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


Forgot your password?
Government Intel The Almighty Buck United States Your Rights Online

FTC Introduces New Orders For Intel; No Bundling 155

eldavojohn writes "Today a decision was handed down (PDF) from the FTC that underlined new guidelines for Intel in the highly anticipated investigation. Biggest result: the practices Intel employed, like bundling prices to get manufacturers like Dell to block sales of competitors' chips, must stop. No word yet on whether or not Intel will face monetary fines from the FTC like they did in Europe over the same monopolistic practices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Introduces New Orders For Intel; No Bundling

Comments Filter:
  • by Just_Say_Duhhh ( 1318603 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @02:18PM (#33141044)
    Poor Cousins? Rarely seen in Enterprise? How do you explain this []? For those too lazy to click, it's Dell's PowerEdge Rack servers. Nice mix of Intel and AMD CPUs.
  • Re:Obviously (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Just_Say_Duhhh ( 1318603 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @02:49PM (#33141594)

    Why is it so obvious that I'm not familiar with it?

    Here's the "inside" scoop, as I used to work for a large OEM who used Intel processors. We would work on an AMD solution, and let Intel see it, and then give us a better deal (which would allow us to cancel the AMD project...until next year). If you are correct, just talking to AMD would get us thrown off the Intel bus (pun intended).

    Mod parent down -1, INCORRECT! (OK, since you realized how correct I was about Itanium, we'll let it slide)

  • by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @03:37PM (#33142272)
    This agreement will have very little impact on anything. Intel is a corrupt monopolistic business and they can continue to dominate and manipulate the marketplace even if they comply with the terms of the settlement.

    Here is a good technical description of the actual terms: []

    Read it. All it does is require that Intel stop engaging in the monopolistic practices that it has been using for the last 10 years. So their punishment is that they have to obey the law for the next 5 years. They pay no fine. They don't admit that they did anything wrong.

    The best part is at the very end of the article. This is where the juicy details are always buried.

    The settlement gives the FTC authority to appoint technical consultants to monitor Intel's compliance with the settlement agreement. These technical consultants will be subject to Intel's approval and paid by Intel. The settlement requires that the technical consultants be given access to technical information on Intel products as well as other information like company personnel and finances. The total amount that Intel is required to pay for the 10-year duration of the FTC's order is limited to $2 million to all technical consultants.

    Two million dollars to monitor a company a size of Intel for 10 years? Pathetic.

    Despite the hype that the press will put out, this is a complete win for Intel. No fine. No one in the company is held responsible. No admission of guilt.

    You have been getting ripped off for 10 years by Intel/Dell/HP in the form of higher prices and decreased innovation. Remember it was AMD that created the x86 64 bit architecture, not Intel. When Intel was paying bribes to Dell none of that money was going into R&D. The EETimes article makes it clear that Intel was modifying it's architecture to make AMD look bad, not to make any real world code run faster.

    Your will not get a dime in compensation for the higher prices you have been paying. When you see figures that Dell paid $500 million in fines, or Intel paid AMD $1.2 billion to settle a court case, they are paying with money they stole from you, the consumer.

    This settlement is a joke. Non of the people who profited will be held accountable or loose any real money. Consumers had untold billions of dollars stolen from them and the crooks got away clean. Welcome to our so-called capitalistic market driven economy, sucker.

  • Re:FTC (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @04:24PM (#33143030)

    I don't mind requiring a 2-year contract if I buy a subsidized phone.

    But why on earth is the phone sim-locked? THAT is anti-competitive. After 2 years of my iPhone 3G, I can't go to T-Mobile if I wanted to without hacking my phone.

    They should really make sim-locking illegal. (Yes I know that its legal now for you to unlock it yourself, but that requires know-how, breaks your warranty, and potential unintended consequences).

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson