I don't care about what AMD is complaining about in the first question, but the second one... I am a bit confused... Why does Nadeem Mohammed say PhysX is not proprietary? Free licensing is different than proprietary software. If it is indeed not a proprietary software, then let it's open source be accessible for modification or changes.
Dunno, software licensing, rules and regulations change frequently and some are not so clear for me.
I'm used to the term "propietary" applied only to interfaces that are limited to one manufacturer. So GLide was propietary-api to 3dfx because they didn't allow any other hardware to use it. PhysX on the other hand runs on PPU, Cuda, x86 and Power architectures and if I understood nvidia correctly, it could rund on even a lot more, if the manufacturers of these devices developed a physX implementation. (or, in the case of ATI, even if they "just" opened all the information necessary to implement Cuda on Radeon)
"open source" is familar to me for software, whose code is freely avaluable for anyone to use as they please.
So first its a lot opener: You may not just implement it in your own project, you may even enhance it, take only parts and generally profit in all thinkable ways of the knowledge and work of someone else, without giving anything back, not even your help to establish a widely comaptible basis. (taking the physX example: You would be allowed to use the full GPU-PhysX-kernel, rename all the commands so that it gets incomaptible and market it under your name -lets say: DirectPhysics- while at the same time forbid Nvidia to use your new command names, so they might at least have the marketing benefit of compatible hardware)
Secondly it applies to Software, not APIs. Softwarecode actually represents a lot of intellectual work. An API like PhysX on the other hand is just a defined set of commands. Using an existing set will not give a competitor any advantages or savings aside from beeing compatible with existing solutions (an advantage, that works both ways), but he still has to create his own code that will either give the defined commands or be able to do the requiered calculations. (In case of PhysX, the former one -the PhysX-physicsengine- can actually be licenced for 0$, but it is not openly avaluable. Though no matter how you stretch the term, you could not call it propietory, as it is issued to wide range of developers. On instance of the later one, the PhysX-hardware implementation in Nvidias drivers and GPUs on the other hand is highly closed. No one has access, no one can manipulate or adopt it for his own hardware. So you might call this "propietory" if you have to. But you would not address the PhysX-API in this case)
physx effects do not deliver "the best possible gaming experience for all PC gamers". atm a game with physx means extra (demanding) fluid, cloth & particle effects if you have a geforce card, and leaves anyone using a radeon card up s**t creek. some games even recommend 2 geforce cards to make those extra effects playable (darkvoid, batman AA, cryostasis).
Actually most PhysX games to neither feature demanding fluid, demanding cloth or exceptionally demanding particle effects and behave exactly the same, wether you have a geforce, radeon or gma. (well: okay, with gma that usually behave exceptionally crappy graphic wise, but the physics stay the same