AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel

jonathan_ingram writes "As reported on GrokLaw, AMD has just filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel. AMD states in its press release that the complaint details "... how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel - including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents.""

About time...

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

Full text of the complaint filed can be found here [amd.com] in PDF format.

Interesting read...it's high time we saw some legal action against Intel for all these shenanigans. However, I'm doubtful that this will resolve anything...in reality, Intel will probably be about as inconvinenced by this antitrust action as Microsoft was by theirs.

Re:About time...

[RailGunner (554645)]

That's not all, sadly. Even though the Opteron, for example, supports the SSE2 instruction set (and supports it faster than a Pentium 4 Xeon based on my benchmarks) when you call in to any function in the Intel Integrated Performance Primitives (IPP), it will "watershed" to the default pentium, non-optimized code. It will NOT run the SSE2, SSE, or even MMX enabled functions. So this is another example of Intel screwing over AMD.

Re:You want Intel software to support AMD?

[by Anonymous Coward]

You want Intel software to support AMD?

When the only difference is changing "if (processor.has(SSE) && !processor.is(AMD))" to "if (processor.has(SSE))", it's not a matter of "Intel's not supporting a competitor" -- it's "Intel's completely fucking AMD in every single possible way imaginable".

Re:You want Intel software to support AMD?

[RailGunner (554645)]

I want software that claims to support SSE2 optimizations to use those optimizations regradless of whether or not the CPUID = GenuineIntel or not.

Nowhere on the IPP package does it say that it won't use optimized code. If someone wasn't a developer like I am, they might have just thought (incorrectly) that AMD chips are slower than Intel. This is false, as when I hand write the assembly code and use SSE2 the Opteron, even at 2.2 Ghz, blows the doors off of a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4 Xeon - and that's just 32 bit instructions. I haven't finished porting my code to 64 bit, and then I suspect that it'll be even more of a massacre in AMD's favor.

Yes, image processing is more memory bound than CPU bound, but for things like jpeg compression the CPU matters. (And since the memory controller is ON the Opteron, it ends up absolutely rocking for image processing.)

Re:You want Intel software to support AMD?

[Andrew Cady (115471)]

You want Intel software to support AMD?

Why should they do that?

Intel software doesn't have to support AMD, but it should not deliberately break on AMD CPUs.

Re:You want Intel software to support AMD?

[hawkbug (94280)]

That's the smartest thing I've read on here all day - it's so true. When tech companies specifically break code because it's a competitor, just like Microsoft with IE only pages, it goes to show they can't compete, so they have to resort to intentionally breaking things, which only hurts the consumer.

Re:About time...

[man_of_mr_e (217855)]

While I don't doubt that Intel does every trick in the book to keep their profit margins up. I have to wonder exactly how "hurt" AMD is. They are a profitable company and sell a significant number of systems. There are tons of motherboard and system makers supporting them, though not generally the really big ones.

You have to wonder how much of that is because of Intel "strong arming" and how much it is that manufacturers are more comfortable with Intel's product supply capability.

I know if I were shipping a million or more computers a year, I probably wouldn't choose AMD, simply because they have a history of not being able to meet demand.

Re:About time...

[man_of_mr_e (217855)]

According to their stock charts, they are:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AMD [yahoo.com]

They made 1.97 Billion in gross profit last year. with a net income of 28.64 Million. Their last quarter doesn't look too good, but most companies have strong and weak quarters in a year.

Re:About time...

[Dun Malg (230075)]

my point is that it's a bit of a stretch to call Intel a monopoly when their competition is quite strong and doing well.

"Monopoly" is the wrong word. It's actually "anti-competitive practices". The financial health of the plaintiff is irrelevant. You don't have to wait until all competitors are driven out of the market to file suit. Also, said practices don't even have to be effective to be illegal.

Re:About time...

[barc0001 (173002)]

Does Intel have a strong market power? Sure. Are they using that illegally? Quite possibly.

If that quite possibly turns out to be true, that's all that's required to be found guilty in this lawsuit. If it's against the law, it's AGAINST the LAW. Period. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law, it doesn't matter if your competitor is doing "well enough", it doesn't matter if your competitor is starting to do better than you. There was a law you broke and now you will have to face the consequences.
And I know damn well that Intel engages in this kind of behavior as a matter of doing business. How? I know a hardware supplier in town. He's a friend of mine. One day a few years ago when he was delivering a bunch of parts to me at the office he gave me a 6' x 4' wall banner from AMD, because he knew I bought AMD based systems from him all the time. I thanked him for it, and asked him what the occasion was. He said "I had it up and some of the Intel guys came in and saw it. They got really mad and told me to get rid of it or they wouldn't be so accomodating to us, so I had to take it down!" I asked him what he meant by "accomodating", and he told me they were hinting that maybe he wouldn't be getting his orders as quickly, and there may be problems doing returns with faulty units, etc.

Intel spends a *LOT* of money on the "Intel Inside" and Pentium image. AMD spends very little and is not well known outside techie circles. That "Intel Inside" sticker does mean something to a lot of people, even if they don't know WHAT it means. It's brand recognition.

You don't think that part of their brand recognition advantage over AMD is based on getting rid of all the AMD propaganda from the mom and pop shops like my friend's place, do you?

Re:About time...

[acadia11 (889886)]

I would disagree, the difference between Microsoft and the AMD case, is who brought the case and did they have a viable alternative? In the former the DOJ brought the case against Microsoft and the DOJ did not offer a viable alternative, after all the DOJ doesn't write operating systems. And to be honest there is no realistic alternative to the average consumer .i.e. grandmother other than Windows. On the other hand in the latter case, AMD is a direct competitor to Intel. AMD not only offers a viable alternative but in many cases a better alternative. This is not the DOJ bringing suit it's a competitor, AMD, therefore the competitor, AMD, can collect heavy fines and concessions from Intel. It's brilliant and you got to love it right on the heals of the Apple deal, as clearly, AMD's architecture was a better fit for Apples initiatives, or stated initiatives. I.E. performance and power consumption an arena where AMD leads Intel. Alot of myths are going to be dispelled in this court case and we will find out how Intel has kept it's lead despite inferior products, product instability, and an inability to meet deadlines and demand. The irony is these were all claims Intel made of AMD as to why they, Intel were #1 and a better choice. If I were Intel I'd higher my marketing team to try the case on their behalf.

Intel began self-destructing several years ago.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

MOD PARENT UP. Excellent comment.

Intel began self-destructing several years ago. For example, in my opinion, the Intel consumer products division released lame, unfinished products. Eventually Intel reacted to the poor sales by closing [com.com] the division.

Like really, really scary horror stories? Here's one more scary than you've ever seen in film. Intel marketing has become detached from reality. Intel marketing people go to work every day, but they just pretend to have meaningful jobs and pretend to be doing something positive for Intel. They are zombies, and most of them don't appear intelligent enough to know that they are zombies. If you think this is an exaggeration, read this sentence from a recent email message from Intel Marketing (I'm talking here about Intel marketing, not Intel's advertising agency.):

"Pass any three of the four tests before July 26, 2005 and your company will get a certificate of completion - plus you'll receive an Intel BunnyPeople Character." Here's an explanation with photo: Intel Bunny People [jeffbots.com].

Intel has been giving those dolls away for 7 1/2 years [intel.com]. Maybe someone bought a huge number of them?

How many technically-oriented people are motivated by the idea of receiving a doll? It goes like this: 1) Give Intel marketing your company's address and phone number and email address, so that they can spam you in the future. 2) Sit through boring marketing-speak, written by people who don't know or care about Intel products, or any technical product. 3) Take a test. 4) Get a doll?

Intel management appears to have spun out of control. Apparently it is now all stock options and company politics, and nothing about actually doing well. The people in charge don't actually know what they are doing, and apparently care more about having their executive positions than making good products.

Intel is known in Portland, Oregon, where it is based, for being abusive toward its employees. I'm guessing that the present problems really began about 12 or 15 years ago, when the Intel management, just before an enormous increase in profits, pleaded broke and reduced the pay of employees by 10%. Intel is known for over-working its employees, and pressing them to work very long hours.

Once about 2 years ago, I decided to ask Intel marketing people to fix a problem with the motherboard web site. Intel's ordering model number, used when you place an order with a distributor, was nowhere connected on the web site with the marketing model number, like 845BGL. I asked them to fix that. I talked to several marketing employees, all of whom clearly did not intend to do any real work.

I could tell many, many stories about Intel's sink into depression, but that's enough for now. I will have to say, however, that Microsoft's marketing people are worse.

Re:About time...

[megalomang (217790)]

I am not sure that paying their customers is truly a demonstration of anti-competitive behavior.

Intel has a large market share, but what they do not have is a monopoly. From what I can tell, Intel has taken measures to ensure that AMD is always a viable alternative, therefore antitrust laws do not comply.

