Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : 3DFX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JR who wrote (8074)	10/9/1998 2:27:00 AM
From: Greg S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

My flame for the OGR guy: As an objective reader who keeps up with the technology sector (particularly graphics and gaming), I must take a few issues with your recent column. I would think that as a columnist of some kind it would be appropriate to do research on the subject of your articles, particularly when they are worded so slanderously as "3Dfx vs. NVidia". >>> If 3Dfx wins the case, it should mean great things for 3Dfx, but pretty much bad things all around for all the other 3D accelerator companies. The competing companies will all be forced to either pay 3Dfx royalties for doing single pass multitexturing, come up with a completely different and unnatural technique of doing multitexturing, or just not support the feature anymore. <<< 3Dfx has officially stated that they are suing nVidia and nVidia only. They make no claim to a patent on all of multitexturing, merely their specific implementation (chip design), which they claim nVidia copied, nor do they make any claims of violations by other companies. This paranoia of a monopoly on multitexturing seems unfounded to me. >>> 3Dfx is picking on NVidia because they were first to market and because they pose a significant technological threat. <<< I believe you are seeing causality where there is none, and yet you state this as if it were fact. You appear to be completely unaware that 3Dfx claims that nVidia "implemented 3Dfx's patent in silicon", meaning they manufactured effectively the same chip that 3Dfx did (whether or not they threw in some bells and whistles is irrelevant) and this is indeed a very serious and very valid claim. These statements from 3Dfx were made some time ago, and anyone actually investigating the lawsuit would have come across them in their search for information. >>> Since 3Dfx isn't doing to well lately, it might be fishing to renew investor interest by suing one of the other big fishes in the pond - NVidia. If so, this tactic seems to have worked to a degree, as 3Dfx stock prices have been going up since the announcement of the lawsuit. <<< 3Dfx has stated that they have repeatedly "sought to reach an agreement with nVidia" regarding this violation. This implies that the issue has been around for quite awhile, and pretty much shoots down your theory that the lawsuit is based on a failing of 3Dfx's. N.B.: lawsuits don't make stock prices jump, they make them dip because investors don't see big settlements, only increased lawyer's fees and diverted resources and expenses. >>> Banshee is a problematic product. It may perform well in OEM channels - that still remains to be seen - but sales in retail channels will probably not be quite up to the rocketing standard 3Dfx has previously enjoyed with both the Voodoo and Voodoo2. <<< I don't know if you were aware that Banshee was never targeted for retail. But since your article cites Banshee as a major failing I would think that you knew something about it. Does it make sense to say that a product is problematic if it fails to dominate a market it wasn't developed for? Instead of using your lack of information to amplify the ignorance of the masses, perhaps you should do some research on topics you write about so that your inaccurate statements and false conjectures don't inadvertantly harm other entities. I think it would make your column actually worth reading, because I can get an uninformed opinion from just about anybody. -G