EVGA retracts PrecisionX 15 download - issues a statement

[8 Pack]

MSI ABX is better anyway!!!

and yes MSI do treat him with respect I have seen this first hand.

 

[setter]

No problems with a reference 780, latest afterburner and 340.43 in BF4. Though I am doing the voltage softmod.



Fan curve goes back to auto when AB is closed for me. To test it, setup a ridiculous fan curve (like 100% at all temps) and then close the program. The fans should spin down to normal speeds and rev up when you open AB again.

I'll give this a try tomorrow. Like to have ab running for the custom fan setting. If left on auto my card hits 70c pretty quickly and throttles down.

 

[Boomstick777]

Their statement covers it all, I don't even see why people are upset.

Precision’s original main GUI concept was designed and provided to the community by EVGA in 2008.
The RivaTuner control panel and backend code in prior versions of Precision were developed and is owned by the RivaTuner developer. EVGA does not own the source code for any RivaTuner code. EVGA paid for the development and distribution rights per the contract.
The new EVGA PrecisionX 15 was coded from scratch by EVGA without copying any of the RivaTuner code.
Both RivaTuner and EVGA PrecisionX 15 make use of the NVIDIA NVAPI to communicate with NVIDIA graphics cards and drivers, which is owned and provided by NVIDIA.

I swear to many people moan about nothing these days. Man up ffs

 

[PFS38]

You can get 1.6v with AB, not sure about EVGA. As for you guys having problems with BF4 have you tried this enabling 64bit support? I get no problems in BF4 with any driver that i use.


Also MSI AB comes to life when you start tweaking it from the .cfg as a lot of options are hidden away from nOOblets, confirmed by Alex himself.

Its a great tool when you know how to use it, i would always use it over Precision purely because i can overvolt my card to 1.6v if i wanted but i have it running at 1.38v for 24/7 use.

 

[Neil79]

He's never going to be happy.

He isn't a happy person

 

[tommybhoy]

Ashamed of your trolling?

Their statement covers it all, I don't even see why people are upset.

I just decided to peek inside "in-house" application EXE. I'd better avoid doing so: even my original EXE string table is inside new executable as is. Including all the messages of original application, including all the messages of my proprietary USF skin compiler / decompiler built into original RivaTuner skinning engine, even including the references to original RivaTuner core libraries (RTTSH.dll). Even including the messages related to RivaTuner’s G15 LCD output module, which the company probably also tried to clone but couldn’t get working yet. Really, EVGA?

Dear company PRs, take a fair advice and simply stop giving any public comments with fake excuses. I’m not going to start a legal action against the company, I’m not asking for ANY compensation. I just want to let my users know the truth, protect my software, my ideas and technologies and then forget our past partnership. Just keep your lips sealed and let this story die istelf. Do not beat the dead horse.

Alexey Nicolaychuk aka Unwinder, RivaTuner creator

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/ev...r-rtss-design-concept-into-precisionx-15.html

I think it was more an exercise on who's telling the biggest porkies.

 

[humbug]

Alexey Nicolaychuk aka Unwinder, RivaTuner creator

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/ev...r-rtss-design-concept-into-precisionx-15.html

I think it was more an exercise on who's telling the biggest porkies.

EVGA underestimated how smart some of our community are.

Though we never claimed that EVGA stole code, yesterday things took a serious turn for the worse as traces of 'rivatuner' had been found inside EVGAs "100% own written" PrecisionX 15, this was exposed by a 3rd party who decompiled EVGA's PrecisionX 15 and the Rivatuner core application. We just received word from EVGA that they have decided to take down PrecisionX 15 as download

Someone pulled P-X 15 apart and found RiverTuner code in it, EVGA pulled it, they didn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[uksoldierboy]

MSI ABX is better anyway!!!

and yes MSI do treat him with respect I have seen this first hand.

What's msi abx?

 

[Boomstick777]

Someone pulled P-X 15 apart and found RiverTuner code in it, EVGA pulled it, they didn't have a leg to stand on.

EVGA already stated they helped put Rivatuner out in the first place, and paid for some of the coding.

Who really cares if some of it is leftover in this new release?

