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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Government The Courts News Hardware

AMD Takes Case To Public, Japan 244

Posted by Zonk from the next-they-sue-a-puppy dept.
Kez writes "Following on from Tuesday's post on AMD filing a lawsuit against Intel in the U.S., Reuters is reporting that AMD is claiming damages against Intel K.K. in Japan, over the Japan Fair Trade Commission's recommendation that Intel has violated Japan's Antimonopoloy Act. They are seeking to claim $50million in damages in the High Court and have also filed for damages in the District Court. AMD continue to throw the punches, but will they come out on top?" At the same time, Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that Advanced Micro Devices yesterday ran a full-page advertisement in several major North American newspapers urging readers to familiarize themselves with its 48-page complaint against Intel Corp's alleged anti-competitiveness. By taking its case to the people in this way, AMD arguably may pique investor interest and raise its market profile. At the same time, these antics may however lead AMD into a precarious legal position."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Takes Case To Public, Japan More

AMD Takes Case To Public, Japan

Comments Filter:

  • My question... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by millennial ( 830897 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:19AM (#12951054) Journal
    Will the other smaller chipmakers somehow benefit from this? For example, I seem to recall a story about some company or another tanking because they couldn't sell competitive chips anymore. Is this really just an AMD publicity stunt, or do they somehow hope to help the "little guys"?

    • Re:My question... (Score:5, Funny)

      by dafz1 ( 604262 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:40AM (#12951229)
      It's a publicity stunt. The straw that broke the camel's back was the Apple/Intel annoucement. Conventional wisdom was if either Intel or AMD was going to have chips in Macs, it would be AMD for many reason(64-bit chips, collaboration on HyperTransport, image of the most powerful CPUs, etc). Since AMD got shut out of that, they had enough, and are claiming monopoly(if the Dept. of Justice can't get M$, how are they going to get Intel?).

      Based on the allegations, this is how the Intel/Apple negotiations went.

      Intel: Steve, I hear you keep a build of OS X on x86.

      Jobs: Yeah, why?

      Intel: We want you to switch to Pentium 4 processors.

      Jobs: We're not interested. We're sticking with the PowerPC.

      Intel: IBM made you look like an idiot, with your 3GHz by 2004 prediction.

      Jobs: They gave us a roadmap, they just have been a little busy making chips for game consoles.

      Intel: Wouldn't you like to finally break away from "The MegaHertz Myth"?

      Jobs: We've done a good job dispelling that myth.

      Intel(losing patience): Steve, we want you to change to our processors.

      Jobs: N...

      Intel rep opens a brief case, full of $100 bills, with a P4 chip sitting on top of the bills.

      Intel: You will switch to the P4.

      • Re:My question... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 )
        Intel rep opens a brief case, full of $100 bills, with a P4 chip sitting on top of the bills.

        Please. Jobs has a suitcase full of $100 bills next to his toilet for wiping his ass. People that high up aren't in it for money-- they already have that. They're in it for power.

      • Re:My question... (Score:4, Funny)

        by gwayne ( 306174 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @01:30PM (#12952163)

        Jobs: We're not interested. We're sticking with the PowerPC.

        Intel: [waves hand] These aren't the chips you are looking for.

        Jobs: Uh, these aren't the chips we're looking for.

        Intel: [waves hand] You will switch to Intel.

        Jobs: We'll switch to Intel.

        • Hah! That would be like trying to pull a mind trick on Yoda. It would go more like:

          Intel: [waves hand] You will switch to Intel.

          Jobs: [waves both hands, accompanied by a faint hum and the smell of ozone] Your chips suck ass. You will pay me $50 for every Mac that ships with one.

          Intel: [trembles] Er, how about if we pay you, say, $50 for every one you ship?

          Jobs: [nods benignly] That is acceptable.
      • Dunno if it went that way. Right now, Apple needs intel a lot more than the other way around. I doubt Jobs would have had an intel version of OS X for so long if he hasn't been damn worried about IBM screwing them. I don't think it probably took much convincing from Intel (aside from finances), and I'd think Jobs probably initiated contact.

      • Re:My question... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by drew ( 2081 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @02:45PM (#12952903) Homepage
        Conventional wisdom was if either Intel or AMD was going to have chips in Macs, it would be AMD for many reason(64-bit chips, collaboration on HyperTransport, image of the most powerful CPUs, etc)

        I was under the impression that a big part of Apple's switch away from IBM was due to recurring supply problems in getting enough G3/G4/G5 chips to meet demand. If that really is the case, why would they go and switch to a new vendor that is notorious for supply shortages in their high end offerings, regardless of any technological superiority. I doubt AMD really ever had a chance at that deal, regardless of any tactics Intel may have used.

