Nvidia EULA limits GeForce Data Center Usage *fork*

[3dilettante]

I’m not making an argument that consumer laws cover businesses. Rather that the laws and court precedent I am referring to are enjoyed by all.

That would depend on the specific findings being cited.

Yes, copyrights laws grant limited monopoly. But courts have generally ruled that you can’t abuse your rights by trying to extend those rights in a way that covers areas not included within the copyright itself with the intent to “stifle competition”.

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.

Lasercomb vs. Reynold was a case where the defendant successfully used a misuse defense. Lascomb licensed 4 copies of its software to Holiday Steel. The license involved forbade the the licensee from developing competing software.

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

Holiday Steel not only made additional unauthorized copies. It basically cloned the software and start selling it own version. Lasercomb found out and sued for copyright infringement. Lasercomb originally won the suit but on appeal lost. Because the appeal court ruled that Lasercomb had misused their copyrights (anticompetitive license language), Holiday was allowed to outright infringe on those copyrights.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasercomb_America,_Inc._v._Reynolds
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.

Practice Managment Info vs AMA was another case where a misuse defense was successfully applied because AMA forced its licensees to agree not to use competing software. Courts ruled this was a misuse of copyrights and AMA lost.

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