All EVGA are gonna do now is repackage it to remove any old lines of code with rivatuner in it. They probably didn't even think that there would be a problem that's why it was left in the first place. Just a load of people jumping on the hate train.. More and more common on the internet these days..

I can understand the usual AMD fanboys trying to make issue over it as EVGA is one of the best Nvidia vendors, hence AMD fanboys see it as an opportunity to score points. Beyond those types, nobody else will care

 

[drunkenmaster]

The RivaTuner control panel and backend code in prior versions of Precision were developed and is owned by the RivaTuner developer. EVGA does not own the source code for any RivaTuner code. EVGA paid for the development and distribution rights per the contract.

THat is from the quote in your post, they did NOT state they helped put Rivatuner out in the first place, they didn't come close to saying that.

It would be particularly hard for EVGA to have done so as Rivatuner was released in 97 and EVGA was founded in 99...............


wow... are those crickets I hear?

I just stick my head in to see what is happening, the only fanboys who need to be pointed out are the ones talking out of their behinds. It's pretty impressive to quote something EVGA said... then a few posts later claim something entirely different and also completely impossible to boot.

 

[tommybhoy]

I can understand the usual AMD fanboys trying to make issue over it as EVGA is one of the best Nvidia vendors, hence AMD fanboys see it as an opportunity to score points. Beyond those types, nobody else will care

Someone hasn't read some of the EVGA fanboy comments over in the EVGA forum.

Their own customers aren't happy, team red don't even come into the equation when their own customers are going full force vocal hence the pulldown.

wow... are those crickets I hear?

I just stick my head in to see what is happening, the only fanboys who need to be pointed out are the ones talking out of their behinds.

Quality.

 

[Silent_Scone]

DM also an IP consultant and lawyer now too. Thank god he went full fem'.

The only crickets to be heard will be the ones when nothing ever comes of this. If he had a leg to stand on he would have kept his mouth shut and taken them to the bank. He should have sold it years ago when he had the chance.

People throwing around words like theft without knowing all the facts. Also if he stopped receiving royalties last year, why hasn't he looked at legal action? Both parties are rarely innocent. Some of the haters should maybe bang their heads together in order to come up with a sensible scenario. Mutual respect is something that I think was lacking from both sides and as a result, EVGA have cut all ties.

Theft is theft, yes. But only when proven guilty. The only way people could possibly know that for sure is if they had a copy of Unwinders contract.

This snippet is why both parties have been equally peeved and why EVGA most likely dropped him.

1. The EVGA Precision main GUI (main Window) and format was fully designed and owned by EVGA, that means Alex/Unwinder did not design the Precision GUI at all. The Rivatuner technology was used for the backend like GPU reporting, OSD and overclocking. Other features like voltage tuning, pixel clock control and Bluetooth function were coded by EVGA. We want it to be clear that Rivatuner source code has never been released to EVGA. A year and half after Precision was introduced, Afterburner was released, that shared a lot of the same ideas and concepts originally set by EVGA’s Precision, and also used Rivatuner technology.
2. Most gamers knew that some of the key features that have been requested and missed such as 64bit OSD, voltage control and video recording in the early versions of Precision, yet Afterburner had it. You probably don’t know that some of those ideas were initiated and requested to Alex/Unwinder by EVGA to implement into Precision well before it was available in Afterburner, but Alex/Unwinder had no intention to add it. One year later they showed up in Afterburner exclusively without any notification and/or offer to EVGA. We felt that we became Alex/Unwinder and Afterburner’s free consultant if we continue this route.

EVGA as far as companies go aren't exactly faceless and uncaring. Maybe, just maybe, no definite here kids, it was EVGA who were initially too trusting.

 

[Freddie1980]

I thought all these programs were just reskins of Riva tuner anyway with some extra functionality bolted on for good measure.

 

[james.miller]

DM also an IP consultant and lawyer now too. Thank god he went full fem'.

He's right though....but don't let that stop you.

The only crickets to be heard will be the ones when nothing ever comes of this. If he had a leg to stand on he would have kept his mouth shut and taken them to the bank. He should have sold it years ago when he had the chance.

People throwing around words like theft without knowing all the facts. Also if he stopped receiving royalties last year, why hasn't he looked at legal action? Both parties are rarely innocent. Some of the haters should maybe bang their heads together in order to come up with a sensible scenario. Mutual respect is something that I think was lacking from both sides and as a result, EVGA have cut all ties.