If they try to play hardball with Dell, Dell always has the power to say, "screw you Intel, we will not do any business with you whatsoever". They can choose AMD. If Intel is not selling to Dell below cost, and they are not abusing a monopoly status that they don't have.

Intel has much, much better margins than AMD due to their significant process technology advantages and a more focused feature list (i.e. they are willing to take a few percent performance hit to save lots of $$ and yield -- something that underdog AMD cannot afford to do). Taking advantage of these margins to preserve their market share is exactly what a free market is. If they were prevented from doing this, then what would be the point of innovation, of cost reduction, and of technology shrinks, etc???

Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors)

[daveschroeder (516195)]

Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that Apple would use AMD products where they made sense in the future, and that the Intel announcement, specifically, was intended to be one of simplicity that wouldn't rile up Wall Street and analysts, and we can see that they've succeeded in spades. However, once the transition to the x86 architecture is over, there is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD (and/or x86-64/EM64T from Intel or AMD) where appropriate... ...except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.

Since the transition of high end machines is two and a half years out ("end of 2007"), it's likely that at least some of this will have shaken out by then. So even IF there are any types of exclusivity arrangements with Intel on Apple's part, either explicit or implicit (and please note, there is nothing to suggest there is), Apple, along with many other x86 vendors, will be free to choose the best processor solutions for their products - including those from AMD.

Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier.

All that said, choice and competition is still a good thing for this marketplace.

For more on the transition, see Apple/Intel FAQ [appleintelfaq.com].

StrongARM tactics?

[tepples (727027)]

except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.

StrongARM tactics? Don't you mean "XScale tactics" nowadays [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors)

[IAmTheDave (746256)]

Actually, most of their bragging rights sit with the Pentium M, built on the PIII architecture. Toms has a great article [tomshardware.com] about it. It beats the Athlon 64 FX and the PIV Extreme Edition. That ain't shabby.

Pentium M and overclocking

[Lonewolf666 (259450)]

The article at Tom's compares an overclocked Pentium M to Athlon 64 FX and the PIV Extreme Edition running at standard clock speed. Tom's also uses an Athlon 64 FX with the now-obsolete Clawhammer chip in 130nm, which makes AMD look bad in the power dissipation test.

In other news, LostCircuits has successfully overclocked a Venice core-based Athlon64-3800+ :
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/ [lostcircuits.com]

These results look impressive too, and I don't think AMD is beaten yet.

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors)

[frankie (91710)]

Remember, Pentium M was far and away Apple's primary consideration. Even with the failure to hit 3GHz, the G5 is still a good CPU. However, Mac laptops have been stuck with the same old crappy-bus G4s for a long Long LONG time, and they're the majority of Apple's sales.

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors)

[Grave (8234)]

I'm sorry, but you are comparing an overclocked processor to a standard processor. If you compare them at available warranty-covered speeds, then the Pentium M falls way behind. While it is a very impressive chip for what it does, it is not available at 2.5GHz.

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors)

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

IHBT IHL, but

We always seem to quickly forget their bad processors that seem to quitely fade away into non-existance.

Well, I don't hold a grudge against 'em. I prefer Athlon 64's to P4's, but upto the the P4 Intel seemed to make chips that were a bit faster, if a little expensive. And I would have bought an Itanium if it had decent performance, just because it seemed like an interesting bit of engineering.

If the the next generation of chips are any good, I'll buy one. It's certainly enouraging that they are making x64 chips now, even though Amd invented it. And moving towards shorter pipelines. I think they still have strengths compared to Amd, even if they are bit behind in fps per buck- their chipsets tend to be more polished than the Athlon ones from Via/Nvidia etc.

We also seem to ignore their attempts at privacy invasion...

You mean like the unique ID? Net cards have always had had a unique ID, and hence so do most PC's. Anyhow, like AMD they're a company - they just make what sells. I won't buy there stuff it violated my privacy, but I certainly wouldn't hold it against them if they produced something better in the future.

They're not evil, just amoral and greedy.

Could the be the way for Dell to finally ship AMD?

[bemenaker (852000)]

Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?

Re:Could the be the way for Dell to finally ship A

[ImaLamer (260199)]

funny, sounds like the same problem they had with Microsoft...

poor Dell, getting locked into products because of the tactics their "friends" use...

Interesting

[farker haiku (883529)]

When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP's fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP's mainstream retail business.

*Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;

*Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.


That sounds pretty damning.

