Slashdot Mirror
AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel
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.""
Full text of the complaint filed can be found here 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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
....isn't it a well known serect that Intel give price break to people who won't use AMD?
I've oftened wondered why nobody slapped Intel's wrists for their practices of penalizing vendors that use both AMD and Intel chips with high prices.
Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that Apple would use AMD products where they made sense in the future, and that the Intel announcement, specifically, was intended to be one of simplicity that wouldn't rile up Wall Street and analysts, and we can see that they've succeeded in spades. However, once the transition to the x86 architecture is over, there is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD (and/or x86-64/EM64T from Intel or AMD) where appropriate... ...except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.
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.
As some of the articles on this topic state, the money AMD might get for damages isn't that important. They just need to get their products in the hands of resellers.
Looks like that explanation may have been a bit premature.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?
Apple are on the list?
AMD forever, Intel never?
Hmm, I know who I favour anyway!
1. Coerce Customer 2. ??? 3. Profit!
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
If you can't compete, legislate!
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP's fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP's mainstream retail business.
*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.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
How does AMD go and make this sort of claim when the sales are close to 50/50?
It's about damned time that AMD show down Intel's evil empire. AMD's Athlon64 is far superior to P4, they've got the fab capabilities to begin supplying OEMs, and after their new fab is done they'll be ready for the big time. All that stands in their way is Intel's anti competitive practices. I mean, Intel has been known to set pricing on Intel chips based on how many AMD chips your company purchases.
At least while the lawsuit is ongoing, Intel will likely be more careful about its practices, so vendors might offer more AMD systems. I doubt that Dell will jump on board, but it's be nice to see some Thinkpad or Viao A64 based systems.
In the end, Intel will pay a fine and agree to not do anymore what they never admitted to doing in the first place.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
They need to drum up more exposure, what better way that an anti-trust case? I'm not saying they don't have one, I am sure they are privy to info I am not, but isn't it great AMD advertising?
AMD File Antitrut Againt Intel.. What' up? Doe the letter ' ' not work on your keyboard?
I'm sure they're very upset to have lost the business of an obvious Intel fanboy. Go buy a clue, Intel has been using underhanded tactics to steer vendors away from using competitors chips for years now.
We got 64-bit processors, dual-core processors and dual-core dual processors. Now we got a legal fight. This sure is fun. Wait a second, either one of them planning to lower the prices? I'm all for the spoils :-)
At this point, it seems like the microprocessor market is on the cusp of becoming truly competitive. My friends, do you know what this means!? Innovation will skyrocket. More pixels, more flops, more cycles, more registers, more cache, more cores. Yes, the future is bright!
Thirty-two cores on one chip by 2010. You heard it first here.
well, while we should "check those links" and really _use_ that preview button, CmdrTaco doesnt have to do so, apparently ;)
It should read "AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel" of course. JFYI.
Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
Intel's share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power.
I was under the assumption that most homemade PCs were AMD systems. Is that statistic including those?
>>That settles it. No more business from myself or
>>my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly,
>>at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this
>>as a business tactic. I think that this is
>>disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost
>>our business.
Agreed, it's about choice and I've always had it, I'm tired of companies suing each other over little things with little to no proof. Intel is big, but they aren't Microsoft and there are competitors. AMD has done a good job but if they're going to take the legal route franky I'm not interested in any of their products as the Intel versions will work fine for me.
I'm cancelling my new shipment of new AMD machines as soon as I get to the office this morning.
I wonder if situations like this will ever come about in future, where global patents will ENSURE monopolistic practice, legitimised through legislation. No appeals or crying foul against the sort of practices Intel and Microsoft appear to favor, only the patent holder gets protection. Consider a 1980's where Intel had patented-down the hatches on the x86 architecture - there'd be no AMD, there'd by not Cyrix, Winchip, Transmeta, VIA etc....at least not making the same architecture. Maybe this would have been a good thing, the x86 bastard-child architecture we've all ended up with is nothing to be proud of. It's not too late for CPU diversity, come on AMD time to make something new!
Only three remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years! OpenBSD
Why do I have the feeling you weren't an AMD customer before?
The case will end up in the Supremes court and Intel will see the that everyone has a free laptop
You might want to read the complaint before you come to such an abrupt, erroneous decision.
Unless, of course, you're just astroturfing.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
You should study business practises a little more carefully. Intel has had a history of being just as predatory as Microsoft on and off through the years. Dell, Gateway, and Micron all have complained over the years that they wanted to sell other chips, but were threatened support/pricing from Intel if they did.
It's amazing how much dirt AMD has on intel if you read their suit document. I think it's safe to say that the only way intel will win this one is if they pay off the judge...which given their history they just might try... ;-P This has been a long time coming and it's definatley about dang time...
Because 81.7% of the market isn't a monopoly!
At least you answer the lingering question of who still buys inferior Intel chips at inflated prices.
and yet, Intel's stock is rising. Who's to say this won't benefit both sides?
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
What do Intel's monopolistic practices mean for Mac lovers? Will they jump on the "I hate monopolies" bandwagon against Intel like they so enjoyed doing against MS? We're all waiting for a response from the Mac crowd . . .
You've got to be kidding. Most non-technical people equate the PC with Dell. The last time Dell even hinted about going with AMD, they started backpedaling immediately. You just have to believe the Intel called with an updated price list in order to convince Dell to change their minds.
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.
You're kidding right? Despite what I think personally business is business. Whether I like the company or not really does not impact my decision as to whether the tool or product they supply fulfills my needs. If I hated AMD but they had the product I needed at the price point I need I would purchase from them.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
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.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
AMD presents rather firm evidence that Intel does indeed engage in monopolistic practices, if you'd RTFA rather than issue a reactive Spew. The disgusting and abhorrent thing is the fashion in which Intel has been manipulating the market for years; it's high time that AMD aim to seek justice in the matter.
what business can a pet store provide AMD. couple of processors every 5 yrs ??
One good thing about AMD CPUs... I can select AMD and it will be transparent to me as a user. Thus I am free to choose my CPU based on price and other considerations, if I can find one offered.
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.
Only three remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years! OpenBSD
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?
I'd rather be cycling.
Intel clearly has a monopoly on x86 chips. The FTC got Intel to join a consent decree because Intel had responded to a patent infringement suit by Intergraph by cutting off data and data kits to Intergraph. So Microsoft has been sued, now it's Intel's turn.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
... to lose your custom, which must amount to what, 3, maybe 4 processors a year, so you and your kiddie mates can play games on your l33t overclocked PCs.
Why would a company not want to offer AMD as an option? I would put money on it that Intel are offering incredible deals to Dell as long as they don't ship Intel.
One company I work for wants AMD 64, so Dell are losing a rather large customer.
You're kidding right?
No, he's not kidding. He's astroturfing.
Try to ignore him.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Intel produces chips that are inferior to and more expensive than their AMD counterparts, and yet they still have a stranglehold on many major PC and laptop vendors.
Apart from really, really shitty customer service on AMD's part, what other explanation could there be?
Actually, as an aside, I wanted to buy an AMD processor over here in Korea, and the guy said that AMD had lousy customer service. Has anybody found this to be the case? If not, it would make Intel's prominence in the chip field even more ludicrous...
You heard it here first!
Intel and AMD are joining forces! Why? Well because they are the same company, owned by the same people. One was just created as 'competition' for the other so that a monopoly was not gained!
The newly merged company name is 'Inteam'!
[ Inte(l) + am(D) ]
P.S. this is not true! (or is it?)
No idea how that got moded Interesting, much more like troll.
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.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Here is a list of specific allegations:
Insert Generic Sig Here:
There's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to wrongdoing by Intel. But there's a big gap between us all 'knowing' that Intel is engaging in arm-twisting and proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Some of the points mentioned in the linked complaint will be very difficult to prove unless AMD has direct, clear evidence.
I think the timing of this complaint is interesting as well. AMD's latest processors have a technical and price-point edge over Intel, hurting a potential Intel argument that customers buy Intel for its "technological superiority". It's profitable, so it has the money to spend on the case. (And trust me, this will take some ca$$$h.) Last, AMD has proven itself to be a viable choice from both a business and technical perspective. This is important for executives called in this case -- they may be a little more willing to testify as witnesses against Intel if they feel they have a "backup plan" (AMD) should Intel try to threaten/punish their business for testifying. (Which is all done very politely and business-like, I'm not talking about TV/Movie style drama with dressed-in-black characters showing up with guns.)
