with it what it was advertised to be able to do. Would you think that was a shit business decision from your standpoint as a customer?

Luckily (not luckily?) for Nvidia my guess is the population of users who used an AMD card for rendering and an Nvidia card as a PPU is very low, so this blew over pretty much. But to me is still demonstrates how Nvidia feels about it's customers. :/

 

[Madcatatlas]

Sign me up. I just bought 3 gtx 480s and when using one as a phycx card along with my 5970, it doesnt work..

 

[zerocool84]

The people who bought Ageia PPU's could sue but don't think they will since it hasn't happened yet.

 

[blanketyblank]

Sign me up. I just bought 3 gtx 480s and when using one as a phycx card along with my 5970, it doesnt work..

Definitely won't work for you since by the time you bought the 480s you should have had no expectations the cards would work alongside your 5970. Possibly may work for their older GPUs depending when they started to block ATI cards.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Not at all. Nvidia doesnt have an obligation to support ATI cards in a PhysX configuration.

They have an obligation for their products to continue to work, in a standards-compliant system. Which means if someone installs another card into their system, that is compliant with all relevant standards (PCI express, BIOS, etc.), then their cards should continue to work.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Really? I dont remember many class action lawsuits addressing or forcing a company to support a competitors product. Most class actions I have seen or been part of are about a quality issue, defect, or misrepresentation of what the product does.

Did Nvidia ever advertise PhysX can run on ATI hardware?

Are you delusional? Why would NVidia be supporting a competitor's product. Their product runs ALONGSIDE a competitors product, in the computer. The fact that they intentionally programmed it to shut down if it detects a competitors product installed, is outright malicious. In no way are they required to support Physx on an ATI card. But they had damn better support THEIR OWN HARDWARE, whether or not it's running ALONGSIDE a competitor's product.

 

[Attic]

nVidia was screwing consumers. It doesn't need to get complicated. I like the way VirtualLarry put it.