Re:Interesting

[myrick (893932)]

This does sound pretty damning, but I still want to hear Intel's side of this story. Personally, I've always preferred AMD chips over Intel chips, and I think that if AMD is successful here, it will do great things for that company. I will, however, take these claims with a grain of salt. Many people identify with AMD as the underdog with an undersung product (I sure do), and are often quick to side with them. Intel may have legitimate reasons behind all of their business practices, and since these comments and 'facts' have come through what I like to call "the AMD filter," I would like to see the story through "the Intel filter" as well. Perhaps then we will be able to see glimmers of the truth, and be able to decide fairly if Intel really did overstep their bounds. I know who I'm rooting for, but it doesn't make it any less important to gather the facts.

Re:Interesting

[jafac (1449)]

It makes me sad to say this, but in the current political climate within the US, I don't think that any of this (what you're asking for) is going to happen.

Much of the late-90's dotcom boom was predicated on the 1996 PSLR Act. This act was Clinton's ONLY Veto, over a Republican Congress, and they overrode him on it. This law opened the floodgates for corporate accounting fraud and corruption on an unprecedented scale, and only a very few of the criminals were ever caught or punished, including Enron, Worldcom, Citibank, Krispy Kreme, Arthur Anderson, Veritas, AOL, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The ones who were punished were given very minor slaps on the wrist, as a token gesture during a very brief era of symbolic regulatory tightening that began in late 2001, and ended recently with the appointment of Cox as SEC head.

Cox was the criminal bastard who WROTE the PSLR Act. So the brief era of symbolic regulatory tightening on oversight of corporate accounting practices has ended. It is now open season on shareholders, and especially consumers. I predict that this AMD action will go about as far as Netscapes complaint against Microsoft. A long, drawn out, and profitably-entertaining courtroom drama, AMD will falter and die, somewhere along the way, and in the end, a slap on the wrist for Intel.

Some of the folks who support this kind of wild-west business climate simply have a loyalty to their rich crony-capitalist buddies. Others have a more nationalistic ideology (They're an American company, we have to protect them so they can compete internationally - look what's happened to Boeing, they're effectively a jumbo-jet monopoly, but they're getting their asses handed to them by Airbus). In the end, companies like Intel, or Boeing, end up with no competition - and of course, it makes them still weaker. You think the Chrysler bail-out by the government had nothing to do with their eventual buy-out by Daimler? Corporate Welfare, whether by direct bailout, deregulation, or preferential treatment, or even special tax breaks, breeds nothing but dependent Corporate Welfare Queens. ONLY competition, in a fair, intelligently regulated marketplace, will breed excellence.

The good thing is that...

[DeafDumbBlind (264205)]

At least while the lawsuit is ongoing, Intel will likely be more careful about its practices, so vendors might offer more AMD systems. I doubt that Dell will jump on board, but it's be nice to see some Thinkpad or Viao A64 based systems.

In the end, Intel will pay a fine and agree to not do anymore what they never admitted to doing in the first place.

AMD can't compete? More likely...

[The_Isle_of_Mark (713212)]

They need to drum up more exposure, what better way that an anti-trust case? I'm not saying they don't have one, I am sure they are privy to info I am not, but isn't it great AMD advertising?

Re:AMD can't compete? More likely...

[Iriel (810009)]

And there's more. While I'm not the expert on this, it seems quite possible that AMD has had this case ready to go for some time now. There was a sudden rush for 64-bit (despite many software shortcomings to suit the architecture), and then the realtively short gap before the dual-cores hit the market. With this kind of CPU war that I've been seeing, it's not only (great | just plain) publicity, but it's well timed. How many of the major online custom PC builders offer the AMD X2? Not as many as the Intel dual-core.

Methinks, AMD hopes to turn the tide from being the niche market of gamers/power users to a gereral audience.

I just hope, for thier sake, that this all works out. I hope, for my sake, that an X2 will finally be affordable for me :)

This is fun

[KrisCowboy (776288)]

We got 64-bit processors, dual-core processors and dual-core dual processors. Now we got a legal fight. This sure is fun. Wait a second, either one of them planning to lower the prices? I'm all for the spoils :-)

Intel/Microsoft Monopolies

[Theo de Raabt (893376)]

One good thing about AMD CPUs... I can select AMD and it will be transparent to me as a user. Thus I am free to choose my CPU based on price and other considerations, if I can find one offered.