Only three remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years! OpenBSD
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2003-09-16-intel_x.htm
AMD made most of the same charges in 2001 and the FTC dropped it in 2003.
except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.
StrongARM tactics? Don't you mean "XScale tactics" nowadays?
AMD is simply using this as a business tactic
There you have it: most ignorant quote of the day.
First of all, Intel is basically forcing big companies into using only their products. Fair competition in consumer products can get ugly sometimes, but once one side starts going things the way Intel is, it's no longer fair, nor competition. Intel is trying to strong-arm their competition out. They realize they have something to fear from AMD. Underhanded business practices to drive them out is utter crap.
If AMD has no proof, why would they be suing in the first place? How could they? AMD is a big name, and doubt they are just crying wolf. If they are struggling, I doubt they would falsly make the claims they have and create a PR nightmare for themselves and only make things worse.
SYS 64738
"Your going to use AMD? We'll give you our stuff cheaper."
That is called BUSINESS, not CONSPIRACY. Sheesh.
That settles it. No more business from myself or my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic. I think that this is disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost our business.
Come on Andy, can't you find anything better to do during your retirement?
FWIW, my boss, who is a former Intel employee, told me quite frankly several months ago that Intel is guilty of all of this and more. I'm surprised that AMD has waited this long to take action.
After all, Intel is going to be in Apple's soon (good), but their trade practices are Microsoft-like (bad).
I long of the good ole days when we could easily tell the good guys from the bad.
You've just given them a monopoly of your business.
Web Design Tips
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=astroturf ing
Oh Wow, I never heard of that word before, but it definitely fits what he's doing. He's claiming to have performed a specific action in hopes that other people will imitate him. He's also trying to generate a perception of AMD which would be infectious to other people. An excellent and very cunning ploy to exploit people's imitative natures.
And there's my contribution to the anti-meme. An explanation of what astroturfing is goes further than just saying what its called.
... Dell uses the AMD argument just to f*ck with intel. I mean seriously. Think about it. Why would they introduce another chip line into low end machines, when their customer base is 90% clueless about computers? They say "oooh, lets look at AMD chips" to get Intel riled up into offering them a deal on the next batch of chips.
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-
AMD's problems have always been in manufacturing. Their chips are usually, and you can't beat the price, but they simply can't guarantee the volumes that Intel can. Compaq got bit on this one when the K5 came out years ago. Nowadays, when everyone is moving to direct models and build-on-demand manufacturing, it is essential that your supplier can meet exact deadlines, and can keep supply up to meet changes in demand. Intel is really good at that. AMD isn't. That's the main reason Dell stays with Intel-only. The direct model requires that you limit yourself to a few reliable suppliers.
"...there are competitors..."
Darn right!
Intel is awash in feisty competitors in the PC market like:
AMD
and
and
and
um,
Did I hear that Cyrix is poised for a comeback?
I, for one, welcome our new dual-core 64 bit cpu Overlords.
Aww, poor Intel. It looks like their stranglehold on the industry might be in danger.
I've always been a supporter of AMD, back when I got my first K6 chip. Why? Because I could afford it.. I have absolutely no sympathy for Intel, they're as bad if not worse then microsoft when it comes to scummy business tactics.
You do not need to spend hundreds of dollars on a processor - it's only one component in your system in the first place. I paid a whopping $100 for my 3000xp chip, a comperable intel chip would've cost me twice as much, at least. Competition is supposed to drive prices down, and if anything I've seen a steady increase in the price of intel chips over the years.
The Troll factor is appreciable. I agree. :)
you forgot the (/sarcasm) tag in your post.
:)
-1, troll => +5, funny.
See?
"Your going to use AMD? We'll give you our stuff cheaper."
"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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If the products are really pretty similar, and they are, then price is what matters. AMD is having trouble competing because they sell the same damn thing as Intel, but Intel can afford to sell it cheaper. Now, imagine this, the market for PCs has a given size and growth is to be expected. When a manufacturer says "We're going to sell AMD too." It also means they will sell LESS Intel. If that is the case, Intel is not punishing them for buying AMD, they are being punished for buying less Intel. Yes, it is semantics, but if all aspects of a business arrangment are not up for discussion here then this is just more Politically Correct Era nonsense.
Man, I wish you could start and grow a multibillion dollar business so some wormy little non-entity on a bulletin board could call for government destruction of your company and increased regulation and fascistic policies.
And what exactly is meant by "anti-competitive"? I think making a great product that enough people want so they'll voluntarily agree to your terms, thereby drawing market share away from your competitors is extremely competitive.
On the other hand, getting a government decree, enforced at the point of a gun...well, that seems to be the truly anti-competitive attitude.
The good part about AMD chips is the price/performance level. The downside is the life expectancy. In the five years I was in the house, we had about a baker's dozen of homebuilt systems, 5 Intel and 8 AMD. The higher fraction AMD was in part due to a shorter life expectancy; the AMD chips tended to have overheating related failures within two or three years, while the Intel chips lasted until the machine was too slow for any real work and handed down to preteen relatives (about 5 years).
I suspect this is because AMD was working closer to the engineering and QC tolerances, and have not seen evidence suggesting this is likely to have changed.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
A monopoly doesn't mean 100% market dominance, moron. It means you have enough power to strongarm people/companies, without them being able to switch away from Intel.
Buying an pre-built AMD system is really hard unless you like really crappy machines. The only maker I trust to build a computer for me is Dell, or Apple if I had to run a Mac-only program.
Right now the requirement to own a good AMD system is to know how to build your own. If you don't think Intel has a monopoly, you probably don't think MS has one either.
Dumb down a bit.
Unfortunately, your wrong.
1. Anti competitive can only be established in the court.
2. Extortion, or business arrangements as Intel might phrase it, are legal in business, so long as anti competition does not exist.
So really, your statements are pure drivel and completely incorrect till after the court case is finished. Anti-competitiveness is an empty concept in business, all business is anti their competition, till mononpoly is established and that can only be done in the courts.
Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.
Does AMD make a compiler? I'd like to see if this is really true. Perhaps all benchmarks should be run using GCC to ensure fairness?
To sum up: Intel made people offers they couldn't refuse.
In fact, it is a pity that AMD has to litigate in what is, strictly, the public interest. I know nothing about this, but wouldn't this be more a suitable case for the FBI? Or at least, it might have been when it was we the people that elected governments, and not we the corporations and we the PR agents.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Will this usher in the new era of the Intel N chip?
Users have to buy their own math co-processor!
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
While Intel's shady history is public knowledge, AMD's has to be squeaky clean for them to pull this off without getting slapped by a counter-suit. So we're either seeing the "good-boy next door vs. bully down the street" fight or we're seeing a "Goliath vs. Goliath" fight.
Intel isn't going to budge, either. And that is what is the sad part. AMD executives couldn't have timed this better. Throw down an anti-trust lawsuit at a time when Intel's pride will surely defeat them. Intel has been at a point the last two years or so where they feed off any good press they get, and ignore/neglect the bad. When executives are doing that in a company, it's a sign you need to bail. Investors want executives that address problem issues, and the blind faith only lasts so long.
Looks like everyone will get to look forward to AMD bullying retailers around in the future. Or maybe they'll be benevolent, but I see this more as a killing thrust by AMD, and Intel isn't going to bother trying to dodge it.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Or, of course, you could go to a ridiculously overpriced boutique place, like Alienware or VoodooPC. They make good computers; they just cost a thousand or so dollars more.
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
If Intel would agree to lay aside their patents and other government-granted monopolies, perhaps it would be more level, rather than being a black hole that consumes all competitors.
Unfortunately, your wrong.
Now we need "his" to become a common misspelling of "he's" and we're consistent!
If some company YoyoDyne introduces the YoyoProc microprocessor with the novel YoyoISA instruction set, is YoyoDyne instantly guilty of antitrust laws? This is another example of liberal antitrust hawks who hate America going after American businesses that are successful.
Intel is a company, like Microsoft, that brought personal computing within reach of mainstream America, instead of only to the liberal elite. By leveraging partnerships with suppliers and distributors, Intel could maintain high unit volumes while presenting an unconfusing value proposition for consumers.
Leeches like AMD, who steal Intel's innovative instruction set and architecture and take advantage of Intel's leadership in fabrication technology (AMD is always a foundry generation behind Intel, they leech the benefits of Intel's R&D) are an example of the liberal scum of the earth. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions and only care about their own feelings and "self esteem". Instead of offering customer solutions, AMD decides to use their liberal trial lawyers and their liberal unaccountable activist judges against the American Way.
