Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Intel News IT

EU Officials Raid Intel Offices 235

Posted by Zonk from the serious-chips dept.
Eukariote writes "As part of the ongoing antitrust investigations, EU officials have raided Intel offices as well as offices of a number of IT firms manufacturing or selling computers. This follows the recent ruling by Japan's Fair Trade Commission declaring Intel's exclusionary practices illegal as well as the lawsuit filed by AMD."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Officials Raid Intel Offices More

EU Officials Raid Intel Offices

Comments Filter:

  • More Info (Score:5, Interesting)

    by starrsoft ( 745524 ) * on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @01:56PM (#13044583) Homepage

    Here's my story submission, which provides some more info, that didn't make the cut:

    starrsoft [hansmast.com] writes, "Apparently AMD's lawsuit isn't just just a PR stunt [techdirt.com], as some have suggested. In related news to today's earlier story [slashdot.org] about AMD's claims concerning Intel compilers discriminating against AMD, EU regulators raided [yahoo.com] several of Intel's European offices regarding 'an ongoing competition case.' From the article: 'European antitrust regulators raided Intel Corp. offices Tuesday, two weeks after rival U.S. chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices filed a lawsuit claiming Intel used its market dominance to bully computer makers away from using AMD chips... For more than four years, the EU has been investigating claims that Intel used unfair business practices to persuade clients to buy its microprocessors to the exclusion of rivals' chips.In March, the bloc said it was continuing its probe after a Japanese investigation found that Intel had violated antitrust rules there. The EU cooperated with the Japanese regulators.'

    • The unfortunate thing about all this is that even if AMD and the EU prove Intel has been both a monopoly and deceptive, the average computer user won't care at all. They will just be happy their fancy new computer has "Intel Inside".

      • Re:More Info (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Vodak ( 119225 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:11PM (#13044753)
        I believe that since Intel has been marketing many different processor types and technologies from Pentium 4, to Hyper Threading, to Centrino the marketing of "Intel Inside" has lost alot of it's luster.

        As such it is my belief that the current way general consumers look at processors are simply price driven and to hell with preformance.. be it AMD, Intel, or anyone else for that matter.

        We are in the world of 299 PCs... The new game systems will cost more then a end user PC platform.
        • "We are in the world of 299 PCs... The new game systems will cost more then a end user PC platform."

          But those $299 PCs won't have:

          1. Gigabit ethernet built-in.

          2. Won't export 1080p video.

          3. Won't have a Blu-Ray drive standard.

          4. Won't have decent WIFI from the start.

          5. Won't have a bundled Bluetooth based gamepad.

          6. Won't have a decent videocard included.

          So yeah, there are reasons why the new console (I'm referencing the PS3, btw) won't debut at the $299 MSRP.
          • No, the reason that that game console only sells for three or four hundred dollars is that the manufacturer sells it for way under cost in the expectation of recouping the loss in game sales. When Wal-Mart sells you that $299 desktop machine it doesn't expect that it will receive any future revenue from it. Sure, they may sell you some blank CDs or some printer paper, but that's about it. This is also the reason why Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are absolutely dead set against anyone wanting to "mod" their p

            • That's already been skewed when it comes to owning property ... just try not paying your property taxes one year and just see how long your "property" stays yours.

              That's already part of the law. "Real estate" isn't so named because it's "not artificial"; rather, "real" comes from "royal", meaning that the land you're inhabiting is owned by the king.

              Once you get your mind around that concept, the idea of losing your "real estate" for not paying property taxes makes more sense. Of course, having t

        • ...the marketing of "Intel Inside" has lost alot of it's luster.

          That is an incorrect assumption. The Interbrand [interbrand.com] survey for 2004 for top global brands [ourfishbowl.com] put Intel at #5 with a brand value of $33.5 Billion. This is pure brand value completely apart from any product sales.

          Saying "Intel Inside" still has enormous value in the marketplace.
        • That's because PCs have become commodity hardware. The good news is, you can now get more than enough computing power for most home consumer tasks for about 300 dollars, which is actually pretty cool.

  • Compilers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mfloy ( 899187 )
    I wonder if they are going to pick up a copy of the source for the compilers. That could be a nice boost for AMD's claims.

