4 ms·

Maybe he sees AMDGPU as an opportunity. Drivers should never be proprietary. There are no legitimate reasons for them to be, only sad excuses.

eropple 10y ago
> There are no legitimate reasons for them to be, only sad excuses. Are you an IP lawyer? I'm not, but I work with people who are, and they would disagree with you rather strongly with regard to certain cases and certain fields. It's pretty presumptuous to tell people what legal risks they should expose themselves to (and to forestall the tired and obvious, it's great that Intel thinks that they're OK and can open their stuff--but I sure get why others aren't so cavalier).
- benchaney 10y ago
  "I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble" is a sad excuse, not a legitimate reason.
  - emiliobumachar 10y ago
    The current state of patent law is that the only way you can be sure not to infringe on it is to never build anything, ever. In that environment, I can actually sympathize with "I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble".
  - mcbits 10y ago
    If it's a "dealing pot" sort of infringement (e.g. against patents that shouldn't exist, but do), then it's a legitimate reason to hide their tracks. If it's a "robbing banks" level of infringement, then it's not.
    - eropple 10y ago
      That, and robbing banks is a violation of criminal law. Patent infringement is a tort. Way different set of concerns.
      - axonic 10y ago
        For those interested, see Schillinger v. United States [1], 1894 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163
        mcbits 10y ago
        The distinction between crimes and torts really has no impact on the analogy...
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    That would be true, if the laws weren't harmful on their own. 20 year patents are way too long, and software patents are ridiculous. Only 5 more years before you can write a linked list with multiple traversal orders without licensing it from the patent holder! https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023 https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023
  - Qwertious 10y ago
    What if the laws are dumb and dangerously arbitrary? Like, say, patent laws. To be fair, it's not so much "laws" as "things people can sue you over", but that distinction doesn't become relevant until after the lawsuit and large amounts of money down the drain. And then they disappear without recouping your costs, because they're a goddamn shell company. It is a sad excuse, but only because we live in a sad reality with massively broken patent laws.
    - dTal 10y ago
      Which will never change as long as the major companies evade the issue like this, while the smaller ones are crushed.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  > Are you an IP lawyer? No. Nor do I claim to be. Did I say that excuse was ill founded, or that it has no basis or support in fact? No. It is, indeed, a valid excuse. That doesn't mean it's a good excuse. Who is going to sue then over IP? AMD? Intel? NVIDIA is touted to have the best drivers. By that logic, NVIDIA should sue Intel, after all, Intel got into graphics much later, so they must be violating NVIDIA's IP, right? When it is said that "NVIDIA cannot open their source because of potential litigation", that is an excuse, not a reason. That is a potential difficulty of change, not a reason to be stagnant. I understand how those at NVIDIA might think they need to stay proprietary. There are several valid excuses they can use to support that claim, but each excuse I have heard does not hold up in reality: NVIDIA certainly can and should change.

eropple 10y ago

> There are no legitimate reasons for them to be, only sad excuses. Are you an IP lawyer? I'm not, but I work with people who are, and they would disagree with you rather strongly with regard to certain cases and certain fields. It's pretty presumptuous to tell people what legal risks they should expose themselves to (and to forestall the tired and obvious, it's great that Intel thinks that they're OK and can open their stuff--but I sure get why others aren't so cavalier).

benchaney 10y ago
"I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble" is a sad excuse, not a legitimate reason.
- emiliobumachar 10y ago
  The current state of patent law is that the only way you can be sure not to infringe on it is to never build anything, ever. In that environment, I can actually sympathize with "I'm breaking the law, but I don't want to get in trouble".
- mcbits 10y ago
  If it's a "dealing pot" sort of infringement (e.g. against patents that shouldn't exist, but do), then it's a legitimate reason to hide their tracks. If it's a "robbing banks" level of infringement, then it's not.
  - eropple 10y ago
    That, and robbing banks is a violation of criminal law. Patent infringement is a tort. Way different set of concerns.
    - axonic 10y ago
      For those interested, see Schillinger v. United States [1], 1894 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/155/163
      - mcbits 10y ago
        The distinction between crimes and torts really has no impact on the analogy...
- khedoros1 10y ago
  That would be true, if the laws weren't harmful on their own. 20 year patents are way too long, and software patents are ridiculous. Only 5 more years before you can write a linked list with multiple traversal orders without licensing it from the patent holder! https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023 https://www.google.com/patents/US7028023
- Qwertious 10y ago
  What if the laws are dumb and dangerously arbitrary? Like, say, patent laws. To be fair, it's not so much "laws" as "things people can sue you over", but that distinction doesn't become relevant until after the lawsuit and large amounts of money down the drain. And then they disappear without recouping your costs, because they're a goddamn shell company. It is a sad excuse, but only because we live in a sad reality with massively broken patent laws.
  - dTal 10y ago
    Which will never change as long as the major companies evade the issue like this, while the smaller ones are crushed.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
> Are you an IP lawyer? No. Nor do I claim to be. Did I say that excuse was ill founded, or that it has no basis or support in fact? No. It is, indeed, a valid excuse. That doesn't mean it's a good excuse. Who is going to sue then over IP? AMD? Intel? NVIDIA is touted to have the best drivers. By that logic, NVIDIA should sue Intel, after all, Intel got into graphics much later, so they must be violating NVIDIA's IP, right? When it is said that "NVIDIA cannot open their source because of potential litigation", that is an excuse, not a reason. That is a potential difficulty of change, not a reason to be stagnant. I understand how those at NVIDIA might think they need to stay proprietary. There are several valid excuses they can use to support that claim, but each excuse I have heard does not hold up in reality: NVIDIA certainly can and should change.