But then again, this is Slashdot, where piracy (Grokster), theft of intellectual property (GNU/Linux), and general liberal re-education reigns supreme. I hope you are proud of yourselves. Perhaps someday you will wake up and see what you've done.
It should not be a suprise to anyone that somthing like this was comming. Among other things, Intel for years misled the general public to belive that Mhz = POWER!!
AMD has insisted that it's lower clock speed chips can do as much as the higher clock speed Intel counterparts.
Funny how Intel no longer is focusing on clock speed now that they are having trouble breaching the 4Ghz barrier.
I just hope that Intel gets what they deserve.
The reason from PR has almost always been "lack of consumer interest," but there has been plenty of speculation that it is because of the low price point offered on processors for being an Intel-exclusive shop.
The article mentions Intel withholding rebate checks.
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.
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
>> You're kidding right?
>> No, he's not kidding. He's astroturfing.
>> Try to ignore him.
AMD is saying Intel is not competing fairly, competition gives the consumer choice, and I'm going to choose with my dollars to support the company that isn't trying litigate its marketshare higher.
Opinion != Troll
I'm in no way kidding. I see your point, but at the same time, this is how things are changed. People with money/buying power/etc. are the ones who get to effect change. Now that I own a *real* small business, with some purchasing power, I can make a difference. It may not be big, but it does make a difference. For example, there are suppliers out there that make good products, but we won't carry them because of the way the company does business. I explain that to customers, and they're usually fine with it. Either way, I'm finally getting to make a difference. And if I don't like AMD's business practices, then I won't buy any products with AMD chips in them. Now, granted, I won't pursue this policy to the point where our business would be irreparably damaged, but I'll do what I can. It's a matter of principle (and morality).
I don't respond to AC's.
If Apple was pushed, now doesnt it?
2 ,39160769,00.htm, from last year rings true. Itanium procs dont compete. So if AMD has a better product, why shouldnt it attemp to push antitrust. Even if companies are undercutting Intel by guilting them into selling for cheaper prices , its still a form of monopoly. Likely they encourage it.
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.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
First, RTFA and see what they are being accused of! It seems you have NO idea what the article is about or what has been pretty widely discussed of Intels practices for years.
;-) Historically AMD has always been much cheaper for the same level of performance. The last year or two AMD has been raising prices a bit, but any honest comparison would have a hard time showing Intel being cheaper. Yes, if you currently compare both thier top level chips AMD is quite a bit more expensive but that is a horribly unfair comparison! For a more fair comparison you need to compare chips from both lines with similar performance. Right now AMD's top-of-the-line single core and daul core chips blow away Intels best in those markets. To be fair depending on what you are doing with the chip Intel is cheaper price/performance for some tasks, but for most tasks AMD is basically the same or cheaper. For a fair comparision in price/performance you need to compare the price of AMD 2nd (in some cases 3rd) tier chips with Intels best chips.
AMD is having trouble competing because they sell the same damn thing as Intel, but Intel can afford to sell it cheaper.
Where did you get that?
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Don't be an idiot. The courts only establish whether it is to be legally held as true, not whether it is really true. Ask OJ Simpson about this.
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
In particular, something could be morally wrong but legal and profitable. The executives of a public company would face a stockholder suit for NOT doing it.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Precisely, in fact it is a common feature of monopolies that they fix prices quite highly just because they know there are few alternatives.
I imagine Microsoft will fall victim to this one day (if they haven't already). Just look at telecom companies!
Joseph Farthing
http://josephfarthing.com
...back about 10 years ago, Intel was running commercials on TV - claiming their Pentium systems could produce graphics like Doom III with shimmery water and a life-like gaming experience. Too bad that's handled mainly by the video system. But at the same time, don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying this is handled strictly by the video system, but the CPU speed has little to do with how the GPU processes things.
.
It's like saying, "buy our windshield wipers because they make your car go faster!" While some lesser-intelligent people actually think this is true, it is not. Get with the program. If you still think it's true, you should post a pic of your car on www.ricecop.com
I think the main idea here is, you can't sell bullshit to educated users. Most of the users in the world ARE educated, but the problem lies with them being drawn in by the "sparkly" things. So... what I'm waiting for is, "The Green Man Group".
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
funny, sounds like the same problem they had with Microsoft...
poor Dell, getting locked into products because of the tactics their "friends" use...
Get your Unix fortune now!
I don't buy that "predatory" bullshit. It's simply a way of competing. I own a business and my vendors do it all of the time. Totally normal. What's underhanded is a company going whining to the gov't to give them a competitive advantage.
I don't respond to AC's.
So you've chosen the company who extorts its marketshare higher, instead.
Nice.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Would you say that GCC degrades performance on x86 because it also supports PPC and sparc? Sure GCC probably would be better if it only supported one plateform, but that's kind of obvious.
Would GCC be degrading performance if it supported both Intel's and AMD's processors? Most probably it would be more efficient on Intel if it supported ONLY the Intel processors. Tada.
I'm still running on my 5 yr old 1Ghz Tbird. Solid as a rock. Had problems with my old HSF got loose and the chip overheated but ever since I replaced that there's been no problems. Now I need a new PSU for all those power hungry components.
On the same note, I have a dual Pentium 166Mhz box with 128 of EDO ram and that's still running fine too.
So we can't call something what it is until a court okays it?
It wasn't theft because they never found the guy who took the stuff from my garage.
For those who don't want to find out for themselves or click on links that might educate them, from dictionary.com. (AC to avoid karma whoring. Besides, my karma is excellent anyway.) And I would agree. This guy is astroturfing. AMD is trying to break Intel's unethical stranglehold, so they need to be punished? Uh ... yeah ... whatever.
astroturfing
n. The use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement, through means like letters to newspapers from soi-disant `concerned citizens', paid opinion pieces, and the formation of grass-roots lobbying groups that are actually funded by a PR group (astroturf is fake grass; hence the term). This term became common among hackers after it came to light in early 1998 that Microsoft had attempted to use such tactics to forestall the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust action against the company.
This backfired horribly, angering a number of state attorneys-general enough to induce them to go public with plans to join the Federal suit. It also set anybody defending Microsoft on the net for the accusation "You're just astroturfing!".
So bribery is better than litigation? :)
Of course the allegations make Intel look bad, a lawsuit put forth by AMD isn't going to make Intel smell like roses. But what I read is believeable, so I'll be interested how it turns out.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Suppose Intel were using unfair business practices. What recourse does AMD have? The only referee is the government. The government defines what is fair and unfair. Crying foul necessitates litigation. That the litigation has an effect on marketshare is a side-effect, one which is exploitable to some degree. But would you rather AMD not cry foul when it feels that some injustice or foul play is going on?
What you would recommend AMD do in a situation where they feel Intel is using unfair business practices?
I think making a great product that enough people want so they'll voluntarily agree to your terms, thereby drawing market share away from your competitors is extremely competitive.
I think holding a gun to someones head so they'll voluntarily agree to my terms, thereby giving me all thier money is extremely fair!
Ya know what, I think both or our use of the word "voluntarily" is a bit strange.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Because we all remember how well the USFL did in suing the NFL, don't we? Or the US vs Microsoft? Microsoft just bought an adminstration that was friendly to them, really.
It'll be an Intel world.
It might be rising now, but once the dust clears from this, we'll see where it's going.
But, if Intel's anything like Microsoft (which they have proved they are, by the very existence of this lawsuit) then it probably won't leave more than a dent.
Also, I'm not a cowboy.
monopolistic practices
That's great. The thing is that I don't see "monopolistic practices" as bad. It's a bad law.
What I'm trying to figure out is when the official Slashdot culture swung to support wholeheartedly the US Gov't and the Attorney General? Slashdotters, I thought, were anti-arbitrary laws, and this kind of big business monopoly stuff is about as arbitrary and forced as one can get.
I don't respond to AC's.
You want Intel software to support AMD?
Why should they do that? Intel develops this software for their processors as an added value for buying their processors. Nobody is preventing AMD from doing the same.
Not having time to read the complaint right now (I'm working on a contract), they are probably pleading at least some tortious interference with business advantage. That tort does have as a defense "competitive privilege." If the allegations are that Intel engaged in unfair competition (often found as pricing some things below cost to compete and making it up on other things as Wal-Mart has been accused in the past) then that does not have the defense of competition. It is per se illegal if you're doing it for the purpose of hurting someone else's business (which is different from loss-leaders which are intended to fool the consumer and not screw your competitors). My guess is that Intel will settle this at some point for cash to avoid bad precedent (as Wal-Mart has done from time to time). If they fight it, it will be interesting to see how the trial plays out.
Obliterating a provision of the Consitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied.
x86, PPC and SPARC are different architectures with different machine code commands.
Intel and AMD are both x86. Aside from optimizing for chip-specific features, they should generate the same machine code.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Actually, that strikes me as average business tactics, too. I have vendors that'll give me an incentive to highlight their products, but only if I don't put a competitor's on the same shelf. Happens every day. I don't see the problem.
I don't respond to AC's.
If Intel wanted to compete on price, then they'd offer a better price and not say anything about AMD.
Competing on price is fine.
Competing on volume discounts is fine.
Preventing competition by coercion is not OK.
Intel has 90% of the market, and therefore considerable power. They can compete fairly using contracts that depend solely on Intel and the customer. By making deals that are contingent on the customer's dealings with a third party, namely AMD, they are abusing their market power. That's illegal.
A free market can't exist without government involvement to enforce contracts, prevent fraud, and otherwise provide a level playing field. It should be illegal for Guido to say: "Buy from me or your store will burn down." It should be illegal for Intel to make similar threats. In fact, both ARE illegal. Take off your political blinders, and you might see it, too.
I'm not so sure Theo. Not that I know exactly what the standards of proof are in these cases but AMOUNT and VARIETY of evidence is extensive. On March 8, the Japanese Trade Commission charged Intel with anticompetative practices that included threats and thinly veiled kick-backs to induce sales...these are documented. Maybe that sort of thing has been "business as usual" up until now but I wouldn't stand for it if I ran AMD.
You call that a troll? I have a whole beltway full of trolls better than that!
I think the claim is not of the "your compiler is specifically optimized for Intel, that's no fair!" variety. It's more of the "your compiler writers went out of their way to generate code that would run slowly on AMD" variety. I bet that's pretty hard to prove, even if it is true... but it's a serious allegation.
It's kind of like the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" allegation, whether that's true or not.
uP size: 55.7 alpha-illion-gates.
Eliminating real mode 8086 ISA? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 49.2 alpha-illion-gates.
Eliminating virtual mode 8086 ISA? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 44.5 alpha-illion-gates.
Eliminating real mode 80386 ISA? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 37.9 alpha-illion-gates.
Eliminating protected mode 80386 ISA? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 32.1 alpha-illion-gates.
Eliminating legacy mode 32 bit ISA? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 30.3 alpha-illion-gates.
Reducing 4 protection rings to 2? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 27.6 alpha-illion-gates.
Adding special feature for virtualization? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 28.1 alpha-illion-gates.
Optimizing and inlining pure x86-64? [Yes/no]: yes!!!
uP size: 35.9 alpha-illion-gates.
The pure x86-64 is very GOOD!!!
--=== JCPM ===--
Grammar, the morons counterpoint to every argument. Here is your sign.
DEC sued Intel for patent infringement for incorporating patented features of the Alpha processor into the Pentium. DEC won but part of the settlement gave Intel rights to produce the Alpha chip.
I know that Intel has engaged in unfair practices, but it still concerns me... Is AMD doing this because of the recently announced deal with Apple/intel? Are they just being IBMs lapdog, fighting a battle that may not be possible to win?
Remember Every AMD chip contains technology they Licensed from Intel, if they loose they are out of the buisness for good, because there is no way in hell Intel will license out technology to allow AMD to continue to make microprocessors.
Even if they win, they're going to need court orders requiring intel to fairly sublicense out it's technology, to continue to ship units. You may be right about this being long overdue, but I seriously hope the delay in the coming of this trial was strategic.
AMD needs an air tight case, they can't afford to loose, if this lawsuit wasn't well thought out then they are screwed and Intel becomes pretty much the only game in town. Especially with Apple switching to x86 hardware.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Building your own system ranks somewhere between getting an A+ certification and tying your shoes in the universal skill spectrum.
Okay, to save my karma from crashing...seriously. Building your own system is not hard. People are just lazy and/or stupid.
Therefore I am forced to agree with you and the majority of the Slash community.
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 think MS was in the right and the US gov't was wrong. If anything is arbitary, it's this law, that all Slashdotters seem to be frothing at the mouth in favor of, that says "you can compete this way, but not this way". That's bullshit. As a business owner, I say that that is bullshit. It's completely arbitary, and it boils down to one company saying "It's not fair", and expecting the gov't to help them out.
I don't respond to AC's.
I was just THINKING about building a boxen with an AMD processor in it, and the doorbell rang. It was three guys in black suits and dark sunglasses. They told me they were from Intel, and they tied me up, beat me with a rubber hose, ate all my pretzels, drank all my beer, and shot my dog. They said they'd kill me if I didn't buy Intel. Believe me, after that, I built my boxen using an Intel processor! And I started wearing a tinfoil hat, too.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
>> So bribery is better than litigation?
I just don't see that offering a discount for purchasing products exclusively from one company as being wrong. Dell or HP HAVE the choice to go AMD. Dell has more pull then AMD seems to imply in their lawsuit..
Matching advertising dollars in combination with cheap processor pricing is what keeps Dell in Intel's camp. Those little Intel jingles you hear at the end of every Dell ad on TV tell you that Intel fronted a LOT of the cash to put that ad on the air.
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 wonder if Intel's deal with Apple is a subtle warning to Dell.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
There's a big difference between that and this AMD/Intel situation. It's one thing for a vendor to give you incentives for highlighting their products over a competitor's product. That's just marketing and advertising, and perfectly normal. I don't see a problem either. It's quite another situation for a vendor to tell you that you will only get their incentives if you stop selling or limit the sale of their competitors' products. That is a monopolistic practice, because they are artificially limiting the customer's choice, instead of just trying to influence it. I do have a problem with that.
I'd rather be cycling.
"The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of private property, since private property, in the form of capital, leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms."
Since you do not believe in private property please provide your address so I can come pickup the computers you are using.
In the US, Intel is such a hero to the US govt that DOJ will not make it easy for AMD to hurt Intel. But in Japan, Intel was plain and simple guilty according to many stories such as this and Intel finally admitted as much in their settlement with the Japanese. AMD should bring suit in Japan perhaps?
/. back on March 8 but it wasn't interesting then I guess.
I remembered how that charge against Intel played out because I submitted that story to
You call that a troll? I have a whole beltway full of trolls better than that!
I think it went more or less like this:
"The wintel alliance is falling down, falling down, falling down..."
(OK i admit it that was lame)
It's not extortion or illegal when the chips are sold below market value. Basically, Intel is saying: "If you buy AMD you won't get our DISCOUNT" not: "If you buy AMD you will get charged more than others." Essentially they would charge the same amount, but this would hurt Dell's ability to undercut the prices of its competitors.
Since selling below market price is considered a "gift" under the law, then refusing to do so isn't considered illegal. It may be of questionable morality, but it is legal and happens all the time (unfortunately).
AMD is probably not planning on winning this, but rather just trying to shed light on Intel's business practices and win PR points by pointing fingers. The sad reality is that if the tables were turned AMD would almost certainly do the same thing. Their business practices are equally (if not more) aggressive than Intel's. They have to be.
I like AMD (nearly every machine I currently use has an AMD processor), and I tend to believe most of those statements, but the one about compilers just doesn't ring true based on my experience.
I use the Intel Fortran compiler for my simulation code on AMD machines, and I get better performance with it (although it takes forever to actually compile) than I get with any other compiler (at least 20-30% faster than with the Portland Group Compiler, which is supposed to be the AMD prefered compiler). It doesn't seem likely that this is actually a hobbled compiler that should produce even faster code.
AMD needs an air tight case, they can't afford to loose
Well...AMD didn't lose in Japan...a court there has already rendered a verdict in favor of AMD...
From TFA:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The complaint's history section is an interesting and telling story about how AMD came to enter and, in fact, created the x86 commodity market. I had no knowledge prior to this that IBM's requirement that there be a second supplier of x86 processors was responsible for AMD's birth as a PC processor maker.
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...
sorry..but if you think there isn't a problem with AMD build quality you aren't paying attention. sure, they are great chips and all..but they really don't last. after my 4th athlon let out the magic blue smoke I gave up on them. and I don't overclock..these were stock with stock fan.
I've had 4 pentiums and they all still work...even the P90.
