Futuremark & NVIDIA Statement

Discussion in 'Beyond3D News' started by Dave Baumann, Jun 3, 2003.

  1. RussSchultz

    RussSchultz Professional Malcontent
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    HTTP 404
    Only when you're talking about negligence. We're not here. Preponderance of the evidence simply means one is greater than the other--nothing more.
    The jury is the sole arbiter of facts in a case. The law and the judge decide what the facts as decided by the jury constitute. (of course, the judge and jury can be the same if the defendant/respondant wishes so).

    As much as people want to think it would have been a cut and dried case, the jury would be ignorant people who likely don't have a clue what video card is in their computer. Futuremark would have to bet on these ignorant people to return the verdict they want.

    If you think there's an attitude of "so what" among some people interested in video cards, just try talking about this to somebody that isn't in the scene.

    There certainly is enough evidence to survive summary judgement. (The veracity of the claim that NVIDIA wilfully cheated would be the item determined by a jury trial) It would be long and expensive, and (the real kicker for futuremark) not a sure thing.
     
  2. just me

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respectfully disagree. :wink: As I've previously stated, California has "Fast Track" Laws that no longer allow cases to be drawn out affairs. The Courts here are well aware of the burden placed on small companies & individuals vs large corps w/tons of Atty's. Things have changed.

    Never know who might have filed amicus curiae briefs either. :wink:

    On the merits, this case was a slam dunk, IMHO.

    We'll prolly never see it happen to know for sure, but in my experienced opinion > FM had it in the bag. 8)
     
  3. antlers

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why a court just returned a $145 billion civil judgment against a tobacco company...

    IANAL, but I understand this is not true in the U.S. Each side is responsible for its legal fees. I think FM would have to file and win a countersuit to get legal costs from NVidia.

    I also think FM would have to look very hard to find a legal firm that would defend them on contingency. A firm would only do that if they thought they had a shot at a big payoff in a countersuit. Even if they were sure of winning, the amount of damages Futuremark could claim from NVidia wouldn't be that big.

    The truth of the matter is FM stepped in a pile of it when they accused NVidia of cheating in the first place. They should have said everything they said without mentioning anything of the "cheat, swindle, fraud, lie, misleard" persuasion. They could have said that benchmark scores made with the NVidia drivers were invalid. They could have said that the drivers contained code that reduced the workload in a way that would never be possible in a real game. They could have said any number of things and remained in the clear. Because NVidia has to worry about angry shareholders, they had to come down hard on FM when they used "cheat".
     
  4. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Whoa, what happened to the brighter bulbs at B3D?

     
  5. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dan Vivoli says (internal):

     
  6. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Whoa, what happened to the brighter bulbs at B3D?

    Im glad to see you responded much more adroitly then I did, when I first came across that comment it irked me greatly, then again, having been forced to read Plato's Replubic 3 times in the past 4 years makes me sensitive to these kinds of comments ;)

    You make a reference to the theory of the forms and nobody gets it, a depolorable reflection of modern western education ;)

    Oh and I appologize in advance for my previous message where the improper HTML syntax makes it look like Im replying to you instead of Voldenuit, I was in a hurry ;)
     
  7. Doomtrooper

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Replacing the original code with a low precision one made by the IHV was 'not ok' according to both, and what about the 'clipping planes' that seem to be so conveniantly left out :lol:
     
  8. just me

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    And they have to pay it by tomorrow too. :roll: They're still in business & will be & have 50yrs(?) to pay that.

    You understand wrong. If I sue you & you incur legal costs to defend yourself & win > I pay all costs. Think about it. If it is found out you sued just to try to bankrupt me > the Court will hit you w/fines up the wazoo. [Edit: You're thinking of Arbitration]

    We'll never know now, will we. :wink:
     
  9. RussSchultz

    RussSchultz Professional Malcontent
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    HTTP 404
    It can be true (most contracts contain a clause that stipulates this, or there are statutes in some claims), but in general, that is not correct.

    If the defendant were entitled to collect the cost of defending their claim, it would put an immediate chill on any suits brought on corporations by individuals--no matter how 'slam dunk' it was.

    1% chance it doesn't go your way * $1,000,000 = $10,000.
     
  10. Solomon

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In a House
    Wouldn't this be sort of ironic. From now on all video card reviews just only use 3DMark03? Hehe. I know... It'll never happened, but it would be kinda of funny! :p
     
  11. CorwinB

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arbitrary clipping planes are "slight optimizations", hey ? Color me disgusted.
     
  12. antlers

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong. This is different than the tobacco settlement; the judgment was just returned a few weeks ago and some of the states are desperately trying to overturn it because if it forces the tobacco company into bankruptcy they won't get the settlement money they have coming to them.

