ant says no G800 announcement soon

[superfly]

I just have 1 very hard question that i'd like anyone who feels they can answer it.

I'm using Matrox just as an example here,but it applies to any other company as well.

Does anyone believe that the entire techology porfolio of the company comes directly from internal developement only?.

More specificaly,does the core team of engineers who develop that new tecnology, come to work for matrox right after completing their university degree,without ever having worked anywhere else in the industry,and if they did,doesn't that help matrox develop those new products and tecnology faster than would be possible otherwise because of their experience in the field?.

Doesn't that constitute a direct legal conflict,especially if the previous company was a direct competitor?.

[Greebe]

AJ, I live in the US and have worked in many states where this is enforcable. I've personally seen people loose jobs to competition even when they didn't share anything but their skills (ie no intellectual property was exchanged). Yes I was being over simplistic, but the point still remains and is true. When it happens across boarders then your talking two different countries laws take effect. Matrox does have a case and NVIDIA did break the law (in two countries) hence why the lawsuit.

Pertaining to your second post, please read what has been said thus far, ie regarding delays.

Like Haig said to me lastnight, next time somone wants to know why we don't give out information he'll link them to this thread.


For anyone whom may pass this way and read, before conjecturing as to what some of us are saying is true, please read, especially section 6.

[AlgoRhythm]

As far as non-compete agreements go, they are absolutely un-enforceable...

For example, Microsoft acquired the company I was working for. They brought in their Draconian contracts that said that I couldn't work for another company doing similar things for one year!!!

Yeah, whatever. That's all I can say. You can't really expect me to not compete with Microsoft when I'm in the software biz...

Any lawyer can tell you that non-compete agreements are crap.

AlgoRhythm

[Admiral]

From the DON'T section:

3.Insult people gratuitously on the following grounds:

their choice of video cards. Many members have multiple machines, and multiple video cards. Nearly all have strong opinions, whether pro- or anti-Matrox. You naturally have every right to state your opinion, and the reasons for it... but again, an insulting post consisting of "You're an idiot to have that crap XXXX card," does nothing but clog up the forums for no purpose. Try to avoid this.




[This message has been edited by Admiral (edited 18 September 2000).]

[Greebe]

AR, Just tell that to my friends that lost their jobs then... I'm sure you will convince them that it's not inforcable (and their lawyers would laugh too).

Ad, When were we discussing competitors cards? We weren't.
When those in the know speak, others normally listen. I'm not saying it's wrong to debate, for this thread has been full of that. But when ignorance prevails, regardless of the facts, it's rather fatiguing to continually debate a loosing battle when one refuses to except the truth and or reality of the issues at hand.

[Admiral]

Sorry, I realize now that this is not the right thread, but I just had to pull that part up since you linked to the guide.
It's sad to see that people the guide's trying to defend also have to suffer due to the numerous "Matrox sux", "I'm getting bored"... threads.

[superfly]

Every company has it's personal little secrets that they rather not let it leak out to the public.

The only difference...Nvidia got caught doing it.

Matrox is no exception.

Here's a little hipothetical scenario that happends all too often.

Company A hires(or recruits)a skilled engineer from company B who happends to be a direct competitor.

That same engineer signed a non-disclosure act with the original company as to protect it's intelectual property(i use that term loosely).

Let's also assume that said engineer was responsable for a certain feature on the chip that eventually made it's way to market and no one had it before,while he was under the employment of company A.

Company B wants to have that feature as well,but in a faster version than what company A had.

The engineer develops that new version based on his skills and experience with the old one,but without using any of the patents that the old company has on the tecnology.

So the layout and capabilities change for the better,but the function is still the same.

Do you consider what the engineer did illegal???...

kind of a catch-22 type scenario isn't it?,i'll explain why later....

[Joel]

Hey superfly,

Illegally recruiting Engineers was only part of it. Enough said, OK?

Joel

[superfly]

It's a shame that everyone seems to be ignoring the previous post...(sigh).

[Rags]

It's not that we are ignoring the previous post, it's just that we figured there is no use arguing with you because you obviously haven't read what we posted. If you had, you would not have posted said post

Rags

[GinoCyber]

If the engineer signed a legal contract stating that he cannot quit (key factor) his job to go work for company B, then yes, this is illegal. No matter how you look at it, the engineer MUST GET FIRED in order for everything to be legal.

Your example is a bit too simplistic though. The end result of the new feature in company B is the same as what is was in company A but just faster. The speed of the feature is not an issue. The feature itself is the issue. How was it implimented? How was the chip designed to get this feature working? How does this feature interact witht he rest of the chipset? etc.. Take away the speed factor, if all else is identical, then company B has a problem.

Ciao

[superfly]

No company that i know of has in it's contract any sort of clause that forbids employees from quiting their job if they choose too.

That comes dangerously close to denying a basic right that everyone has(it's in the bill of rights).

Freedom of choice.

And like i said in the previous post,the implementation is different enough that no patents are being abused,but the engineer took advantage of past experience to make it better and faster.

There are plenty of features that other makers had before matrox did

Multitexturing in a single pass for instance,who brought that to the consumer market???...3DFX did with their voodoo 2.

In fact there is an outstanding lawsuit by 3dfx that been going on now for over 2 years and covers every single card that nvidia has released since the tnt.

Are you so sure that if that suit gets settled in 3dfx's favor,that they won't go after anyone else??.

After all,matrox just integrated the texture units on a single chip and made it faster(just like Nvidia did)but the function is still the same,no???.

[Joel]

"No company that i know of has in it's contract any sort of clause that forbids employees from quiting their job if they choose too."

Maybe not but they can not quit without some pretty heavy penalties and conditions. Just talk to all the NFL football players. Talk to Keanu Reeves who had to star in a movie, 'The Watcher', that he did not want to be in because of a contactual agreement. Talk to all the Microsoft programmers that are under contracts. Sounds like to me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. A company has the right to word a contract anyway they want to. And if you don't like, then they will just find someone else.

Joel

[superfly]

Thee's one huge distinction between movie stars or football players or microsoft high ranking employees.

In they earn a huge amount of money,more in one year than you or me in an entire lifetime of work.

How many movies depend on who the main actor is in order to increase the chances that it will score big at the box office,even if the movie totaly blows chunks(plot wise,screenplay,etc...).

And who in their right mind would leave microsoft when they can retire rich in just a few short years because of all the benefits(pay,stocks,etc..).

I think that the examples you gave aren't terribly good... .

[Storm]

I agree with Joel. Any big company that has a lot to lose always sets up a contract that the employee signs prior to acquiring the job, giving him/her the posible options and implications of resignation should it come to that. It's standard logic; if they didn't do that, any employee could walk freely disclosing whatever information he wishes. Under contract law, the employer can easily sue you, and if the employee broke a contract resulting in formidable, if any money loss to the company, chances are you will have to pay quite a lot, depending on the specifics of the case.

"Freedom of choice" may not apply after signing a contract -- if you don't want to lose that right, don't get the job. It's that simple.

Superfly: Any company may set up Whatever contract they wish as long as it follows the law of the given country. There are non-compete clauses that will legally prevent you from switching companies, at the penalty of a lawsuit, which can hit you very hard. All of those are widely used. Trust Me.

[How did this topic get into law? Where'd the G800 go?]

::Nick

[This message has been edited by Storm (edited 19 September 2000).]