    • Re:Compilers (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Trigun ( 685027 )
      Lets just hope they do to it what the lawyers did to CSS, and put it in public record. That'll learn'em!
  • Looks like we are going to see another Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe?
    • "Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe" = Slap on the wrist, with some teensy, little restrictions that the prosecuted company can easily get around

    • Re:Microsoft style case (Score:4, Informative)

      by b0wl0fud0n ( 887462 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:31PM (#13044983)
      There was a similar case brought against Pillsbury by Ben & Jerry's which more closely mirrors the case between AMD and Intel. Pillsbury (who own Haagen-Daz) were trying to drive Ben & Jerry's out of the premium ice cream market by refusing to sell products to stores giving freezer space to Ben & Jerry's. Ben & Jerry took Pillsbury to court and eventually won the case, forcing Pillsbury to pay damages and to allow Ben & Jerry's to be sold next to Haagen-Daz.

      • But think of Pillsbury's perspective: who would want to buy Haagen-Daz when you can buy Ben & Jerry's?

      • Pillsbury (who own Haagen-Daz) were trying to drive Ben & Jerry's out of the premium ice cream market by refusing to sell products to stores giving freezer space to Ben & Jerry's.

        This doesn't just happen with the big guy vs. the little guy. There was a guy I used to work with who managed a pizza place. They had a refrigerator case from Coke (big Coke logo on the side for advertising) in the store. He did keep a few Pepsi products in the case because some of their customers preferred them. Whe

    • "Looks like we are going to see another Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe?"

      You bet!

      Only the outcome will not be the same, because
      the Dubya regime doesn't yet rule Europe. The
      only thing that saved MSFT (IMHO) from being
      sliced-and-diced, Cusinart-style, was the MSFT
      lawyers' court delays until a change in venue
      (ie. a change in administrations).

  • Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @01:58PM (#13044605)
    Even though the wording of the last sentence in the blurb is misleading as it seems to mean that AMD's lawsuit was ruled illegal by the JFTC:

    Bruce Sewell, vice president and general counsel for Intel, said: "One of the core principles of competition policy is the notion that such policies should be based on sound economics. There is a broad consensus that competition regulators should only intervene where there is evidence of harm to consumers. It is apparent the JFTC's Recommendation did not sufficiently weigh these important principles."

    So, chips that *could* be faster (if companies were not using Intel compilers [slashdot.org]), less expensive, and have other better qualities (heat, size, etc), isn't good for consumers? Sorry to say Bruce, but obviously no one believes you.

    Anticompetitive strongarming via financial kickbacks is probably only good for Intel's market position and the companies that are selling Intel-based machines regardless of what your and your company's spin is. Unless you can, without a shred of doubt or lies, prove otherwise, I really suggest you just shutup and comply.

    Personally, I want to see Intel give back to consumers directly. Anyone who has purchased an Intel machine since AMD's introduction to the market should be given a large rebate and I'm not talking about settlements like $13.55 check or shipping mass quantities of unwanted product to schools. I don't want to see AMD get any money out of this as it will do little for the market's consumers who had to deal with the anti-competitive behavior just as much as AMD did (if not more).

    • Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, the U.S. could sue Intel, and then the money would be going back to consumers in a way.

      Of course, that'd be asking the AG of a big-business friendly administration to sue a very large corporation for something they call the "free market." (Free as in, the bigger the corporation the more free it is for you and the less free it is for everyone else)

      • Well, the U.S. could sue Intel, and then the money would be going back to consumers in a way.

        ... right - another lawsuit ... just what we really need.

        Time for a new poll - US suing Intel:

        [ ] No thanks, I have enough holes in my head already
        [ ] I couldn't care less
        [ ] I could care less, but I'd REALLY have to work on it
        [ ] Kill all the lawyers and be done with it
        [ ] In the soviet union intel sues cowboyneal's korean granny
        [ ] Free beer

    • Yeah, I agree. Breaking Intel's stranglehold on OEMs and suppliers would be all the benefit AMD needs. They're positive on the balance sheet, they have good parts, and they're preparing another fab. Sending them loads of cash would of course make them happy, but giving computer makers free reign to use AMD parts is all they need.

      Consumers have suffered a lot from Intel's monopoly, and they should be the ones directly compensated.
      • Isn't this alittle too late. Damage is already done.

        Apple just claimed that are locking into Intel.

        Dell and every other corporate OEM are already locked into Intel.
        • Apple just claimed that are locking into Intel.
          You mean in the same way they were "locked into" Motorola... and then "locked into" IBM? Yeah, that's what's known as the "not really" sort of way.

          In fact, if Apple so desired, it would be far easier to transition from Intel CPU hardware to that of any other x86 manufacturer than it will be to make the current shift, because it wouldn't require significant third-party development efforts.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Evidence. (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Cuchullain ( 25146 )
    This should provide evidence that they have tried to grind their competitors into the ground through monopoly techniques rather than fair competition.

    I will be interested to see if they find a direct series of actions that can be connected with the failure of TransMeta as a chip maker.

    Beyond that, there should be some interesting material in there relating to AMD.

    K
  • Does anyone else wonder if the whole AMD lawsuit and allegations of intel code biased against AMD hardware is just a front to keep boosting prices? I mean, they gotta fund the legal battle, right?

    Bah, who am I to complain, my favorite application is a nice MUD client written circa 1998. If anything it works too fast.

    • Hmmm, so Intel jacks up its prices to pay for the litigation, and AMD doesn't flood the market to cut market share? Or vice versa? That's more credit than is given to even the oil companies for high gas prices.

  • What kind (Score:4, Funny)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @01:58PM (#13044611)
    What kind of RAID was it? 1, 2, 5...
  • Read that they found something as opposed to reading they "have raided". The headline makes one believe something will be found.

  • I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:00PM (#13044647)
    As I said in another thread that was not as sharply focused on this issue as this one: I would like to see Intel decleared -- and punished -- as a monopoly.

    Why? Because I think it would result in lower prices to me. While regulated monopolies (phone, electric, gas, etc.) may be necessary in order to only build a single service infrastructure, I have yet to see a market monopoly declare: Now that we've eliminated the competition, let's lower prices and improve our service!

    Different code being generated. Did they really think someone wouldn't figure this out?

    • AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors. Go search MSNBC or google news for the article. AMD doesn't care about giving you a price break and weakening Intel won't help you out there. For there to be innovation, two companies must compete. AMD has a nice product but they can't simply employ the courts to earn a solid reputation. If anything, AMD and what is happening to Intel is starting to sound tired much like the SCO case. I have no doubt this case will linger in the courts for years and
      • re: different code.

        AMD's argument wasn't that different code was generated.. but rather that two different code paths were generated (in the same binary); on highly optimized, the other less so. When, at run time, an AMD processor is detected the less optimized path is chosen.

        From page 40 of AMD's complaint:

        125. Intel has designed its compiler purposely to degrade performance when a program is run on an AMD platform. To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to compile code along several alterna

      • AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors. Go search MSNBC or google news for the article. AMD doesn't care about giving you a price break and weakening Intel won't help you out there.

        Sure, they are a corporation and they want profits. The problem is, AMD tried lowering prices to gain share and it led them to nowhere fast. Intel is forcing AMD into a corner, by making abusive deals with OEMs.

        Even giving one million CPUs for free to HP [amd.com] did not get them a toehold in the business desktop s

      • AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors.

        I don't believe AMD raised the price on any existing processors, as your statement implies.

        Instead I believe they brought out new, faster, and dual-core processors at higher prices than the already-on-the-market existing processor's prices. That is not "raising prices".

    • If Intel should be persectuted as a monopolist then ostensibly you view them as a monopoly. How do you reconcile this with your claim that no monopolist will lower prices? It seems to me that Intel's prices have come way down steadily for the past 10 to 15 years. It seems contradictory to me that they should be punished for behavior that you claim leads to higher prices, when all evidence points to lower prices.
    • Different code is not surprising, nor is it wrong.
      As I pointed out here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&ci d =13043743 [slashdot.org]
      The most likely answer (IMHO) is that they produce optimized code for their chips and use the _most compatible_ path for other producers' chips. The most compatible path is not the fastest, but it guarantees they don't have to worry about their compiler breaking on any other CPU. That they don't optimize for AMD _at all_ is not their problem. Their goal is to optimize

  • Wow I knew it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:04PM (#13044687)
    It seems quite clear that most European police officers massively read Slashdot [slashdot.org] while on the job.