  • good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:20AM (#12951055) Homepage
    Good for them. Intel's actions are exactly what anti-monopoly laws were passed to suppress.

    • Hypocritical of them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Prof. Pi ( 199260 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @01:29PM (#12952158)

      Does anyone (especially the Intel haters) remember when AMD's CEO Sanders testified at the Microsoft antitrust trial -- in favor of Microsoft? Even though Microsoft was accused of many of the same things that AMD now charges Intel with, such as bullying suppliers? I guess it's OK to abuse a monopoly position, but only if you add support for someone's processor in your OS.

      I wonder if that courtroom appearance will come back to haunt AMD.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by derEikopf ( 624124 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:21AM (#12951064)
    Large corporations, who make most of the money for the U.S.'s economy, are the most-discriminated-against group of people in the world...for being too successful.
    • > Large corporations, who make most of the money for the U.S.'s economy, are the
      > most-discriminated-against group of people in the world...for being too
      > successful.

      What colour is the sky on your planet?
    • I agree. Corporations should form a group to stand up against descrimetory anti-corporation behavior. They should stop the corporation hate speech such as "monopoly", "labor unions", and "taxes". They should create a group to look after the interests of corporations.

      Oh wait I forgot. They already have an organization called the Republican Party.
      • Yum... after-lunch Troll...

        First, I loathe what the Republican Party has become. The big-corporation, big-government movement is the most depressing thing I have ever witnessed...

        Second, why don't you look a bit more closely at some of the campaign contributions of the Democrats? Let's not throw stones*. The corporations are not stupid, they pay out on *both* sides of the aisle...

        (*) Unless, of course, you are a libertarian, and voted as such, then, by all means, throw stones!

        Former Republican, Ideol
        • I used to consider myself a republican; now I do not. The republican and the democratic party [yes - singular] has been taken over by corporations.

          In the words [wsu.edu] of Mussolini:
          Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

          Here [theyrule.net] is an interesting little page that diagrams the links between all of these people.

      • Re:In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by fyoder ( 857358 )
        AMD should be spending their money on campaign contributions, not newspaper ads, if they want to get results. Though it may be they've already considered that and discovered they can't outbid Intel in influence dollars. Perhaps they should fund the Democrats, get in while their stock is low in hopes that it will rise in 2006.
    • You mean, like ENRON?
    • Yep, I'm sure they are.

      Actually, If they didn't have a direct line into the decision making of the government, you'd be absolutely right. As it is, they're not the most discriminated against group, they're the most powerful group.

      "We need the DMCA! To the batphone!"

  • Let the courts decide... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:22AM (#12951082) Homepage
    Please, AMD do not use this in some SCO-like attempt to pump your stock price. Instead, advertise your products. Let the courts decide whether or not Intel has had an unfair advantage. Mud slinging just makes you look like you are hiding something.

    • Re:Let the courts decide... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shadow99_1 ( 86250 ) <theshadow99@gmai l . com> on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:33AM (#12951177)
      Ya know that's exactly what Intel has been doing for years though... I can't even count how many times Intel has gone after AMD over the last decade at least...

      I think AMD finally decided enough was enough and have thrown down the gauntlet... Let all the dirty laundry air... etc...
    • On the bright side, at least AMD has some products to potentially advertise. That's one giant leap forward from SCO. ;-)

    • Read the complaint (Score:5, Informative)

      by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:37AM (#12951209)
      In the complaint filed by AMD you will see that Intel KK actually DOES ADMIT that on several occasions complaints brought under the JFTC were actually true. This is NOT SCO-like tactics. It is demonstrable fact.
    • I was wondering years ago why AMD didn't sue then. I'm thinking they waited till they guinuently were a superior product so that they couldn't be simply told they are complaining because they have an inferrior product.
    • Please, AMD do not use this in some SCO-like attempt to pump your stock price.

      Too late. AMD was up almost a point and Intel was down almost a point (a huge change for the much larger Intel).

      But you were mainly concerned about what they'll do in the future. I agree and hope they just quietly pursue the suit. Win or lose, they're better off that way.

      Even if their aim is to be bought by IBM or (*gasp*) Microsoft, making a bunch of noise will just make that more difficult.

      • Not really. SCO was doing things that were really slimy, like accusing the Linux community of things in public that it wasn't accusing them of in court. This is quite different.