It seems AMD has done their homework on this. I'm sure they have some evidence to back this up on the compiler issue. It just seems too far fetched for them not to have something.
Finally, I might actually get better options as a consumer as far as getting a CPU in a machine I want. It's about d*mn time. I would look over at AMD and go yeah right, if Intel weren't so blatently monopolistic, especially in the light how inferior Intel's offerings were until late. No, PC manufacturer worth his salt would say Intel produced the better product but they sure is hell knew how to throw around their weight. I hope Intel loses big on this one. AMD has to do it's part to prove the case and keep coming with the stellar products.
I've been an AMD zealot since the P3 and its Processor Serial Number came out, and I've only started to look back towards Intel recently.
They've come a long way in a short time. PSN is long gone. The Pentium M is the single best notebook processor in the world, and it's only going to get better (*drools over Yonah and Merom*). Conroe and Ridgefield are going to be better than anything else when they come out in the next few years, and AMD will need to pull one huge rabbit out of their hat to beat them.
I ended my long-held avoidance of Intel products and bought a Centrino laptop a few months ago. I'm seriously considering building a Conroe-based machine when it comes out in late 2006/early 2007.
There's really only one thing that Intel can do to improve, and that's putting a stop to their monopolistic business practices. If they do that, even if it's a result of a lawsuit, and assuming they deliver the goods with the Merom and Nehalem generations of processors, I might end up leaving AMD behind...
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
How come everyone automatically believes everything AMD says? If you think they are any more ethical than Intel you're fooling yourself. AMD made the same charges 2 years ago and the FTC dropped the case because it had no substance. So is filing frivolous lawsuits to advertise ethical?
That will be one of the claims tested by this case.
Intel does not have 100% market share of CPUs (not even close), but they have near 100% share in memory control and other chips. Even current Apple motherboards have Intel chips on them--just not in the CPU slot. Intel is accused of leveraging their market share in these products to forcefully increase sales of other, more lucrative CPU products.
This suit alleges that Intel has illegally tied together sales of unrelated products. It is akin to Microsoft tying sales of its Web browser to sales of its operating system...which if you recall resulted in a conviction.
Translation: "Thier bid was more than our bid, and we're pissed." AMD is saying they were doing the exact same thing!!! Now that sort of undercuts thier argument in my eyes...
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
From what I recall from the article Intel builds in rebate schemes into their contracts and if a manufacturer meets all the criterier for the rebate and also has a contract with AMD then intel will with hold shipments, up the price of their products and with hold rebates. Basically if you are HP and you know that AMD has the capacity to supply 20% of your chips but not replace Intel atm you can't buy any AMD chips because Intel will with hold their chips leaving you with only 20% of the chips you need. So, it isn't fair business practice or under pricing AMD so much as just pricing slightly higher than AMD then threatening to with hold shipments or kick backs to their clients if they don't use Intel exclusively.
It's not just about price. Intel is withholding rebates owed to these companies through previous agreements. They are also delaying the shipment of products already purchased. This puts the customers in a much bigger bind than simply charging them more.
This just in, in a press release today: The pot called the kettle black. Details to follow.
Discuss
mount
Isn't your name "de Raadt", not "de Raabt"? See http://www.openbsd.org/art4.html , for example. Did you lose your Slashdot password, or are you impersonating the real Theo?
The executives of a public company would face a stockholder suit for NOT doing it.
This threat is way over-rated.
1. Shareholders sue executives either way. They sue because the stock didn't make them enough money. If the company doesn't do something legal and (potentially)profitable, that's just the excuse they use. If the company does something morally wrong and legal and the expected profits don't result, they sue on that excuse instead. An executive may be able to tell you in advance what is legal and be 100% reliable in that opinion, but none of them can guarentee in advance what is going to be profitable. There is literally no such thing as "morally wrong but legal and profitable", just "legal now, and possibly profitable in the future".
2. Stockholders may file these suits, but they very seldom win them. It takes special exemptions, like the ones in Sarbanes-Oxley, to give a shareholder much chance of actually winning. (and S-O is written exactly so as not to support suits for not doing everything that might be legal. In fact it's quite the contrary - the easiest way to win a S-O based lawsuit is to show the company didn't disclose that there might be an ethical backlash from business partners or consumers over the executive's sharp dealings).
3. The source of this claim is executives who are engaging in sharp business practices, and justifying their behavior. The same people who open sweat shops in third world countries and practice age discrimination to keep pension costs down are in a situation where they can lie in press statements and not face the penalties they would for lieing in court or on an SEC form, and they make this claim as part of justifying their business strategy, and that's where the claim starts, and yet so many people take it uncritically.
Who is John Cabal?
If you really want to find out about Intel, this is a great book.
Inside Intel
Eighty percent of today's desktop computers operate on chips produced by Intel Corporation, which is now a more profitable company than the top 10 PC makers combined. But just how did the company, under CEO Andrew Grove, become so powerful? And what does its position mean to those who depend upon it? By combining public records, private documents, and interviews with more than 100 of those who know the company best, Financial Times columnist Tim Jackson has produced the fascinating, definitive story: Inside Intel: Andy Grove and the Rise of the World's Most Powerful Chip Company. It goes into great detail about all the dirty tricks that Intel used to get to the top
"It wouldn't matter to the end user because everything would still 'just work' but would not be cheaper."
-should be-
"It wouldn't matter to the end user because everything would still 'just work' and would be cheaper."
(took out 'not' and changed 'but' to 'and')
and the last word of the post should be 'computers'
sorry about the misquote
Take out "Are you really that stupid?" too. The flame was unnecessary. I apologize.
laptop from HP:
here.
If it is true, it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If that's really it, then AMD doesn't have a cause of action against Intel. The companies getting screwed are the ones that would have to sue.
Go to school, fucktard.
And that's one of the problems with antitrust law. In most legal situations, an action either is or is not illegal, and a motive can make an already-illegal act either better or worse. The classic example of this is homicide, where these are cases where a homicide can be either justifiable or aggeavated depending on the reason for the killing.
In antitrust law, an action which is legal suddenly becomes illegal, based on the motive of the actor. Intel, for instance, would be perfectly justified in not supporting AMD's implementation of MMX and the like if the goal was merely to support the Intel implementations of these standards, and AMD's implementations were just collateral damage of the design Intel used. It could be in a legally questionable situation if it were a monopoly and if the decision was to actively support the Intel implementation of these standards, and to actively not support AMD's implementation.
Intel is much the same abuser of monopoly laws as Microsoft - it has used OEM contracts to chain distributors to the 'only and holy one' Intel. I have worked for such distributor and this practice was well known between product managers - altought it is claimed as secret.
If you will try as distributor sell even AMD supported motherboards, you won't get ANY rebates from Intel. It is that bad.
I reckon they've waited until they had the products in place to make the lawsuit really hurt intel. Up until now they've had a good product but Intel has always been close. Now AMD really seems to have the only real plans for the future and they have a product which mostly kicks intel's ass in the X2 line. It's now that Intel is weakest and AMD is strongest, and now that the damages would be highest.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Ok, but I still don't see the difference between giving vendors incentives *not* to carry a competing product and say, putting that other company out of business in other ways, altogether. Competitors regularly drive each other out of business completely. That's considered good and natural. That's how we improve efficiencies. I don't see how what they do limits consumer choice any more than, say, Wal-Mart coming into a down, undercutting everybody, and driving all competing retail out of business. If anything, that's *much* more limiting to consumer choice, but that's accepted as normal and OK.
I don't respond to AC's.
Intel will probably still license its technology to AMD. After all, Intel needs AMD's technology too, thanks to its 64-bit extensions.
Also, most of the technology licensed is in the form of patents. The original x86 is gtetting quite old --- so old that the patents are expiring. (Unlike copyright, patents do actually pass into the public domain.) So over time, Intel's advantage in the licensing game will actually diminish.
I went into Office depot, they have automated the rebates system, it's really cool.
All I did was go home, enter the number from the receipt into there web site. Had the check in 2 weeks, no mailing, no need for ups, nothing. I think more stores are goping this way with the rebates system.
I think once just about everyone is doing it, rebates will go away, and prices will lower. not has much as the rebate discount, but some.
the rebate is not paid by the store, it's paid for by the manufacturer, the store still pays there normal price for the product, and then marks it up. So if the company declares a loss at what the bought it for, not at what they might have been able to sell it for.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
IIRC Intel and AMD have a pretty tight, and royalty free, cross-licensing deal going on. That is why Intel could implement AMD64 so easily, and why AMD can implement SSE3. Either one could stop the other making chips if the deal was scrapped.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Nice. Don't push an elephant until it starts to stumble.
Then again, even if an elephant was stumbling and I shoved it, I'm still not so sure it would do all that much.
If you had bothered to RTFA you would see some of the examples. Witholding promised rebates is and then delaying the shipment of chips until the agreed to give up on AMD products sounds pretty underhanded to me. If the only thing AMD was complaining about was that Intel was giving discounts to customers who used ONLY Intel there wouldn't be a problem, but that is not what they are saying. READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!
First off, how is what Intel doing any different than what Wal-Mart does on a daily basis? Or Starbucks, or any other company. Any time one company forces another out of business, or simply undercuts price, they're strongarming the competition. I fail to see how this is any different.
If AMD has no proof, why would they be suing in the first place?
Proof of what? Who cares if they have "proof"? My point is that the law is total and utter bullshit. Somebody may also have "proof" that a gay couple is married, which is illegal. That in no way makes those laws any more right or valid.
I don't respond to AC's.
The stock market apparently thinks this is just posturing by AMD. I'm inclined to agree.
AMD has never had the business acumen necessary to take advantage of the opportunities it has had access to. Its 30 years of flat stock performance make it almost look like a scam; a shell company designed to sucker investors to pump the price occasionally and pay off the principals who know they won't be reinvesting that value.
But you know the engineers there don't want it that way. Why they haven't revolted and thrown out the (mis)management is a mystery.
Maybe they should.
Meanwhile, Intel does nothing but produce its product. Usually it's superior. For 2000-2004, it wasn't. AMD failed to capitalize on that opportunity, and are now crying that simple competition is unfair.
If I were an AMD shareholder, I wouldn't be cheering this suit; I'd be embarassed to show my portfolio to anyone.
OK, I actually agree with you. Anti-trust is horribly arbitrary. There are times when it should be used, but it is a pretty flawed law. The idea behind it is good, but its implementation is pretty much crap. Here is actually a pretty good article about the problems with anti-trust (actually the link is to part 4 or a 4 part article).
Anyway, if what Intel has been accused of is true I think this would be good use of anti-trust law. That said I like their products and am frustrated at how hard it can be to find a PC with AMD. The previous statement clearly shows I'm a bit biased, but perhaps also shows there is something to this case. If customers want a product but have trouble finding people to provide it, there is something else happening which is screwing up the natural principles of supply-and-demand.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
1. I'm not a lawyer.
2. I understand the allegations. I'm not saying that what they're doing is legal or illegal. What I'm saying is that the law, itself, is bullshit. You know, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. Slavery was legal in this country for a long time. Was that a good thing because it was legal? Marijuana is classified as an illegal, dangerous drug by the gov't? Does that make it true?
I don't respond to AC's.
In the end, Intel will win this thing. Might makes right, ya know.... after all, this is America.
It is interesting, then, that the parent post has been moderated down to -1, when it is actually stating a very valid response to AMD's action. AMD is behaving like SCO (also backed by Microsoft), and for many of the same reasons.
But, I guess Microsoft learned their lesson when public opinion turned against SCO, so this time Microsoft has their astroturfers out early, guiding public reaction by, among other things, attacking any posters who disagree with AMD's actions.
The fact is, Microsoft wants, no, _needs_ Intel to die.
There are many reasons for this:
So, Microsoft needs to hurt Intel's business. Otherwise, Microsoft is going to be left behind while Intel, Linux, Apple, and a few others, move the industry forward.
But Microsoft can't attack Intel directly. Not only would everyone see through it, but they would also start to realize how vulnerable Microsoft is at this time, due to the slow pace of their development, and the faster pace of their competitors.
Thus, Microsoft needed a proxy to attack Intel. And what more logical choice is there than AMD?
Just wondering, why?
Then I hope one of your big competitors does the same thing to you. Screws you over nice and hard. Because after all, there is nothing wrong with it.
While Intel processors are typically more expensive, the chipsets to support them are generally cheaper than AMD chipsets. This usually means a cheaper overall system than an AMD one, despite AMD chipsets having less support logic needed.
For example, the cheapest Athlon 64 motherboard out there is $54 while the cheapest P4 motherboard is $12. The cheapest dual opteron board is $175 and the cheapest dual Xeon board is $73.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I'm not sure about the American system, but in Canada, 'reasonable doubt' is restricted to criminal law. Civil suits, on the other hand, are measured on 'a balance of probabilities', and thus have different requirements that are to be met.
You sir, astound me. You sound like a bully on a playground.
"It's perfectly normal to push people around for lunch money, but you'd better fight back, we don't like squealers."
Please, before you again attack without knowledge of what you speak, take an economics course. There is more to this than some losing team crying foul.
If customers want a product but have trouble finding people to provide it, there is something else happening which is screwing up the natural principles of supply-and-demand.
I disagree. That happens on a daily basis. Case in point... there's a product that I used to buy weekly here in town. Wal-Mart put them out of business, and now I can't find this product because nobody else sells it. That's natural.
Another example... in my store, there are lots and lots of products that I don't carry because 1. the margin is too low 2. the margin on a competing product is better 3. the vendor is giving me an incentive to carry that product. That's not unnatural. Every vendor has the right to decide if say, carrying AMD chips is worth harming their relationship with Intel. That's their choice. Hell, I about 100 products that I would like to sell online, but I cannot because the manufacturer has said that if I do, they will stop selling to me altogether. Now, this pisses me off, but I can still decide to either carry their products on their terms or not. Again, that's standard. It may not be *friendly*, but in no way should it be illegal. Let the market sort it out. If AMD offers a better value, or better service, or better terms, or whatever, then vendors may very well choose to sell AMD only and tell Intel to fuck off. There's nothing saying that they can't. This is a matter of AMD not offering enough to their vendors to make it worth telling Intel to fuck off. So instead of either improving or going away, they waste our tax dollars askign the government for artifical help.
I don't respond to AC's.
the electric and gas company.
If your house is electric only, you receive your electricity at a discounted price since all the appliances in your house only use electricity. However, if you have natural gas in your house the price of your electricity is marginally higher than houses without natural gas.
Why the discount, you ask? Because you are _solely dependent_ on one provider for your energy needs. If you're not solely dependent on the electric company, why should they give you any perks? For some reason nobody wants to sue their electric provider...
To relate this to AMD and Intel, it's perfectly fine for Intel to offer up better performing products at lower prices to drive AMD out of business. If they do so, it's because they make a better product and the customer wins. However, that is not what Intel is doing here. Intel is saying that if a vendor sells AMD products, then Intel will effectively charge that vendor more to sell Intel products. Thus, selling AMD products means that vendor makes less money on Intel products than if that vendor sold only Intel products. This has no benefit to the customer. The prices the customer sees are the same because they are set by the market. All that happens is that Intel artificially eliminates AMD from the market by manipulating the channels through which the customer gets the product, which serves to limit competition by aritificially limiting choice.
Naturally limited choice is a perfectly legitimate thing, because the consumer still benefits. It is artificially limited choice that is bad for the end customer.
I'd rather be cycling.
Yes, nothing wrong with offering a discount. Withholding discounts because Intel doesn't get 100% of the business is wrong. Selling your product below cost to gain marketshare is illegal (not saying Intel is selling below cost, but looking at standard pricing from Intel and AMD, they have to have a very slim profit margin)
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The court found that it hadn't been shown beyond all reasonable doubt that he had done it, not that he hadn't done it. (In fact he lost the civil suit for compensation, where it only has to be shown on the balance of probabilities).
I am trolling
Wow, this Papa company sounds like it's paranoid enough to make great products! Does it have a website?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
As this is a suit, I do believe the standard will be "clear preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".
The article at Tom's compares an overclocked Pentium M to Athlon 64 FX and the PIV Extreme Edition running at standard clock speed. Tom's also uses an Athlon 64 FX with the now-obsolete Clawhammer chip in 130nm, which makes AMD look bad in the power dissipation test.
:
In other news, LostCircuits has successfully overclocked a Venice core-based Athlon64-3800+
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_venice/
These results look impressive too, and I don't think AMD is beaten yet.
C - the footgun of programming languages
http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote.html?ticker=AMD
And by double what Intel has when I checked. Intel is dirty, as dirty as Microsoft, they have just been smarter about it is all. We'll see where this goes or doesn't but the ruling in Japan and the Europeans looking into this doesn't bode well for Intel IMO.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
K, I cannot pretend to be an expert on MOBOs but I just did a quick search and found this article saying Athlon64 boards beat P4 boards on price and features.
Now I don't want to get into a huge debate on this but how does the functionality/quality of the $54 Athlon board compare with the functionality/quality of the P4 board you are talking about? Could this be because of the P4 marketshare there are 3rd party MOBO providers just tossing out crap boards while the AMD target audience means having such a crap board for AMD wouldn't sell many units since most people who buy AMD would recognize it as crap while lots of Intel customers don't even know what a MOBO is?
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
according to the suit Intel has done everything it can think of to sandbag AMD and keep it's market share. The core of the complaint is that Intel tells PC makers not to do buisness with other x86 chip makers "or else" or will only offer good deals in exchange for an exclusive agreement. It would be pretty hard to compete with the industry's 800 pound gorilla taking swings at you whenever it could.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Site claims to support RealPlay, but not for this event:
http://www.amd.com/breakfreewebcast
They say they will host the audio for ten days, maybe they will re-encode it after the presentation.
Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
Read points 33 and 34 from TFC
You'd think if Fujitsu, HP, IBM and Acer were having such a hard time eking out a profit with Intel processorsd, they'd be MORE likely to try things out with AMD, no?
I'm not saying that AMD doesn't make some valid arguments here, but I fail to see how Intel having their OEMs struggle to make a profit forces those OEMs closer to its hand when there's a viable alternative?
Wal Mart so far only demand a lower price or won't buy your product. And their only tactic is basically lower their price. These are not illegal.
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 payment or allowance tends to destroy competition, is unlawful.
What intel is accused of doing, as in paying under the table or threaten to do anything if someone buy/sell AMD product. It is illegal.
"Monopoly power" is a term extrapolated from the conditions found in a monopoly, that basically keys off of the slope of the demand curve that an individual firm faces. Commodity manufacturers see demand as a horizontal line at the market price. Monopolies see the same demand curve as the whole industry, because they ARE the whole industry.
In an industry where 80% of the products come from a single firm, and the remainder from smaller competitors, those competitors MUST follow the big guy's lead, or be replaced by another minor competitor.
While the large firm cannot price and produce in the same way as a 100% monopoly, they still call all the shots. It is understandable that Intel would rather be the 80% firm rather than the 20% firm, but consumers would rather they be at 49-51%, clawing and biting over 1% of market share.
"This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
Microsoft's IE has held over 95% of the browser market share since 2002. Intel processors have 80% (by unit, not by revenue, I don't count revenue because Intel processors cost more per unit than AMD so it's not a direct comparison). That means that 20% of the market, as opposed to 5% of the market is open. To anyone.
The last time I went to Circuit City they had AMD computers available. Not to mention those computers were cheaper than the comparable speed Intel desktops. So are you telling me Intel is not allowing people to purchase AMD?
The lawsuit states figures of lost revenue for AMD for the years 2002 and 2003. Wasn't every company in the tech sector down in those years?
Big Business is competitive and that implies a contest that is to be won. The question is, did Intel cheat to "win" the race? AFAIK there are still OEM's that manufacture AMD if you want it. 80% of the market is hardly monopolistic in my opinion.
It was about two years ago that my uncle convinced me to build my own computer from scratch, and the first thing he did was tell me not to buy an Intel processor.
When I asked why, he explained that AMD processors had considerably better performance and came considerably cheaper.
Of course, the initiate (being myself) asked if that was the case, why more companies didn't use AMD products, his answer was "that's business for you".
Since then, I've always figured that Intel either had some sort of seedy business practice, AMD was terribly mismanaged, or a little bit of both.
If the details of this lawsuit are accurate (which it should be, but you never know in this day of corporate exaggeration), the answer is rather clear.
Well, okay I wasn't looking at it that way ^^ you've eased my mind a lot. The reason why this delay took so long is because AMD needed to have leverage to be able to safely take intel to court over thier unlawful buisness practices.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I don't buy that "predatory" bullshit. It's simply a way of competing. I own a business and my vendors do it all of the time. Totally normal.
And totally illegal. I can't see any result from this other than a total Intel defeat. The size of the monopoly of the company in question is proportional to how serious a crime it is.
What's underhanded is a company going whining to the gov't to give them a competitive advantage.
What about a company using immoral illegal practices to give their competitor a competitive disadvantage?
I'm not debating the legality of it. Clearly it's illegal. What I AM asking is why do so many Slashdotters approve of this law? It seems like everyone has a raging hard-on for this law for some bizarre reason. I happen top think that the DMCA makes *much* more sense than this law does for example, but Slashdotters hate, and ignore the DMCA. There are lots and lots and lots of laws on the books that are immoral and wrong. I happen to think that this is one of them. Why such strong support for such a ridiculous law?
I don't respond to AC's.
The stock market is completely arbitrary. Remember that like in every other situation in the world, most people buying shares don't know what the hell they're doing. An increased stock price is only of much use if you're selling shares.
It's such a pain trying to buy AMD chip based laptops with Linux preinstalled from vendors.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
AMD's complaints all boil down to "AMD can't afford to sell processors as cheap as Intel can, once all discounts and rebates are figured in." If you read between the lines, AMD tries to offer the same sorts of deals as Intel - but can't really afford it, so in most instances Intel wins. This also shows up in AMD's bottom line, where they used to consistently lose money, and still do sometimes, despite Intel's numerous mis-steps of late.
AMD's basic problem is that they basically wish they could become Intel, and think the way to do that is to mimic Intel's sales strategies - which they can never do as well as Intel because they don't have the manufacturing volume and low costs to back it up. "Business 101" could tell them how to compete in this situation, but their leadership's ego(s) keep them from doing it consistently.
If shareholder lawsuits happened often and were so easy to file, then every dotCom CEO who nosedived a company while taking a golden parachute would be breaking big rocks into little rocks in some federal prison right now.
That fact that I know at least 8 who are still at large means that other than outright FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT and THEFT, shareholders have ZERO capability to sue a company if there's a profit loss. The world/market/product is just too volatile for this to be the case.
... becasue Dell has chosen to go with the better chip manufacture, Intel.
If I moved as many boxes as Dell, I would only go with on chip.
The expenses involved with tech support for another chip would be huge. The expense for maintaining another set of inventory would be huge.
You would say good buy to the 299.00 computer.
Of course, in the last 4 years Slashdots* posters seem to have allowed there anti-big corporate views to cloud any real thinking ability.
Because AMD is viewed as the underdog, then they can do no wrong.
*I know slashdot is not group think, but I am talking about most posts I see.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If this law is not in place, we might be paying $300 for a copy of window, and we will still be using one single telephone company for half the US with possible price fix and stuff.
The law seem non-sense at a lower level, but to ensure the intergity of market competition, it is necessary.
Oh, certainly, when you get up in the higher end 3rd party boards, prices tend to be premium anyways and you're not going to see much of a difference.
But when you're taking about OEM systems that generally are not "performance" oriented, very penny counts. I used retail boards as yardstick because OEM prices are not readily available. In general, though, AMD chipsets are more expensive than their Intel counterparts.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
take an economics course
I started and own a successful small business that is successfully competing against, and beating the big guys. I probably know more about real business than 99% of the people that post here, thanks. The fact is that Intel is playing hardball, yes. The fact that Slashdotters don't realize is that this is how business works. EVERYBODY plays this hard. And yes, they are squaling because they're getting their asses kicked. Why do we have laws about how businesses can compete with each other? Why shouldn't I sue my competitors because their prices are lower than mine? They're playing pretty hard with me, I can tell you.
I don't respond to AC's.
Hence the old statement that "a capitalist will knowingly sell you the bullets to shoot his own grandmother." If he doesn't, somebody else will. Either way he loses a grandmother; why miss-out on the profits?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
This law didn't have anything to do with the price of Windows. Windows costs what it does because if it was significantly more expensive, MS would lose business to Apple or one of the Linuxes.
The telephone company only got to where they were because the US government *gave* them all of the telephone infrastructure.
I don't respond to AC's.
"If you can't compete [fairly], engage in abusive business practice !"
Maybe we deserve this world ?
its the Amercian way.. sue your competition ..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
hey tosspot... you and your competitors are not abusing a monopoly position in the market... the rules change completely when you are deemed to hold a monopoly on the market.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I know that it's the "in" thing to bash Microsoft and sometimes Intel.
It's easy to say they are strong-arming and that they are being anti-competitive.