    As Russ pointed out, you are wrong. You can not in general count on recovering legal fees in the U.S. unless the dispute is over a contract that stipulates that.

    People in the U.S. cave in the face of threatened lawsuits of dubious merit all the time, if they are facing an opponent with deeper pockets.

    While theoretically the court will penalize you for bringing lawsuits of little merit with the purpose of bankrupting your opponent, in practice the courts will let plaintiffs represented by good counsel get away with a lot.
     
  13. TheMightyPuck

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Moist Cheddar Killer Hideout
    IAAL and trust me, in almost all cases parties pay their own legal fees. That's the American way and different from many other countries and one of the aspects of the American legal system that "Tort Reform" (i.e. an attempt to reduce the amount of litigation in this country and a complex topic) seeks to address. Having said that, much commercial litigation involves disputes where the parites have a contract that provides for the loser to pay legal fees; likewise certain statutes specifically provide the loser pays legal fees for cases brought under the statute.
     
  14. Mariner

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    237
    How about: "Illegal optimisations" instead of "cheats"?

    Has a nice ring to it, I think.
     
  15. Neeyik

    Neeyik Homo ergaster
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Cumbria, UK
    It's these sort of comments that landed me with 20+ virus laden email upon the release of a certain statement. I did not having anything to do with the audit PDF; I have no idea who did. My work for 3DMark03 consisted of the help file which I wrote large chunks of it, with Patric coming in and butchering it with his Finglish (tee hee). Seriously though, I wish people would check their facts before posting anything on forums - one of the above quotes has been used in attempt to stir up the situation over at FM.
     
  16. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    Well, going by the press release, I don't believe nVidia ever said whether it "threatened" legal action--I think what was said was that they didn't *bring* any legal action which forced 3D Mark's behavior in this issue. The two are distinct--the difference between writing a threatening letter and filing a lawsuit and getting an injunction, etc.

    I think nVidia, if indeed it did threaten, would've been bollocks to actually sue them, and so I think any threat made was a bluff to which FM capitulated. The worrisome part is the agreement between the two that shall forever remain sealed and private, most likely. FM's software program partners are likely to be less than thrilled by these events.
     
  17. Himself

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would call NVIDIA a bunch of assholes instead of cheaters, cheaters doesn't cover the whole aspect of their corporate personality. :)
     
  18. Anonymous

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 1978
    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Say it isn't Sosa....

    Newsflash---Nvidia Optimized Baseball Bat used by major league hero

    Sosa would only say, well, they said it wasn't cheating

    More at 11
     
  19. micron

    micron Diamond Viper 550
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    U.S.
    Thats the thread where everyone was wondering where you were at, and you told them you got kidnapped by aliens right?
     
  20. Clashman

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    This is kind of a tricky. I'm going to say you are both right and wrong. I think you have the right point that you're trying to make but you use the wrong example. Big tobacco never actually ends up admitting criminal wrongdoing. Those big judgements against tobacco companies are always overturned on appeal. This is because tobacco companies have the financial resources to drag these situations out. They beat you into the ground on appeal, until you give up or, (if you're lucky), settle out of court. And so in this sense, I think using the Tobacco companies as an example is a little off.

    What you were trying to get at, though, about U.S. law allowing companies to be bankrupted through court cases has merit, however. But this is the type of thing that in general plays into the hands of large companies like the Tobacco giants, (or nVidia in a case against Futuremark). There is no such thing as a 'slam dunk' when you take on major corporations in U.S. civil law. Even looking at a victory, such as happened today, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20030604/ap_on_bi_ge/taco_bell_lawsuit_6, it took over 5 and a half years for these guys to get a judgement on their behalf. And this case is likely smaller potatoes than trying to intentionally defraud customers, (which is what nvidia seemed to be trying to do by artificially inflating it's scores). Because if you admit that you tried to intentionally mislead the buying public, you open up the doors to being sued out of existence. Anyone can sue you and they would have a precedent by which to win with, (for if you cheated the one person you cheated them all). Whereas stolen intellectual property only involves the people you stole from, and not the general public. This is why tobacco companies put so much money into defeating these judgements against them. As such, I can guarantee you it will be many more years before they ever see a single red cent from Taco Bell. If you are a small company DEFENDING yourself it is likely to be even worse. It doesn't matter how many times you're aquitted, they can keep filing against you over and over again until you're gone. And you have no possibility of a payoff to fight for, unless you think you can win a countersuit, which goes back to the first part of this paragraph. I hate what went down, but I believe Futuremark made the cowardly but intelligent move. Being brave means little to most people if it gets you killed.

    Apologies in advance for any non-sensicallity. I had a hellish day at work.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...