Theft is theft, yes. But only when proven guilty. The only way people could possibly know that for sure is if they had a copy of Unwinders contract.

This snippet is why both parties have been equally peeved and why EVGA most likely dropped him.

Why? what do you think unwinder has done wrong? From where I'm sitting, he had a contract with EVGA and he fulfilled that contract. EVGA took the **** by all accounts, so why are you insisting that Unwinder has done anything wrong? What are you basing this on?

1. The EVGA Precision main GUI (main Window) and format was fully designed and owned by EVGA, that means Alex/Unwinder did not design the Precision GUI at all. The Rivatuner technology was used for the backend like GPU reporting, OSD and overclocking. Other features like voltage tuning, pixel clock control and Bluetooth function were coded by EVGA. We want it to be clear that Rivatuner source code has never been released to EVGA. A year and half after Precision was introduced, Afterburner was released, that shared a lot of the same ideas and concepts originally set by EVGA’s Precision, and also used Rivatuner technology.

Correct me if im wrong but it's literally just the skin that EVGA designed. Everything else is unwinder..

2. Most gamers knew that some of the key features that have been requested and missed such as 64bit OSD, voltage control and video recording in the early versions of Precision, yet Afterburner had it. You probably don’t know that some of those ideas were initiated and requested to Alex/Unwinder by EVGA to implement into Precision well before it was available in Afterburner, but Alex/Unwinder had no intention to add it. One year later they showed up in Afterburner exclusively without any notification and/or offer to EVGA. We felt that we became Alex/Unwinder and Afterburner’s free consultant if we continue this route.

EVGA wanted it, but wasnt prepared to pay for it and it would have been outside of the original contract (as explained previously by unwinder). MSI wanted it, payed for it's development and got it. Seems pretty simple to me?

EVGA as far as companies go aren't exactly faceless and uncaring. Maybe, just maybe, no definite here kids, it was EVGA who were initially too trusting.

....No, not really likely.



---------------------------------------------------------------------

Update 5: here is a reaction from Unwinder, the programmer on EVGAs statement:

Well, I’ll give my official statement on it as well. First, let me summarize the terms of our business relationships with the company. According to the contract I had to develop very simple overclocking tool for the company, take the following features from original RivaTuner and fit them into the concept art of EVGA’s skin design:

Core / Shader / Memory adjustments
Ability to link/unlink Core/Shader clocks
Fanspeed adjustment
Monitoring utility (Monitor temps and all 3 clockspeeds, like Rivatuner monitoring)
Ability to save clocks / fanspeed on reboot.
Couple years later we extended the list of official contracted product functionality with advanced fan speed control (ability to define curve) and power target / thermal target adjustment support for modern NVIDIA GPUs.

My business obligations per contract were to provide the following support to the product: launch new versions of software to add support for new NVIDIA cards when they are released and fix bugs in the code if the company reports any. No new functionality development in any form was ever assumed. That’s it as it is defined by contract signed by both parties. That’s the functionality we included in the development budget and in royalty fees. That’s how you had to see original EVGA Precision if it was designed by EVGA. And if the company is brave enough to call it “a lot of the same ideas and concepts originally set by EVGA’s Precision” – let it be so.

Yes, I know I made a huge mistake myself, overclocking tools development is a passion and hobby of my life so I tried to combine the hobby and business and started adding new and new things to the project on top of commercially functionality licensed by EVGA. Now I learned the lesson, you cannot do it with business because the companies lose self-control because of greediness.

Anyway, this way Precision was powered up by other advanced features from original RivaTuner: G15 monitoring features, screen capture support, entire On-Screen Display support module, tray icon monitoring and so on. No development budget or royalty fees were ever requested for those features and additionally bundled applications like RTSS and it was absolutely OK for me to develop and support those things freely simply because I liked coding them. So I’m certain that I followed the contract 200%, but if the company thinks differently I see absolutely no problems in terminating the contract. But it is not OK for me to previously licensed things to get stolen. Especially, if the company got free license on them like it was with RTSS. Sorry, EVGA, but it is not OK.

And by the way, the company PR said at least a part of truth: EVGA indeed requested me to add 64bit OSD to Precision before it became available in Afterburner, but did it in rather interesting form. The company expected to add new free feature to RTSS they got freely to use it in commercial product.

Bravo. With Battlefield 4 launch both MSI and EVGA users wanted to get 64bit OSD badly. Both MSI and EVGA knew that it is rather time consuming task, both vendors perfectly realized that it is big job and it is not covered by the contract. MSI preferred to make users happy and invested into development of it. And other vendor preferred to sit and wait while some crazy Russian programmer code it for them freely due to his coding passion. So once again, if the company believe that they can call it “ we became Alex/Unwinder and Afterburner’s free consultant“ let it be so, I can only sadly smile on that.

Alexey Nicolaychuk aka Unwinder, RivaTuner creator

Update 6: this intersting post from Unwinder caught our attention:

Hope those are my last comments on this story. First, there are different rumors walking on the net related to the product licensing terms. Some people are trying to justify copying from the previous versions, so I’d like to clarify that to prevent any misunderstanding:

The agreement defines the following intellectual property ownership terms: software product which I develop remains my copyrighted property, but during the contract the company receives exclusive distribution rights on it. Besides exclusive software distribution rights the company exclusively owns all the rest intellectual property, which is not directly related to software and which I could create during the contract: i.e. product name, product logos, artwork. That’s all. There are absolutely no ways to fit any form of previous software copy-pasting into the licensing model.

Second, I just decided to peek inside "in-house" application EXE. I'd better avoid doing so: even my original EXE string table is inside new executable as is. Including all the messages of original application, including all the messages of my proprietary USF skin compiler / decompiler built into original RivaTuner skinning engine, even including the references to original RivaTuner core libraries (RTTSH.dll). Even including the messages related to RivaTuner’s G15 LCD output module, which the company probably also tried to clone but couldn’t get working yet. Really, EVGA?

Dear company PRs, take a fair advice and simply stop giving any public comments with fake excuses. I’m not going to start a legal action against the company, I’m not asking for ANY compensation. I just want to let my users know the truth, protect my software, my ideas and technologies and then forget our past partnership. Just keep your lips sealed and let this story die istelf. Do not beat the dead horse.

 

[Silent_Scone]

It's amazing how people think they know something we all don't, isn't it James.

1. How do you know for sure EVGA didn't offer to fund development, you're taking his word for it.

2. If adding 64bit OSD support is outside of the contract, and he is agreeing to MSI to add this through funded development would you be willing to pay the same royalty fees if the developer is taking payment outside of contract to further development for the same platform you've paid money for? Is it not the contractors obligation to offer a renewal or the same services? I wasn't aware it was a crime to not wish to pay small time programmers upfront for work that could, and has taken literally years. Hats off to Unwinder, it's a great product but that doesn't change formalities.

What's more laughable is insinuating Unwinder hasn't done anything wrong. He's been sat waiting for this precise moment because he knew there would be string left over from the previous build, and now he's kicking up a crap storm because he has no legal avenues to venture down.


I'm wrong though, and this is purely my own thinking...(if it helps ease your mind). As I said, neither party are innocent in all this, at least rarely. EVGA are taking the brunt of it based on Alexey being a one-man band. Also, I've had my fair share of experience with Russian programmers, and have bitten my tongue on tarring them all with the same brush in this instance

 

[james.miller]

Why are you so interested in defending EVGA? is it because DM isnt? Or are you trying to impartial? If it's the later then it isnt working because you are seemingly ignoring everything Unwinder has said about the issue. You say unwinder would have taken them to the cleaners when he has already stated he isnt interested in doing so. You say we dont know anything until the contract is seen, funny how EVGA haven't refuted a word unwiders has said about the contract....

Until EVGA do something to disprove what unwider has said, then the blame lies squarely with them. If you were really trying to be impartial, you would accept that instead of attacking other people for pointing out the obvious.

1. How do you know for sure EVGA didn't offer to fund development, you're taking his word for it.

Forget MSI for a second; EVGA said they asked for it and didnt get it. Unwinder said they expected it for free when the cotract said no. EVGA have not refuted this.

It's Pretty clear cut unless EVGA come back and prove they offered to fund development. Which i'm sure they wont.

2. If adding 64bit OSD support is outside of the contract, and he is agreeing to MSI to add this through funded development would you be willing to pay the same royalty fees if the developer is taking payment outside of contract to further development for the same platform you've paid money for?

what's the issue with paying for something you want if a rival funded its developement? why do you assume EVGA and MSI were/are paying the same royalties to beging with? Unwinder already mentioned his contracts with EVGA and MSI were different; EVGA had a basic contract for a basic product - it stands to reason they were quite probably not paying the same as MSI to start with. Don't forget EVGA already had a lot of extra features that were developed for rivatuner which were not covered in the original contract. Again, not refuted by EVGA.

Is it not the contractors obligation to offer a renewal or the same services? I wasn't aware it was a crime to not wish to pay small time programmers upfront for work that could, and has taken literally years. Hats off to Unwinder, it's a great product but that doesn't change formalities.

It's up to the both parties to without their side of the agreement, whatever that is. Unwinder said he already did that, and more besides. Again, EVGA have not said refuted this at any point.

What's more laughable is insinuating Unwinder hasn't done anything wrong. He's been sat waiting for this precise moment because he knew there would be string left over from the previous build, and now he's kicking up a crap storm because he has no legal avenues to venture down.

It's a lot more than just a string! Have you not read what unwinder has been posting? It's been mentioned enough times that he is only interested in protecting his IP - he's not trying to gain financially from this. Why do you keep insisting that he would have taken action IF he had a chance? You must "think you know something we all don't", so what do you know then?

I'm wrong though, and this is purely my own thinking...(if it helps ease your mind). As I said, neither party are innocent in all this, at least rarely. EVGA are taking the brunt of it based on Alexey being a one-man band. Also, I've had my fair share of experience with Russian programmers, and have bitten my tongue on tarring them all with the same brush in this instance

Right so your bitterness is because of some experience you once had with some other completely unreleated Russian programmer. Now we know where that chip came from.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I guess it's time I finally post after 7 years.

I am RagingCain. Guru3D is the first forum I actually joined years ago to learn about overclocking.

Unwinder, I have been using RivaTuner as long as I can remember, in one form or another. I thank you for your service to the community. I would not have had a single overclocking accomplishment without your software.

I would like to clarify my post that you got a chance to read, while doing my original side by side analysis through a decompilation. Which as you know is what 80% undecipherable (on a good day)?

I do not have any experience in reverse engineering any application. In fact, I really don't know much about anything. ^.^ I just applied my other skills and logic to see if I could to validate your claims. The young ones on OCN were getting a little riley.

The decompilation strings, or your string tables, is what I used to compare the two pieces of software. Not a binary viewer, so that definitely explains why we didn't see the same things.

I started in the header and footer file of the binaries, which is the standard IDE injection of data such as things like configuration files, assembly information, library inclusions. That's what I referred to when I meant the standard Visual Studio stuff was both there, in an attempt to look for your claims (the ones you had made prior to evidence.)

I apologize for not finding the RTSS dll reference, the Unicode search feature of the application was not working correctly and the gaps between the string letters (since it's unicode) were not spaces.

When you explained how I could see what you saw, I went back and retraced your steps.


I am willing to admit when I am wrong. I do apologize if you felt offended by my lack of skill.

However, I would like to point out though, these programs are in fact vastly different despite having these string references. I also want to point out that your DLL is not included with the PrecisionX 15 binaries, so despite being in the code, these functions have to be inert. Even according to you, EVGA and MSI have never had your source code.

Isn't it just possible they built over their old version Precision, replacing the code that was meant to interface with your software?

You are absolutely in the right to call them out, for having code that is obviously in both programs (whether it is in use or not). You deserve full credit, and let's face it, your work is the entire inspiration of what they are doing.

I just think that had you shown EVGA these findings first, they would have either issued an apology to you (giving credit), replaced the code, and or corrected their marketing shtick. Then had they not yielded, going public seems like a completely reasonable thing to do.

And if you feel that strongly about this, i.e. modifying the previous version of Precision to embarrass EVGA, just use legal representation via proxy. There are lawyers that specialize in this kind of stuff (often foregoing payment till after settlement.)

Hi RagingCain,

No need to apologize at all, I appreciate your investigations and attempts to verify claims from independent point of view. In your second verification you try to compare internals of new PrecisionX.exe with RTSS.exe. You won't find many similarities there because you're comparing overclocking application executable with overlay server executable (basically just a GUI for hook loader). They are supposed to be different. What I referenced to in my claims was original Precision executable file. If you try to compare new PrecisionX.exe with EVGAPrecisionX.exe from previous 4.2.1 version (which is also my copyrighted material), you'll find much more similarities inside. Sadly, localization engine (Help/Localization folder contents, ID maps etc) and string table are close to be 100% equal. Besides that there are many similarities specific to internal application architecture and programming (skin compiler source code format, skin compiler command line switches, even the names of shared memory interfaces and synchronization objects), which let me declare with no doubts that original Precision X 4 application was reverse engineered and EVGA studied and tried to copy its internal architecture and silently taken some binary parts from it "as is". According to some traces most likely it was done in Taiwan EVGA office, and I'd really like to believe that people from American EVGA office I was previously working with were not aware about new project "development" approach. And of course it was not just a trivial recompilation of previously existing source code, as I declared I never provided it to company. Otherwise new PX 15 would just work without problems and without being so slow. So new project is created with reverse engineering and code reconstruction.
Talking about showing EVGA these findings first, I see zero sense in it. Even if this situation will be solved one day, I see absolutely zero chances to continue partnership with the company in any form after this story. I don't need any compensations, I just need to protect my ideas, hard work and name. I know that my work is stolen, the person from the company responsible for that perfectly knows that too, now the community knows it as well. That's enough.
And by the way, I was not going to make any public statements about dirty tricks the company used in PX 15 development. I was going to make EVGA complete surprise and give small panic to new PX 15 "developers" with Afterburner 4.0.0 announce. Anyway, you cannot hide the truth, the story became public from different side.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Why are you so interested in defending EVGA? is it because DM isnt? Or are you trying to impartial? If it's the later then it isnt working because you are seemingly ignoring everything Unwinder has said about the issue. You say unwinder would have taken them to the cleaners when he has already stated he isnt interested in doing so. You say we dont know anything until the contract is seen, funny how EVGA haven't refuted a word unwiders has said about the contract....

Until EVGA do something to disprove what unwider has said, then the blame lies squarely with them. If you were really trying to be impartial, you would accept that instead of attacking other people for pointing out the obvious.



Forget MSI for a second; EVGA said they asked for it and didnt get it. Unwinder said they expected it for free when the cotract said no. EVGA have not refuted this.

It's Pretty clear cut unless EVGA come back and prove they offered to fund development. Which i'm sure they wont.



what's the issue with paying for something you want if a rival funded its developement? why do you assume EVGA and MSI were/are paying the same royalties to beging with? Unwinder already mentioned his contracts with EVGA and MSI were different; EVGA had a basic contract for a basic product - it stands to reason they were quite probably not paying the same as MSI to start with. Don't forget EVGA already had a lot of extra features that were developed for rivatuner which were not covered in the original contract. Again, not refuted by EVGA.



It's up to the both parties to without their side of the agreement, whatever that is. Unwinder said he already did that, and more besides. Again, EVGA have not said refuted this at any point.



It's a lot more than just a string! Have you not read what unwinder has been posting? It's been mentioned enough times that he is only interested in protecting his IP - he's not trying to gain financially from this. Why do you keep insisting that he would have taken action IF he had a chance? You must "think you know something we all don't", so what do you know then?



Right so your bitterness is because of some experience you once had with some other completely unreleated Russian programmer. Now we know where that chip came from.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I have a copy of Unwinders contract please? You seem to have it with you?

EVGA won't refute anything. Literally I cannot dissect what you are saying as it's common practice. You don't air your dirty laundry on a public forum when it could go legal.

Duh! I can understand why people would side with Unwinder, but it is 100% not as black and white as some of the forum lawyers are making out.

 

[james.miller]

Can I have a copy of Unwinders contract please? You seem to have it with you?

Hey don't point the finger at me - you are one trying to tell us what unwinder would have done. one of unwinders responses ('update 5' which i posted above) outlines the contract details, evga never came back and said it was wrong. That's what we have to go on. But no, like i said, you obviously think you know something the rest of us dont (yes i agree, it's amazing isn't it ?), so again I'll ask what do you know please?

EVGA won't refute anything. Literally I cannot dissect what you are saying as it's common practice. You don't air your dirty laundry on a public forum when it could go legal.

Why wouldnt they? they were VERY quick to moan about MSI getting 64bit support. They were also very quick and pointing the finger at unwinder rather than just saying "yeah, we didn't want to pay for it so we developed our own. Oh BTW MSI did pay for it, so sorry if we mislead anyone"...

Not sure why you have having difficulties reading my post, it's written plain English and I'm sure everybody else can understand it. But no, please continue avoid answering questions.

Duh! I can understand why people would side with Unwinder, but it is 100% not as black and white as some of the forum lawyers are making out.

EVGA have done nothing to even hint that they aren't entirely to blame in this. They pulled the software pretty much straight away, that's enough considering you seem to think unwinder didnt have a legal leg to stand on. Why would they even bother if he didnt have a case? why would they care what unwinder thought? So come on, what do you know that we don't?

 

[kitch9]

DM also an IP consultant and lawyer now too. Thank god he went full fem'.

The only crickets to be heard will be the ones when nothing ever comes of this. If he had a leg to stand on he would have kept his mouth shut and taken them to the bank. He should have sold it years ago when he had the chance.

People throwing around words like theft without knowing all the facts. Also if he stopped receiving royalties last year, why hasn't he looked at legal action? Both parties are rarely innocent. Some of the haters should maybe bang their heads together in order to come up with a sensible scenario. Mutual respect is something that I think was lacking from both sides and as a result, EVGA have cut all ties.

Theft is theft, yes. But only when proven guilty. The only way people could possibly know that for sure is if they had a copy of Unwinders contract.

This snippet is why both parties have been equally peeved and why EVGA most likely dropped him.

1. The EVGA Precision main GUI (main Window) and format was fully designed and owned by EVGA, that means Alex/Unwinder did not design the Precision GUI at all. The Rivatuner technology was used for the backend like GPU reporting, OSD and overclocking. Other features like voltage tuning, pixel clock control and Bluetooth function were coded by EVGA. We want it to be clear that Rivatuner source code has never been released to EVGA. A year and half after Precision was introduced, Afterburner was released, that shared a lot of the same ideas and concepts originally set by EVGA’s Precision, and also used Rivatuner technology.
2. Most gamers knew that some of the key features that have been requested and missed such as 64bit OSD, voltage control and video recording in the early versions of Precision, yet Afterburner had it. You probably don’t know that some of those ideas were initiated and requested to Alex/Unwinder by EVGA to implement into Precision well before it was available in Afterburner, but Alex/Unwinder had no intention to add it. One year later they showed up in Afterburner exclusively without any notification and/or offer to EVGA. We felt that we became Alex/Unwinder and Afterburner’s free consultant if we continue this route.

EVGA as far as companies go aren't exactly faceless and uncaring. Maybe, just maybe, no definite here kids, it was EVGA who were initially too trusting.

Do you seriously believe this load of old hogwash?

Seriously?

 

[humbug]

EVGA already stated they helped put Rivatuner out in the first place, and paid for some of the coding.

Who really cares if some of it is leftover in this new release?

All EVGA are gonna do now is repackage it to remove any old lines of code with rivatuner in it. They probably didn't even think that there would be a problem that's why it was left in the first place. Just a load of people jumping on the hate train.. More and more common on the internet these days..

I can understand the usual AMD fanboys trying to make issue over it as EVGA is one of the best Nvidia vendors, hence AMD fanboys see it as an opportunity to score points. Beyond those types, nobody else will care

If anyone ever says anything that remotely lays a dark shadow over Nvidia they get attacked and labelled "AMD Fanboys"
Its getting really quite bad in this forum with a small number of Members now looking for any excuse to go on the attack like that.
No one has laid any criticism at Nvidia at all, this is purely about EVGA, its only the fact that EVGA are one of Nvidia's partners that gives you a 'by proxy' excuse to go on the attack.

You and a small number of others are picking fights with the rest of the forum for reasons that are becoming increasingly ridiculous in their obscurity.

This needs to stop.