        In fact, invoking SCO in a discussion about a legitimate legal battle should become a sort of godwins law.

    • RTFC (Complaint) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by p.rican ( 643452 ) <spammesilly@NoSpaM.gmail.com> on Thursday June 30, 2005 @01:06PM (#12952006)
      "Please, AMD do not use this in some SCO-like attempt to pump your stock price. Instead, advertise your products. Let the courts decide whether or not Intel has had an unfair advantage. Mud slinging just makes you look like you are hiding something."

      If you read the complaint [amd.com] your head would probably spin with some of the allegations against Intel. Granted, the complaint is only AMD's side of the story, but if even half of the allegations are proven, Intel deserves a serious spanking.

    • I'm thinking that AMD's take on this may be along the lines of "Cant get AMD machines that easy? Start asking some hard questions!"

      SCO has a lot more to lose in taking this to the public court than SCO's nothing. If claims like this are false, then AMD is opening themselves up to some nasty libel suits, so I'm guessing that they lawyers are pretty sure of their case to be OKing something like this. The only other explanation would be that AMD was on it's last legs and grasping at straws -- and nothing th

  • Reverse Logic? (Score:3, Funny)

    by RealityMogul ( 663835 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:22AM (#12951085)
    ""You may not be aware, but Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers -- everyday," read the ad, which mostly is a 350-word letter from AMD chief Hector Ruiz. "Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits."

    I thought consumers paid lower prices since Intel charged less to vendors with exclusive contracts?

    • Re:Reverse Logic? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:30AM (#12951147)
      I thought consumers paid lower prices since Intel charged less to vendors with exclusive contracts?

      That's the beauty of cliff-tiered rebates. The OEMs pay less for that last 5% if they don't include AMD in the mix, but the presumption is that the first 95% is going to Intel at monopoly rates regardless.

      There's a reason for the fact that AMD ships 20% of the unit volume but only gets 10% of the revenues for processors, despite selling to the high end of the market where margins are normally better.

      • Yeah, there is a reason why AMD has a tiny amount of revenue... They sell more of their product to the lower end of the marketplace. I'm not sure where you are going though: revenue is not a factor of margins, it is a factor of average-selling-price times sales volume. If your volumes are at 10%, but your revenue is 1/2 that, then your their ASP is 1/2 Intel's ASP. Simple math.

        I don't know about the whole "monopoly rates" accusation either... How do you define "monopoly rates"? If these rates are so h
    • I thought consumers paid lower prices since Intel charged less to vendors with exclusive contracts?

      Hmmm let's see... 20% discount on a CPU... that costs TWICE as it should be. (Compare prices on Intel chips vs AMD's)

      Yay, you end up paying 80% more! Big discount, indeed.
      • Actually, 60% more (for your scenario).

        Chip 1 == $100
        Chip 2 == $200

        20% of $200 == 40
        $160 is Chip 1 + 60%
      • Hmmm let's see... 20% discount on a CPU... that costs TWICE as it should be. (Compare prices on Intel chips vs AMD's)

        Yay, you end up paying 80% more! Big discount, indeed.

        1 * 200% * 80% = 1.6

    • Re:Reverse Logic? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kesuki ( 321456 )
      "Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits."
      I thought consumers paid lower prices since Intel charged less to vendors with exclusive contracts?

      The first is just marketdroid FUD. Intel has Always had the pricing of building new fabs priced into their product lines, that's part of why they have way more capacity than AMD -- because they price the cost of the fabs into the chips they have money to build the fabs, to build the chips, and make the profit.

      Consumers are paying pre

      • Re:Reverse Logic? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by periol ( 767926 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:56AM (#12951373) Homepage
        I have a two gripes with this:

        1. Intel may well be building fab costs into their chips (I don't know one way or another), but isn't it curious that AMD has been able to steadily chip away at Intel all these years, slowly building up production capacity, all while having less expensive chips? The only reason Intel can build the fab costs into the chip (if they even do that) is because they're a monopoly, and not operating under normal rules of supply and demand - Intel sets the price, not the market.

        2. At least part of the reason AMD has a tough time building up capacity is they don't have any large orders (like, say Apple) to make the investment tenable. Of course, they can't get large orders because Intel drops in with cash and pressure to keep AMD from getting large orders. Which helps keep Intel chip pricing artificially high.

        So I don't see what the problem is with AMD claiming that Intel's chip prices are artificially high. In a normal free market, the consumer would be paying for the costs of the product in front of them, not the product in front of them *and* the production costs of future products as well.

