Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Intel United States

N.Y. AG Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel 169

Posted by timothy
from the monopoly-on-legal-use-of-force dept.
CWmike writes "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel, alleging that the company engaged in a 'systematic campaign' of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly. Cuomo's lawsuit alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors. Intel gave computer makers payments totaling billions of dollars in exchange for the exclusive agreements, and the company threatened to cut off payments to computer makers or fund their competitors when they worked with other microprocessor makers, the lawsuit alleged. Cuomo's lawsuit comes less than two weeks after news reports that the FTC is considering filing a formal complaint against Intel. 'Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,' Cuomo said in a statement. 'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

N.Y. AG Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel

Comments Filter:
  • Yawn. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @02:55PM (#29984168)

    These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'

    With that language, I wonder if he's just going for a consent decree regarding future conduct, and maybe a slap on the wrist. I wonder if this will in any way lead to AMD being made whole.

  • by surmak (1238244) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @03:05PM (#29984372)
    I wonder if this has anything to do with AMD (err Global Foundaries) dropping a few billion on the construction of a plant a few miles from Albany?
  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @03:29PM (#29984818) Journal

    I don't buy it. For Goldman Sachs to have "engineered" the collapse, they would have had to be an omniscient god. They may have taken advantage of it, using political connection to DC, but they certainly didn't plan events to happen. I'm sure they would have preferred the bubble keep going up.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @03:35PM (#29984906) Journal

    What's left? Government:

    - Runs our childhood (school)
    - Run our retirement (social security)
    - Soon will run our very bodies (sick care and preventative care)

    It also directly runs or strictly-regulates the electric company, phone company, cable/internet company. A socialist like you should be jumping up-and-down with glee, since there's very little the government doesn't already control. "Heil! Ooops... sorry. Bad habit." - Doc Strangelove

  • by brxndxn (461473) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @03:48PM (#29985172)

    I'd say that viewpoint, which seems to be the mainstream on Slashdot, is like taking a single snapshot of a baseball game and acting like you can lay out the stats.

    This antitrust lawsuit is filed after a precidence of antitrust lawsuits from other countries against Intel. Right now, if we take a snapshot of how Intel is competing, Intel may be playing fair. However, in the past - especially during the relatively long time (in the IT world at least) that AMD had the clear technology lead - there are quite a few reasons why there should be an antitrust lawsuit.

    First of all, Intel only has the technology lead right now because Intel has more funds to dump into research and development. However, in the past, AMD leveraged themselves to put enormous amounts of funding into the Athlon and they came out with a clear technology lead. The market share barely followed. AMD had trouble selling their superior processors. The largest computer maker, Dell, was an Intel-only company. It's easy to be ignorant and blame bad execution on AMD's part - and maybe there was. But, there is some damning evidence that Intel was not playing fair. For example, AMD tried to give away 1 million processors to HP - and these were faster processors than Intel's at the time - but HP declined. Intel's pricing model was structured in a way to make it so that using any competitor in any small percentage would be more expensive than being 100% Intel only. They did this by using 'marketing rebates' that would directly correlate with the percentage of Intel processors sold.

    Face it.. the P4 sucked. It did nothing but suck for years. It was an awful processor. Yet, somehow, Intel kept its exclusive agreements long enough to keep AMD from gaining significant market share - which would have in turn allowed AMD to keep spending on R and D which would have allowed AMD to remain competitive. It takes YEARS to develop the next best processor. Intel is only sitting where it is because it successfully choked AMD years ago.

    For a few quarters, AMD was kicking Intel's ass - but it should have been kicking way more ass than it was. Also, AMD's financial situation is a result of leveraging themselves in order to compete with Intel and then not receiving the market benefits that normally come in a competitive industry with a technology lead.

    Further, it is hard to dismiss threats as evidenced in emails from Intel against business with competitors. Or, you can shove your head in the sand and call this entire complicated situation as all sorts of 'red herrings.'

  • by thickdiick (1663057) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @03:54PM (#29985290) Journal
    I would like to know what the Libertarian position is on monopolistic competition?
    I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine. The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice. Any advice?
  • by ae1294 (1547521) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @03:56PM (#29985348) Journal

    Really, the simplest and most effective solution is to line up a few greedy CEOs and shoot them dead. Then the ones that weren't executed will know you mean business, that they need to play fair. So, if CEOs are as smart as they are supposed to be, to hold those corporate positions, only a very few need to be executed, for the message to be thoroughly understood and acted-upon.

    That wouldn't work, although we can give it a try anyway.

    Sociopaths, by their very nature, do not see others as human beings equal in any way to themselves. They are unconcerned about any adverse consequences received by others due to their own actions or the actions of others.

  • Delaware? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NullProg (70833) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @04:30PM (#29986046) Homepage Journal

    Cuomo's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Wednesday, alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors.

    Why is the New York AG filing lawsuits in Delaware?

    Enjoy,

  • by ClosedSource (238333) on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @04:39PM (#29986242)

    The recent anti-trust scam is about defining the market so that the target is a monopoly by definition. That's why "server" computers (that might even use PC hardware) were artificially excluded from the "market" so that MS could be considered a monopoly.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @10:11PM (#29990250)

    "Really, the simplest and most effective solution is to line up a few greedy CEOs and shoot them dead."

    The simplest solution is to freeze private companies and eject management and the board, i.e. transfer ownership to new private owners, with some goals/targets conditions on stewardship.

No user-servicable parts inside. Refer to qualified service personnel.

Working...