    I bet Intel is already bracing for another raid when the dupe is posted...

  • Apple deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stevix ( 861756 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:05PM (#13044693)
    I wonder how this lawsuit will affect Apple's decision do use Intel Chips? True, a case like this could stretch for years, but developing and integrating new chips into your product line could do the same. If Intel actually recieves a relevant anti-trust court decision, or greater, gets broken up, would this be better for apple (perhaps buy up the company) or might any instability hinder Apple's decision to use Intel?
    • What are they going to break Intel up into? A Pentium vs. Xeon company? Give me a break.
      • *If* they were to break up Intel (which I don't think they need to do), Intel would probably be split along their product lines with CPUs, Motherboard Chipsets, Compilers, Flash Memory, and other products falling to one side of the company or another.

        Of course, I *wish* that Microsoft had been split. If there was a separate company producing Microsoft Office (or even two competing Microsofts!) there's a good possibility that MS Office would be running on a lot more OSes today.

  • An old rumor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:08PM (#13044720)
    Back in '98, a friend of mine was an intern for
    a summer at Intel. He described a curious
    practice. They would evidently hold practice
    raids on employees. The legal staff would ask
    the employee to drop what they were working on,
    and step outside. The legal staff would rifle
    through the office, looking for anything that
    would help an antitrust suit. (E.g., even
    memos that said "We dominate the chip fab
    market...") They would then confiscate and
    edit the documents that looked like they would
    help an opponent in a suit. (E.g., rewrite to
    "We are competitive in the chip fag market...")

    So, I think the EU Intel offices are well
    prepared for this raid.

    • Re:An old rumor (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @03:00PM (#13045301)

      We are competitive in the chip fag market

      Wow, that'll really throw the raiding company for a loop.

      "Didja find anything can help our case?"

      "Nah, just this memo talking about cheap cigarettes, or homosexuals who pleasure themselves with potatoes, one of the two, but nothing about the microprocessor industry."

      "Damn. Fancy a fag?"

    • "We are competitive in the chip fag market..."

      Is a competitive chip fag that jerk who bogarts the Fritos?

  • Is all x86 created equal?... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by parvenu74 ( 310712 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:09PM (#13044730)
    ...or can Intel's x86 chips take advantage of compiler tricks that are not baked into the output for AMD processors because Intel would not be privey to what AMD is up to inside their processors?

    And is there not an AMD x86 compiler set -- and if not, whose fault is that? This sounds like sour grapes to me.

    • Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Svartalf ( 2997 )
      Considering that the code is picking the worst possible mode (8-bit) for things in it's runtime lib, etc. it's not that it's "optimized" for Intel, it's de-optimized for AMD machines. Not acceptable. And, before you say anything to try to play apologist here for Intel, I will point out that they DO know that their compiler is doing this, they've been handed superior code that rocks on all x86 platforms, is 50% faster and is somewhat smaller and a hell of a lot simpler- with the understanding that they we

  • Amazing. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:18PM (#13044841) Homepage Journal
    Why is Intel getting slapped so hard with anti trust when Microsoft seems to get away with it.
    Intel does have competition. AMD, Sun, and IBM all make chips that compete with Intel in the server market.
    MIPs, AMD, TI, and many more have chips that compete in the Embedded space.
    And AMD seems to be doing a pretty good job competing in the PC market. Is anyone shocked that the Intel compiler wouldn't have "If SSE2 and Intel use SSE2 else use emulation in the code generator?" Intel is not the only compiler in the X86 market, you have VC and GCC as options. What Intel has done while nasty is no where as anti competitive as Microsoft's tactics.
    • Why is Intel getting slapped so hard with anti trust when Microsoft seems to get away with it.

      It's pretty early to be making this statement, I think. Initially, MS WAS investigated pretty hard, much like Intel is being investigated now (I seem to recall OEMs being asked to provide documentation and what not about their dealings with MS). It was only once the case went to trial that things fell apart.

    • Re:Amazing. (Score:2, Informative)

      by xouumalperxe ( 815707 )
      Surprising as it may seem to you, AMD isn't really doing all that well in the PC market. Or at least they argue they're not. Given the panorama when I enter any retailer that sells computers, I agree. Not one single AMD machine in sight. Sure, I bought the pieces and assembled myself an athlon 64 machine. But the question is: how many more people would do that? /.ers might, some non-slashdotting hard-core gamers might. But not that many more people. And Intel's market share is still WAY WAY too big for ever
      • One of the big problems AMD has with retailers seems to be their lack of ability to supply chips. Who wants to base their stock on stuff that might not arrive? Thus losing business to someone else.
    • When BeOS was making a push to get big they ran into the "phone call" trouble... They would pitch great offers, show great examples of how their tech was so much better, and cheaper... heck Be even offered the OS free to the any company to break ranks!!! In the end though, that phone call from MS legal came thru that threatened to take away retroactive rebates and basically tank any company that even tried something different. Within 30 days the deals went from closed to companies not even returning Be's

  • Raid? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sebastopol ( 189276 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:21PM (#13044877) Homepage
    A bit overzealous term.

    They walked in, asked for documents they had called about. Intel's lawyers were there waiting because they had been notified, and handed over everything they asked for.

    So it wasn't a swat team breaking down doors catching barret with has pants down in front of a goat while grove was cramming confidential documents into his mouth.

  • Intel's automatic doors (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:21PM (#13044882)
    You know, those Intel automatic doors? They'd been programmed to open real slow if someone involved with AMD is trying to get in.
  • Will Apple now go to AMD?

  • My vision (Score:4, Funny)

    by Antimatter3009 ( 886953 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:29PM (#13044965)
    After reading the headline, all I can picture are a bunch of special ops dressed in black crashing through the windows of the corporate headquarters throwing flashbangs and ripping computers out of the wall.

  • Microsoft tax next? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Teun ( 17872 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:33PM (#13045002)
    In July last year the JFTC took similar action against Microsoft, calling for changes to contracts it makes with PC manufacturers.

    European regulators are also looking at Intel, following complaints from AMD. ®

    And now we need someone to take AMD's example to tackle the Microsoft tax.

  • Intel had it coming (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Roliverio ( 844827 )
    Well.. we all see where this leads..

    If indeed intel made such practices then their arse is on the line, not necessarily a Anti-trust case similar as was with M$ (coz' the case brought up elsewhere than the US), obviously intel is gonna suffer with a non favorable ruling.

    I think the source code for icc is not needed as many of you already now that when using it on a AMD processor you need to pass the option to, let's say, "skip microprocessor detection".

    I'll like to see intel making good products and real
  • Somewhere in the distance, Steve Jobs can be heard crying "Noooooooooo!"

  • GCC? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhima ( 46039 ) <(Bhima.Pandava) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @02:56PM (#13045256) Journal
    This has me wondering How Much does AMD contribute to GCC?

    Obviously expecting there main competitor to build their main complier is a flawed concept...

    • They (Intel) shouldn't be expected to make a main compiler for AMD's CPU's, no. But that's NOT what AMD's contending. What AMD's contending is that Intel's compiler isn't just optimized for Intel CPUs, it's de-optimized for AMD CPUs- as in, it picks the worst possible instructions for code when it knows that an AMD is being executed against. Technically, it shouldn't care about what CPU so long as the same runs x86 architechture CPU- it should be peak speed, etc. on a P3 or P4 or whatever Intel CPU, but
  • Wintel is having to deal with the consequences of their anticompetitive behavior. Of course, odds are they'll just receive a token punishment like Microsoft.
  • Japan's Fair Trade Commission declaring Intel's exclusionary practices illegal.

    I don't doubt that Intel is strongarming customers in Japan, but Japan calling exclusionary practices illegal is like the pot calling the kettle an illegal color. If these same charges were leveled against Hitachi they'd vanish without a trace.

    • If these same charges were leveled against Hitachi they'd vanish without a trace.

      You see, the problem is, Intel isn't a Japanese company, so it doesn't get the protection from the law that some Japanese companies enjoy...

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Close