Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
totally agree! actually companies should be FORCED to license their IP to others and the fees should be controlled by an industry body to make sure innovation isnt slowed down and nobody can bully anybody with their market share or money. as soon as ip is not available to everybody innovation slows down and political and mafia like relationships emerge, which in the end bend over the end user...

we came up with the idea to use 775 mounting holes on 1366, asus copied it, we hold a patent on it, but... whats the point? innovation drives the market and suing each other for using and not using each others ip is ridiculous and only gets you down in dirty mudfights hurting everybody, especially the customers cause in the end its THEM who pay for all this legal bs the big companies are pulling off. shamino came up with an external panel to access the clockgen and voltages while the board was running, without using the boards resources... again asus copied it, and foxconn could sue them, but again whats the point?

i just dont see how intel is beeing treated bad here, since atm its perfectly normal to use the pc infrastucture without having to pay any licenses and its not sneaky or greedy from nvidia to do this. IF they would have paid Intel to have sli on x58, then it would be intel abusing their market position, forcing nvidia to pay or else they get kicked out. which they are now trying to do with the chipset business. THATS wrong. intel is the one screwing nvidia and the market here by not wanting anybody else building chipsets! just let nvidia build their chipsets and license them and make extra money on it, whats the big deal?

i totally agree that actually there should be a constant flow of licensing between all parties that share a platform, but right now thats not the case, and as such nvidia is doing what everybody else is doing and its not wrong...
my 2cents...
Each company should and does have the choice to charge or not for tech they invested in.

I think you go it mixed up. I said "If Intel has to pay nVidia for the "Cookie and NF200" when clearly neither is needed, then nVidia should have to pay Intel as well. What's going on between your company and Asus is a prime example and NOTHING like what's going on between Intel and nVidia.

I disagree 100 about what creates innovation. Innovation starts before the first motherboard is shipped in this case. Everybody with the exception if nVidia and many times VIA pay fees and acts in accordance with established business practices. Getting someone to follow the LAW and Rules is not bullying BTW. If I invest money to come up with better Mouse Trap, Damned right I want to be paid for it. Then someone else spends money to try and out do me and the beat goes on Folks not paying for my or your ideas is what slows down innovation, just the opposite of what your saying. Why? Those creating the innovation will go broke if they don't get paid.

So think Intel shouldn't have paid Intergraph? Guys, you can't have it both ways. We ALL KNOW SLI doesn't need a Cookie or NF200 and nVidia shouldn't be charging anyone for something we don't need to run two of their cards at one time. It is the essence of Sleaze & Greed and we talking about Intel is Wrong?

I remind folks with Idiotic talk of Intel buying off courts and etc..... Intel lost to AMD, Intergraph (twice) and others