> 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 vali

> 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.