AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel 790
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time... (Score:3, Informative)
Notice this: It's the PX code that should be dispatched on all non-Intel processor-based systems in the current IPP 4.* versions.
In other words, the PX is the non-optimized code that the dispatcher executes on non-Intel (AMD) processors.
Re:About time... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that "anti-competitive" if an arbitrary label, and the laws are even more vague. A company has an obligation to its stockholders to do everything legally possible to make money. The question is, where does the "legal" line get drawn? Many comp
Re:About time... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, competing is, by definition, competitive. Being anti-competitive is using methods that subvert the free market to reduce competion.
Everything you do is an attempt to convince the consumer to buy your product and not your competitors.
And this is market competition. Anti-competitive practices tend to be things that limit the consumer's choice in the matter, rather than offering a better choice.
Re:About time... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Interesting)
We also have links to all AMD pages on their site relating to the case here. [amdzone.com]
We have followed this story for years, and have recently cited the lack of AMD desktops in Best Buy as
Re:About time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel began self-destructing several years ago. (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About time... (Score:4, Insightful)
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???
Re:About time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Their chipset is another story. But in all reality you can't argue that anymore either. Because the AMD chipset is built into the processor core.
The only thing you can really argue is that Intel provides a device hub which provides the logic for onboard devices like ethernet and video. AMD does not but instead outsources it to nVidia. Not that I blame them to leave device design up to a
Seriously.... (Score:2)
Re:Seriously.... (Score:5, Funny)
What? A well known secret you say?
Re:Seriously.... (Score:5, Funny)
Business or Not, Conspiracy or Not, It is Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, your wrong.
Unfortunately, his wrong what?
Seriously, though...from TFA:
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Business or Not, Conspiracy or Not, It is Illeg (Score:3)
Depends on the market. In some places and circumstances it would be considered dumping. In other places and circumstances it would be considered just plain anti-competitive, especially in a duopoly situation, which is certainly not an efficient free market.
It's a shame this all has to be dragged thru the courts AGAIN (anyone remember the whole sec
Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:5, Interesting)
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].
Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:3, Insightful)
We always seem to quickly forget their bad processors that seem to quitely fade away into non-existance.
We also seem to ignore their attempts at privacy invasion...
Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
StrongARM tactics? (Score:5, Funny)
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) (Score:5, Informative)
Pentium M and overclocking (Score:4, Informative)
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) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:3, Informative)
In pretty much every other area, AMD processors that would normally be in competition with Intel processors, simply aren't, not because they dont' want them to be, but because they are priced at half the cost of the Intel chips.
For example, let's use Pricewatch:
$170 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800MHz
$94 - Athlon XP 3000
170/94
Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first of all, Opteron is not Athlon 64. There are lots of affordable, high-quality Athlon 64 motherboards (my personal favorite is an MSI board with the Radeon Xpress 200 chipset - $89, and it has decent onboard graphics).
And second of all, if you're running
Forget the money (Score:2, Insightful)
Japan (Score:2)
Looks like that explanation may have been a bit premature.
Could the be the way for Dell to finally ship AMD? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Could the be the way for Dell to finally ship A (Score:4, Funny)
poor Dell, getting locked into products because of the tactics their "friends" use...
No, it's really the advertising dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Dell is the only exclusiive Intel PC manufacturer, you can bet that Intel is cutting quite a few deals with them. Every once in a while, Dell makes noises about using AMD, and then they shut up. Apparently they are phishing for more $$ from Intel. I wond
Welcome to the new world. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Welcome to the new world. (Score:2, Funny)
Tha would be a shame, because being able to buy a notebook computer from Dell with a Turion in it and without the Microsoft Tax would make a nice political message.
Re:Welcome to the new world. (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
*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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
The good thing is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, Intel will pay a fine and agree to not do anymore what they never admitted to doing in the first place.
Re:The good thing is that... (Score:2)
I don't expect them to drop in Opterons into the x446 models because that had so much in the way of custom enginering (used to be called Summit - not sure of the new name) but damnit I'm tired of ordering my x336 and x346 models with EMT64. I would much rather have Opterons.