      • Re:Reverse Logic? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Sparohok ( 318277 )
        Look, this has nothing to do with "pricing the cost of the fab in the chip"... of course every chip manufacturer does that or they'd be out of business. Other than R&D and a little bit of ultrapure sand, most of the cost of your Pentium or Athlon is amortizing the fab.

        What Intel is pricing into their chips, which AMD is not, is a crapload of operating margin, some 30%. By contrast, AMD is earning about 3% and Dell, the most fiscally secure company in the PC supply chain after Intel, about 9%. (Trailing
        • of course every chip manufacturer does that

          Have you ever READ an SEC filing for AMD? They generally loose money. Historically they've been loosing that money on CPUs. Because intel won't let them sell production capapcity? maybe? because they undercut intel for market share? yes.

          What has kept them afloat is thier lucrative share of the flash memory market. Check the filings here [msn.com], they're all PD. AMD has traditionally Lost Money on almost every desktop CPU they've released for a long time. This only rec

    • Re:Reverse Logic? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Webmonger ( 24302 )
      Intel's exclusivity contracts make Intel CPUs cheaper for an individual vendor, but presumably, unfettered competition would make it cheaper for everyone.

  • Excessive publication (Score:4, Interesting)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:25AM (#12951106)
    Yes, theoretically excessive publication [1] waives the normally-absolute priveledge that legal filings enjoy.

    On the other hand, AMD seems to have done this fairly carefully. They haven't repeated the charges so much as called people's attention to the filings themselves. As the proceedings of the courts are a matter of public interest, that's going to be hard to challenge.

    At least, it will be as long as Dr. Ruiz doesn't take Darl McBride as his role model.

    [1] For an extreme example, consider SCOX.

    • The problem that Mr. McBride got into was that he was running around shouting "we've got proof", "MIT mathematicians", "millions of lines of code", and other choice phrases.

      This certainly made SCO's statements about needing to do more discovery to levy/prove their charges ring hollow. IBM kept saying if it's a copyright infringement then identify the infringing code. SCO never did.

      So, talking to the public shouldn't prejudice the case any they just have to be careful not to have their words thrown back
  • that's not too expensive ...

    and I just thought I was searching wrong.

    Figures.

  • Digging their own grave (Score:4, Interesting)

    by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:30AM (#12951144) Journal
    AMD appears to be making a no-holds-barred appeal to the american people and the courts that Intel is bad for them (and by extension, bad for the consumer. Whether that is really true is another story). I find it hard to believe that OEM's are really happy about this. I'm pretty sure that OEM's want to keep a low profile at this point; even if they agree that Intel is using strongarm tactics they will want to wait for the case to progress before they make a stand. I think AMD is digging itself its own grave. AMD is making a stand and is not going to find many allies at its side. As the second article points out, if this suit is unsuccessful, Intel can sue for libel. If they distance themselves from the OEM's, it is very likely the suit will fail.
    -everphilski-
    • I think it's a gutsy move. They are practically putting the quality of their product on the line against their entire sector of business (and the legal circus it entertains). While they won't be getting any help from the big players, they are counting on technical merit and the support from its very loyal user base to win out. It would be a major victory if they manage to pull it off, in many respects.

  • no pictures? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What? No pictures of AMDs supposedly cool new case? How will I decide if I'm gonna buy it?

  • Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by delta_avi_delta ( 813412 ) <dave.murphyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:33AM (#12951184)
    I wonder if this has anything to do with Apple choosing Intel. It seems that AMD are very jittery lately, just as everyone who's in the know is touting their chips as superior. I mean, who's using whose x64 implementation? What are they so worried about?
    • Apple is nothing.

      There was an article recently that notebooks finally passed PCs in sales. Intel's lockout of AMD is particularly strong in the laptop market, where there are practically no vendors for AMD mobile processors, despite the lower clock and power requirements of the AMD platform relative to the P4 (the Pentium M only recently changed the performance equation there, although it appears that the Pentium M is mostly equivalent to the Athlon architecture clock-for-clock for power consumption).

      Fu

  • Not taking a stand yet (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @11:37AM (#12951207)
    I've always liked AMD processors, because of better performance/price ratios. My last one was an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ or something like that.

    Still I think it is a good idea to reserve judgement until all facts are on the table. I would not slam AMD for going to the courts, and I wouldn't slam Intel until we know if AMD's allegations are actually true.

    However, know that AMD is NOT a small company. It is in fact a massive multinational company. This is not a David vs. Goliath, it is a giant against an even bigger giant.