The Microsoft monopoly is entirely different. Locked in by habit to Windows, most users have a very difficult time switching to Linux. It is also nearly impossible to buy a mainstream computer without Windows. Now that is a monopoly!

All Intel users should be very thankful for AMD. Just think how much Intel chips would cost, if not for AMD. Likewise, Windows users should be very thankful for Linux. Without Linux, Microsoft (which has never innovated in its history) would not even have to play catch-up and improve its product (see IE vs. Firefox).

So, I say go AMD and Linux (I use both) and you should agree even if you use WinTel.

Has Happened Before

[darkmeridian (119044)]

Intel clearly has a monopoly on x86 chips. The FTC got Intel to join a consent decree because Intel had responded to a patent infringement suit by Intergraph by cutting off data and data kits to Intergraph. So Microsoft has been sued, now it's Intel's turn.

AMD and Dell

[everphilski (877346)]

... Dell uses the AMD argument just to f*ck with intel. I mean seriously. Think about it. Why would they introduce another chip line into low end machines, when their customer base is 90% clueless about computers? They say "oooh, lets look at AMD chips" to get Intel riled up into offering them a deal on the next batch of chips.

Intel? A Monopoly? Not a chance. 80% market share isn't a monopoly. Incentives don't make you a monopolist. You can't compare Intel to DeBeers (who won't put an office in the US cause they know the second they do, their ass is gone). Not even to Microsoft.
-everphilski-

On a somewhat related note..

[shaitand (626655)]

The article mentions Intel withholding rebate checks.

Is there anyone who feels rebates are legit anyway? The things should be outlawed for a number of reasons.

* Interest - money bears interest, delays in recieving it means the manufacturer keeps the potential interest.

* Honoring - Many companies 'lose' 30-50% of rebates submitted.

* Tax evasion - Companies claim loses on unsold and destroyed merchandise at the before rebate price. Since rebates only allow companies to bring the price to what is competative in the market this means unfair greater values claimed at tax time.

It's True

[airship (242862)]

I was just THINKING about building a boxen with an AMD processor in it, and the doorbell rang. It was three guys in black suits and dark sunglasses. They told me they were from Intel, and they tied me up, beat me with a rubber hose, ate all my pretzels, drank all my beer, and shot my dog. They said they'd kill me if I didn't buy Intel. Believe me, after that, I built my boxen using an Intel processor! And I started wearing a tinfoil hat, too.

Re:Seriously....

[Lord Pillage (815466)]

My oxymoron detector just went through the roof.

What? A well known secret you say?

Re:Seriously....

[bigjocker (113512)]

He said a well known serect, which is a perfectly valid pertrefection to the well known affirmatization.

Business or Not, Conspiracy or Not, It is Illegal

[FreeUser (11483)]

"Your going to use AMD? We'll give you our stuff cheaper."

"You're going to use AMD for some of your products? We're doubling the price of our chips you need for your other products, unless you reconsider.

That's extortionate, anti-competative, and illegal.

That is called BUSINESS, not CONSPIRACY. Sheesh.

So is "Papa is displeased. It's nothing personal" followed by a gunshot. The fact that it is business doesn't make it moral, ethical, or legal. In Intel's case, if AMD's assertions are shown to be true, their actions were immoral, unethical, and illegal. No one may care about the first two (which explains a great deal about the state of our society and our world, but I digress), but courts still uphold the law, by and large, most of the time, so people do care a whole hell of a lot about the latter.

Re:Business or Not, Conspiracy or Not, It is Illeg

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

Unfortunately, your wrong.

Unfortunately, his wrong what?

Seriously, though...from TFA:

This litigation follows a recent ruling from the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC), which found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices to stop AMD's increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers. Intel did not contest these charges.

The European Commission has stated that it is pursuing an investigation against Intel for similar possible antitrust violations and is cooperating with the Japanese authorities.

So, as you can see, these allegations are far from the 'drivel' you make them out to be.

Re:Business or Not, Conspiracy or Not, It is Illeg

[timster (32400)]

Don't be an idiot. The courts only establish whether it is to be legally held as true, not whether it is really true. Ask OJ Simpson about this.

We can still argue about whether what Intel is doing is legal or not. The argument that they are not breaking laws because the legal authority has not yet spoken is a silly one.

Re:No more business from AMD

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

You might want to read the complaint [amd.com] before you come to such an abrupt, erroneous decision.

Unless, of course, you're just astroturfing.

Re:No more business from AMD

[overshoot (39700)]

Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips.

Intel has a higher market share than IBM did during the height of the mainframe wars, by almost 20% -- the question isn't whether they have the market share, it's whether they have the power to command the market.

If proven, the allegations in AMD's suit would constitute a slam-dunk finding of market power and abuse of that power.

If you're of the John Carroll "there is no such thing as monopoly" school, none of this matters. On the other hand, most of us prefer a market where there is honest competition on the merits, not one where a competitor is frozen out by under-the-table payments and other dirty tricks.

Re:No more business from AMD

[myrick (893932)]

I don't understand what is wrong with countering one 'business tactic' with another 'business tactic.' If Intel really is strongarming AMD out of the market with illegal rebates and incentives based on how much business a vendor does with AMD, how is it wrong of AMD to start an investigation? If Intel is coloring within the lines, then AMD looks like a desperate struggling beggar, and Intel is all the better for it. But if AMD's allegation are true, then don't they have the right to fair competition?

A monopoly doesn't mean that a company has 100% of the market, it just means that they have an overwhelming majority such that they can exert pressures against smaller companies by threatening customers. This is not the same as Intel underpricing AMD because they have a better capacity than AMD. That is legitimate business, and a gain from having the kind of production capacity that Intel has (an economy of scale). The allegation here is that Intel is witholding incetives only for people who specifically buy AMD products, meaning that Intel is using its position in the market to limit competition by not only providing incentives to use Intel products, but to provided disincentives to use AMD products. That seems like a pretty shady deal to me. Doesn't that strike you as disgusting and abhorrent?

Re:No more business from AMD

[CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408)]

No idea how that got moded Interesting, much more like troll.

Intel doesn't have a monopoly

First is the obvious point that this is irrelevant! Anti-trust laws have no requirement you have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anti-trust behaviour! Anti-trust is about trade practices that undermine competitiveness or are considered to be unfair. Intel is certainly guilty of this.

Second is if its OK for Intel to use anti-competitive behaviour why not MS? Neither have 100% market share. What percent market share does it start being wrong to use anti-competitive tactics in your mind?

I'm glad MS got busted for these EXACT SAME anti-trust practices (prefered pricing for only using their product) and I hope Intel will as well.

Re:No more business from AMD

[krgallagher (743575)]

" Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic."

Here is a list of specific allegations:

• Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;
• According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.
• Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD's share of Sony's business went from 23 percent in '02 to 8% in '03, to 0%, where it remains today.

• Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers' agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
• Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC's purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC's business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.

• Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
• When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP's fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP's mainstream retail business.

• Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;
• Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.
• According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has "beaten them into 'guacamole'" in retaliation.

• Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;
• AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Markt, Europe's largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany's retail sales.
• Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.

• Forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;
• Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer's Chairman with "severe consequences" for supporting the AMD Athlon 64(TM) launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.

• Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.
• Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD's participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.
• Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.

Re:No more business from AMD

[yeremein (678037)]

FWIW, my boss, who is a former Intel employee, told me quite frankly several months ago that Intel is guilty of all of this and more. I'm surprised that AMD has waited this long to take action.

Re:No more business from AMD

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

So you've chosen the company who extorts its marketshare higher, instead.

Nice.

Re:Welcome to the new world.

[cyclopropene (777291)]

If you can't compete, legislate!

You mean litigate? They're not writing the law...

Re:About Time...

['nother poster (700681)]

I don't get this. Years ago the government put an end to tiered pricing in the auto industry. Why do they allow it in other industries? It's not as if the computer chip industry or the software industries are tint and insignificant compared to the auto industry.

For those who don't know what I'm babbling about, years ago the federal government in the U.S.A. made some laws that auto makers had to sell cars to all the dealerships for the same price. Before this, the auto companies had penalized dealers that sold other brands, and dealers in rural areas that moved smaller quantities of merchandise. What this meant was that any wholesaler(dealer) that wanted to buy a Chevy paid the same amount as anyone else regardless of whether they kissed the manufacturers butt or not.

Re: This will be a long and difficult case to prov

[Otter (3800)]

But there's a big gap between us all 'knowing' that Intel is engaging in arm-twisting and proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

First, this is a civil suit -- there is no need for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

That said, the fact that the legal system requires a level of evidence above that required for Slashbots to "know" something is a good thing.

Re:Patent insanity

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

I think you are misinformed. Intel did patent the 8088 design. They were required by IBM to license it to a second source. AMD were founded, basically, to be this second source. Later on, AMD designs were clean-room implementations based solely on the published instruction set, not on the Intel designs.