Then again I'd love to have dual-core dual proc opterons in xSeries line soon too.
AMD can't compete? More likely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AMD can't compete? More likely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Againt Intel (Score:2, Redundant)
It should read "AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel" of course. JFYI.
Perhaps I'm wrong (Score:3, Funny)
I was under the assumption that most homemade PCs were AMD systems. Is that statistic including those?
Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (Score:3, Informative)
If users want AMD and suppliers only deliver Intel, then something is clearly wrong.
Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (Score:3, Informative)
1) No laptops are homebuilt.
2) Virtually no business computers are homebuilt. (Yes, I know there are exceptions -- please, you don't have to tell me about yours.)
3) Even if we're limiting the discussion to consumer desktops, I would be astonished if homebuilts exceed 1%, your friends notwithstanding.
Re:Anecdotal QC (Score:3, Informative)
Patent insanity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patent insanity (Score:5, Informative)
Read the document (Score:3, Informative)
Intel/Microsoft Monopolies (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Same complaint, different year (Score:3, Informative)
AMD made most of the same charges in 2001 and the FTC dropped it in 2003.
AMD and Dell (Score:4, Interesting)
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-
Re:AMD and Dell (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really that stupid? Assuming that 90% really are clueless (even though it probably isn't), then we can safely assume (notice I said safely and not soundly) that those in the 90% do not care about what chip lines are used. Dell could then switch to AMD and chop maybe $25 off and have a cheaper machine. It wouldn't matter to the end user because everything would still 'just wo
Re:AMD and Dell (Score:3, Informative)
Their first retail store in the United States opened on June 23, 2005, though the opening was picketed by protesters from Survival International, who claimed a link between the mining of diamonds and the genocide of Gana and Gwi bushmen by the Botswana government. Gloria Steinem was at the forefront of the protests, urging American consumers to boycott the store
On a somewhat related note.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Makes you wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats really sad about most of all of this is that AMD's product out performs a large portion of Intel's products.
Yet companies like HP and Dell hold on to Intel like it was a mewling babe in need of a mothers teet.
This story , http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/0,200006170
Im reminded of Ballmer offering the germans a 90% discount on good/services if they didnt take a FOSS solution earlier this year.
Monopolies suck.
It's True (Score:4, Funny)
WHERE YOU BRING SUIT MAY MATTER (Score:3, Interesting)
I remembered how that charge against Intel played out because I submitted that story to
A very telling complaint indeed! (Score:3, Interesting)
And further, I was unaware of Intel's arrangement with AMD and how they screwed AMD over by holding back information and in the case of the 386 (a very significant milestone in processor development) Intel maliciously held back on their agreement to stall AMD from playing in that field.
I recall clearly when AMD was no longer allowed to make Intel pin-compatible processors... that was a disappointment to me in a big way because not only did I have to select a processor, but a motherboard as well! Annoying... and now I know I can blame Intel for that. At first, I thought it was just fair since they wanted to keep AMD from catching up. But now I see it was, more or less, part of Intel breaking their agreement with AMD!! Nice one Intel... I'm not as pound to have Intel inside my Dell laptop now...
OK So...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I don't think I've used an Intel chip in a PC that I've specced for about 4 years but I find it hard to shed any tears.
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that AMD will call witnesses from Dell in this case.
Oh and your comment is so far fetched that I'd almost guess you work for Intel. Of course then it goes without saying that your company wouldn't buy AMD
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
This is in fact exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I stated above that there cases when the customers' choices are limited, such as when Wal-Mart comes in and drives down prices, that are beneficial to the customer. But in the case of AMD and Intel, it is a very different situation. Instead of Intel gaining market share by having a better product, it is using its position in the market to muscle AMD out. It is not doing this with a better product, but rather by threatening the middle man who stands between Intel and the consumer. That is the allegation, and that is what is illegal. In no way is the government punishing Intel for being successful. If Intel receives punishment, it will be for using its success to create an unfair marketplace.
