Nvidia EULA limits GeForce Data Center Usage *fork*

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by Grall, Dec 27, 2017.

  1. 3dilettante

    Legend Alpha

    Sep 15, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Well within 3d
    That would depend on the specific findings being cited.

    Deciding not to grant copyright permissions to a profit-making corporation trying to undermine product segmentation so it can more cheaply provide secondary services is not anti-competitive.
    AMD not harmed by when Nvidia doesn't provide a driver, and if anything it would be encourage Sakura Internet to evaluate other options--if AMD didn't segment various features by driver and firmware.

    And I stated Sakura Internet had the option to roll its own software stack. It didn't.

    The more restrictive language as to the future non-development of competing software was part of a larger agreement that was not in the end finalized.
    This is the reverse of the current scenario. Sakura Internet is not being prevented from creating its own software. Your interpretation is that Nvidia should be compelled to give Sakura Internet software, such that Sakura Internet can offer services in a market Nvidia is not a player in at the expense of Nvidia's product structure that has not been claimed to be abusive.

    Lasercomb made use of pre-release software it was given ahead agreeing to a license. However, Nvidia doesn't appear to have done this and earlier in the thread I stated Sakura might have been able to get away with original drivers or an older variant.
    Later drivers would be in the possession of Nvidia and behind a mechanism for registering assent. If Sakura Internet is free of obligation to Nvidia, there is a limit to what Nvidia is obligated to do for them.

    To counter Nvidia's position, it would need to be compelled to give its copyrighted software, now in the absence of any licensing if its current terms have been declared without merit--although this would negate a vast swath of existing standard practice.

    That's not what happened in this case. What is the competitor product that cannot be used?

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.