  • A couple thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @12:17PM (#12951556)
    First, the Apple card is irrellevant. That is more a function of Jobs continuing to limit what is a pretty easily portable OS to ONE architecture and I don't mean the CPU, I mean the motherboard and BIOS. If Jobs would finally get it through his head that Microsoft continuously kick's Apple's arse for, among other reasons, the fact that Apple refuses to position themselves as a software/OS company and tries to straddle the line, which Microsoft has carefully tried to avoid doing since forever. OSX is a good product and it is that which should be driving them. They'd go a lot farther if they went over to the PC hardware side with it. Imagine OSX on a quad 64 bit dual core Opteron SMP board. You can do it with Linux, Windows, BSD, etc. Not OSX because Jobs can never admit he has ever been short of perfectly omnisciently right.

    Second, AMD is in no danger of having a sizeable portion of their market taken by Intel and instead AMD has been making inroads into Intel's area with server class CPU offerings and the mobo makers have been making boards for them right along. For instance, that quad 64 bit dual core Opteron SMP board [tyan.com] I mentioned above. I'd gladly buy one of these... if I won the lottery.

    Third, yes, Intel should NOT be strong-arming anyone and they deserve to be rebuked by the courts for it, but it should be a criminal anti-trust slap and not a civil court slap as it looks more like vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness. "Look at us at AMD not getting enough of Intel's market because Intel is daring to defend themselves through unfair practices! Someone punish Intel for us so we can eat more of the market share!" Yes, I know that this administration isn't likely to do it, and a liberal Democrat administration would do it for politics sake so there's no real morally neutral enforcing the law angle there, sadly. Ideally, we'd need a business-friendly Republican administration to say, "okay, this is just wrong and you need to be called on the carpet for it." I ain't holding my breath so I guess civil court is the only recourse, again, sadly.

    AMD already has the paranoid (and hypocritical) anti-corporate geek brigades behind it and has for a long time now. FUD based nonsense hate of Intel for ruling the market of a chipset they pioneered in the first place? Perfectly acceptable. Love of AMD despite them being also a big company? Perfectly acceptable. (Reminds me of the Google thing despite their lack of Linux support) I take all this with a grain of salt. On the merits, I find just the tactics bother me, not that they are actually trying to defend their market share. If AMD had pull themselves, I have ZERO doubt they'd do it themselves.

    I'd be happiest if both of them combined all their instruction sets and promulgated a new baseline X86 instruction set. If NEC, Motorola, etc all made compatible chips and the mobo makers made boards for them, it would be better for the consumers' bottom line. Adhering to standards though would be the single most important thing so as not to fark the users and cause all sorts of unavoidable code forking. I don't need sixteen different Windows and Linux builds per type of either, ie, I don't need sixteen different FC4 builds due to processor differences...
    • If Jobs would finally get it through his head that Microsoft continuously kick's Apple's arse for, among other reasons, the fact that Apple refuses to position themselves as a software/OS company and tries to straddle the line, which Microsoft has carefully tried to avoid doing since forever.

      This is so true. What is the major complaint about Apple? It costs too much! When was the last time you heard that about a Windows PC with the blame put on Microsoft? How about never.

      Intel should NOT be strong-a

    • If Jobs would finally get it through his head that Microsoft continuously kick's Apple's arse for, among other reasons, the fact that Apple refuses to position themselves as a software/OS company and tries to straddle the line, which Microsoft has carefully tried to avoid doing since forever.

      Step 1: Apple sells OS X for x86, and calls up all the major PC OEMs to sell it.

      Step 2: Dell tentatively agrees to sell it as do a dozen other companies.

      Step 3: Microsoft calls OEMs and threatens to remove their sp

    • Second, AMD is in no danger of having a sizeable portion of their market taken by Intel and instead AMD has been making inroads into Intel's area with server class CPU offerings and the mobo makers have been making boards for them right along.

      AMD is in a good position to take marketshare with their current line of processors, if only they can get the attention of corporate and generally non-geek consumers and dissuade Intel from predatory practices for some time. AMD goes to court now because they feel st
  • How is publishing a public complaint, to be argued in a public court, "antics"? Kez sounds like a lawyer who doesn't want the public, which pays for the justice system, to do anything but pay the bills, and live with the results. The old system of "public notices" of court actions published in newspapers is quaint, but essential. Especially in producing a public record not directly controlled by the government. Maybe we should all just keep our eyes down, while the experts take care of us?
  • AMD is not going to lose any customers by doing all of the legal stuff and they might actually win some money in settlements and free publicity. AMD should have sued Intel 4 or 5 years ago. I don't know why they waited so long.

  • Interesting, from Groklaw (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alewar ( 784204 ) on Thursday June 30, 2005 @01:02PM (#12951964)
    In my opinion, AMD is doing this because Microsoft is behind them, pushing this action, and promising ongoing support.

    This is just one more step in Microsoft's ongoing promotion of AMD, and FUDing of Intel -- a process that has been going on for a few years now. The original trigger for Microsoft's courting of AMD may have been this:

    ZDNet: Intel courts Linux developers with Itanium specs

    Of course, Microsoft has threatened to do it before, as described in the DOJ Findings of Fact:

    > In February 1997, one of Intel's competitors, called AMD, solicited support from Microsoft for its "3DX" technology, which provided sophisticated multimedia support for games. Microsoft's Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: "If Intel has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladly give up supporting this if they would back off from their work on JAVA which is terrible for Intel."

    Also note this quote:

    > Near the end of March, Allchin sent another message to Gates and Maritz. In it he wrote, "I am positive that we must do a direct attack on Sun (and probably Oracle). . . . Between ourselves and our partners, we can certainly hurt their (certainly Sun's) revenue base. . . . We need to get Intel to help us. Today, they are not."

    This second quote, along with the SCO case, shows a pattern of Microsoft coercing its partners into attacking its enemies. Microsoft involvement would also explain why AMD would take this action now, despite the risks.

    As those who have been following the action know, Intel has not been playing Microsoft's game for some time now. Microsoft's inability to support new technologies within a reasonable time frame has been holding Intel back, and Intel knows it.

    The situation is as follows:

    1. Microsoft knows that Intel had a lot more to do with the PC's success than Microsoft did. Intel continuously improved their product, and reduced prices, while Microsoft barely managed to keep up, making poor copies of other companies' software, years late. Microsoft is afraid, correctly, that Intel still has the power to move the industry forward, with Microsoft unable to follow.

    2. With the growing acceptance of Linux, Intel no longer has to hold back, while Microsoft catches up (as, for example, when an entire decade passed between the introduction of the 80386, and Microsoft's eventual use of its memory management capabilities). Intel can now move forward with things like 64-bit, multi-core, and parallel CPUs, with the necessary operating system support in place to allow Intel to sell their products. But that OS is going to be Linux, because Microsoft can't improve Windows fast enough to keep up.

    3. Intel has made it clear that they are no longer going to be held back by Windows. When Microsoft could not make Windows run efficiently on a 64-bit CPU, it was AMD, not Intel, that compromised their design, and wasted 64-bit CPU real estate in order to add the 32-bit support to overcome Microsoft's weaknesses.

    4. In order to stop Linux, Microsoft is trying to decommoditize PC hardware, with hidden interface specs (as described in the Halloween document). NVidia and ATI have gone along with Microsoft, cutting back on their help for Open Source driver developerment (instead, during this embrace stage, providing closed source drivers, and increasingly complex interfaces). AMD has also gone along, for example, when AMD gave Microsoft the necessary information to fix the AMD "Processor Bug," but Linux developers were left out in the cold, until they figured out the problem for themselves. Meanwhile, Intel has comtinued to keep their specs open, even going so far as to release a series of platform specs just for Linux.

    5. Intel is now cooperating with Apple, a company that just recently broke out from under Microsoft's thumb. With the availabi
  • Look, Intel & AMD are both big boys. The legal costs of a few dozen million$ is not going to break either one of them. Let'em fight and see how the dust settles.

    There have been rumors of Intel strongarming tactics for years. Let's settle those once and for all. Would you rather the FTC investigate? I think civil discovery will be far more effective.

    I do hope AMD takes the high road and declines to settle under secrecy.

  • Linux is x86-only? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smyle ( 108107 ) <Hutson DOT Kyle AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 30, 2005 @02:03PM (#12952454)
    Section 22:
    The x86 versions of Windows and Linux, the two operating systems that dominate the business and consumer computer worlds, have spawned a huge installed base of Windows- and Linux-compatible application programs that can only run the x86 instruction set. This has given Intel effective ownership of personal computing. Although other microprocessors are offered for sale, the non-x86 microprocessors are not reasonably interchangeable with x86 microprocessors because none can run the x86 Windows or Linux operating systems or the application software written for them.

    I found it interesting that Linux no longer runs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, xScale, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close