This is a case of the government punishing Intel for being too successful, and handing money/customers/business to AMD because they are less efficient/cannot compete
I'm not saying AMD deserves handouts any more than I'm saying Intel deserves to be punished. In fact, AMD won't get any 'handouts' regardless of the outcome of this case. In fact, Intel is perfectly welcome to give price breaks for people who buy a lot of Intel products. Intel is perfectly welcome to underprice AMD. What Intel cannot do is give specific price breaks to people who do not sell AMD products. Don't you see the difference? It's when Intel mandates what the vendors do regarding Intel's competitors' products that they cross into illegal territory, and that is when the consumer loses.
This has nothing to do with the US Government taking pity on smaller companies and just taking property from Intel. I have no idea where you got that idea. This is about whether or not Intel is manipulating the market by changing their prices for different people based on whether or not those people do business with AMD.
I am in no way saying that the US Government is going to help companies out with financial handouts. Where are these handout ideas coming from? This is antitrust litigation, not grants. And what do AMDs CEOs have to do with this? We're talking about whether or not Intel is illegally influencing the market. AMD might be doing poorly because of their CEOs, but that has nothing to do with this debate, because we're talking about whether or not Intel is doing something illegal.
Intel is absolutely a monopolistic company. They don't have a total monopoly, but they have enough market share that they can influence the market in these ways. This isn't like econ class where someone either is or isn't a monopoly. It's not like Intel is just moving across the street from AMD. Intel is perfectly welcome to compete in AMDs markets. The issues is if Intel tells its vendors they can either receive price breaks or they can sell AMD products. I think you are still thinking of this too much as a retail thing. Take Petsmart for example. Petsmart moving next to Petco is fine. What would be unfair is if Iams told both companies that they would receive a 10% rebate as long as they didn't sell Kibbles and Bits. Doesn't that seem shady? It has no effect on the consumer except to say that they will no longer have the option of buying Kibbles and Bits.
How will it hurt the consumers? I would argue that allowing AMD into the market at Dell would create more performance pressure for both companies. What is stopping Intel from producing poorer quality chips for Dell right now, since they have no other competition? It has been shown in many benchmarks that AMD is just as strong if not stronger in performance, but they still don't appear in Dells.
I see this as lose-lose the way things exist right now. If Intel weren't creating this pressure, and there will still no AMD chips in Dells, then I would absolutely agree that AMD is an inferior product.
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a list of specific allegations:
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:3, Interesting)
It's kind of like the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" allegation, whether that's true or not.
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:2)
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:4, Insightful)
So you've chosen the company who extorts its marketshare higher, instead.
Nice.
Re:I'm not kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not kidding (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No more business from AMD (Score:3, Insightful)
However, according to this law:
17045. The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds, commissions, or unearned discounts, whether in the form of money or otherwise, or secretly extending to certain purchasers special services or privileges not extended to all purchasers purchasing upon like terms and conditions, to the injury of a competitor and where such
Re:Marketing Strategy (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, I just described Wal-Mart [blogspot.com].
Re:About Time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Time... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:About Time... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:It's funny (Score:3, Informative)
According to IDC, AMD has only 10% of the CPU market.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19972 [theinquirer.net]
Re:It's funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Q4 2001 (same article) - Intel 80.6%, AMD 18.5%
2002 [techspot.com] - Intel 86.8%, AMD 11.6%
2003 [com.com] - Intel 82.6%, AMD 15.8%
2004 [geek.com] - Intel 81.9%, AMD 15.8%
In 2001 Intel dumped their surplus in Japan and gained some market share that way. Another thing driving the figures is the number of chips in the X-Box. Personally I am surprised by these numbers since I do prefer Intel but find the price range and functionality of AMD to be more appealing to my budget.
Re: This will be a long and difficult case to prov (Score:4, Informative)
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:Please, AMD is just whiney.. (Score:3, Informative)
Are you talking about cost? AMD chips costs less.
I'm sure if you went out and signed a multi-billion dollar with AMD they'd consider a new fabs [e.g. think if Dell+Compaq+Sony for instance all went to AMD for the next set of desktops/laptops].
Intel is no way the leader in efficient and powerful processor design anymore.