AMD has a history of filling suits against intel. They did it in Japan, and they did it in Europe
The issue here is not whether AMD's processors are "better". I see a lot of arguments like "Man my AMD si teh rox0rz and it runs so much cooler (in all senses) than Intel!" - so WHAT? What does it have to do with this issue at all?
AMD has historically been unable to meet demand. If you were a PC company would you go with a supplier that doesn't meet demand, or one that does?
AMD is a profitable company - and they directly compete with Intel. This IS competition, there is a winner and there is a loser. Someone is always going to be on top. There is a fine-line between losing a competition and being forced out of it.
Intel returns X dollars in advertising money (advertising that will be used for Intel as well - like the Intel inside logo) to customers who make kits with Intel products - that's an incentive - that's not strong-arming, that's good marketing. There isn't anything stopping AMD from doing the same.
I know it's the tradition here to root for the (perceived) underdog and that I'm probably going to burn Karma for this, but this are my 2c's.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
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 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.
Intel has been giving those dolls away for 7 1/2 years. 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.
Jesus Christ, I'm not questioning WHAT THE RULES ARE. I'm debating the VALIDITY OF THE RULES. Bug fucking difference. Hell, even the definition of a "monopoly" is fucked. In my small town, I can go to 3 places and buy AMD chips and/or computers with AMD chips in them. How is that a "monopoly"?
I don't respond to AC's.
The JFTC already proved this in a Japanese court of law.
I believe AMD's claim is that the compiler specifically won't use advanced instruction sets (such as SSE2) if the processor isn't a genuine Intel processor, even if the processor supports such instruction sets.
So it's not that the compiler is optimized for Intel (which is fine), it's that it's specifically de-optimized for non-Intel chips for no good reason other than to artificially bloat Intel's numbers.
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
AMD needs to strike the same deal with Intel as everyone else -- that AMD won't do any more business with themselves. Then they could stop making chips and just cash checks.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You're a dumbass, look at pricewatch or any other street price guide and tell me how intel chips are "cheaper" than AMD. I sincerely hope you dont work in the IT industry. You're probably the guy who fucks things up so I have to come over & fix it.
Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?
Dell has essentially said that AMD continues to be "under evaluation", and Michael Dell has made the off-hand comment that yeah, he would sell *Apple* (meaning Intel/Apple hardware). So given that AMD has product in production (albeit at a smaller amount than Dell could probably use), but Intel/Apple has only vapor, Dell the company's behavior smells of favoritism against AMD.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
You know, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong.
What, in your opinion, is right with Intel twisting the arms of OEMs?
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I don't think so. It's similar to the netscape issue on Windows. It's not so much that MS had to make Netscape compatible but that MS went out of it's way to make Netscape not compatible. Someone else pointed out that Intel will disable optimizations such as SSE3 for AMD processors. SSE3 is the same for Intel and AMD, why would Intel not allow the optimized route on
You're grossly uninforment about chip pricing.
There's a big price/performance curve in chip pricing. As you move up in performance, the price goes up dramatically faster. Thus, to double your processor speed, you probably quadruple (or more) your price. Check out the difference in price between the top speed chips. You can easily double your price and gain only 10% in performance.
For a real comparison, find two dual core CPUs from each company that are close in benchmarks and then compare prices. Intel is putting out slower dual cores just to say they have them. AMD is putting them out to have maximum performance chips. If you want two cores from AMD on the cheap, get two Athlon MPs. They start as low as $160/pair (about $100 less than the Pentium D 820).
BTW, people buying $500+ CPUs don't really care much about the PRICE/performance. It's just PERFORMANCE. Witness the $2605 Opteron 875 Dual-Core 2.2GHz. There's no way it's 20x faster than a $130 Athlon 64 3000. But for some reason, Intel sells them.
What about any citation about the loss of the chipmaking *contract* with Microsoft for the original Xbox? Originally, as it was reported by the game trades, the Xbox was to have an AMD Athlon processor at its heart, not an Intel Pentium variant.*
And what are the chances IBM, Freescale, and Via will join in the case?
*Something I've always wondered is why hasn't there been any mods to the Xbox that tried to swap the processor out for a faster PentiumIII? Or more memory, for that matter...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Case 1: Intel charges you more for their chips that you need for your products because you also sell products using AMD processors.
Case 2: Intel charges you more for their chips that you need for your products because you're a Black business owner.
Is Intel legally and/or morally allowed to do both of the above?
Is Intel legally and/or morally allowed to do either of the above?
If yes to the second question, describe the real difference between these cases.
I state that both cases are equivalent, and that it is unacceptable business practice for any supplier of vital components to other manufacturers to discriminate on price or delivery for any reason, except if there are reasonable discounts for volume purchases available to any pool of people who get together to take advantage of them.
How say you?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sure... except for all the time and money Intel invested to develop the technology behind those patents in the first place!
I'm no great Intel fan -- all my home systems run AMD and have for years, and I'm amazed this lawsuit didn't happen much sooner -- but really, that argument is some combination of off-topic, trolling and just plain silly.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
*According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has "beaten them into 'guacamole'" in retaliation.
Heheh, that amused me beyond reason for some reason.
1. AMD sues Intel.
2. Intel stops offer cash for using Intel.
3. The effective price of Intel chips goes up.
4. AMD no longer has to discount chips to sell them.
5. The price of AMD chips goes up.
6. Intel PROFITS!!
7. AMD PROFITS!!
8. The extra cost is passed on to the consumer in more expesnive computers.
8: The consumer unPROFITS!
for rejecting my submission about this guys! :) AMDZone doesn't cover this kind of stuff well anyway.
ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com
as was stated many comments above...DOJ could not find a replacement for MS...as much as I hate to admit...80%+ of people could not use anything other than ms either out of habit or stupidity... AMD processors run the same software as Intel...so they are completely substitutable.
You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
As an AMD shareholder for the past five years (at a 60% loss so far), I had to deal with HP, Compaq, Gateway all deciding to sell no or fewer AMD processors... I also saw that laptop manufacturers refuse to build 'premium' laptops with AMD processors.
The people that really know computers know that AMD makes better valued processors. It's crazy that there is such a difference between the processor of choice in enthusiast PCs and the typical corporation.
It also annoys me that most corporations have 'Intel-only' clauses in their engineering standards and other specifications. Supposedly, this is being eliminated in the government, though.
Either way, I've long since sold my shares. I still want to see AMD's sweet revenge, though.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I see a number of posters stating simply that "AMD is complaining becuase stores/companies went with the better chip manufacturer." This...is bullcrap. Intel is not better than AMD, and AMD is not better than Intel. The tides of chip superiority change constantly, often with little differences. This is the same as complaining about NVIDIA being better than ATI, or vise-versa. It's fruitless and moronic conjecture. What is superior today, could very well be inferior tomorrow. This happens all the time.
As for the lawsuit, from what I've read so far, AMD has a point. It's a boat with some leaks, but it's afloat. Let them bash it out. We all know who will win (whoever sticks their hands in the pockets of those in power). This, as usual, is big-money politics in the legal system. The outcome of this will have little to do with the actual facts.
From TFC, I see that AMD have hired the firm of Richards, Layton and Finger as their attorneys. I used to work for that firm in I.T. They are ruthless bunch of litigators. AMD chose well.
Whats the likely hood this will be settled out of court to no effect, and forgotton about in the next 6-12 months?
Was thinking after this, the tide may change to favor AMD. But someone told me Intel and AMD sue each other almost continously, but it never makes it to court.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
You probably don't want to say that publically. It could come back to hurt him.
This is another example of liberal antitrust hawks who hate America going after American businesses that are successful.
I think what is more galling is that "evidence" from a foreign country is being used to attack an American company. Liberals hate America and this is just the latest example of their contempt for everything that the USA stands for. Making up lies and tarnishing the reputation of a great company like Intel is the sort of thing these scum enjoy.
Support Intel and join the AMD boycott here.
First law of history: laws are enacted for the benefit of the powerful.
Free markets reward size and power more than anything else. It would be better for everyone except the powerful if they rewarded only constructive competition, and to a large extent this could be changed, by making markets less free (outlawing all anti-competitive practices for all firms in all circumstances, rather than just when they lead to muck-raking and uproar). But the powerful have the most influence over laws, and they know that where companies compete constructively, profit margins tend to zero. It should be no mystery to see a law that does nobody any good except for the powerful. C.f. the first law of history.
Neither of those point are irrelvent.
Because of Windows being the majority, and the rest of the market will want compariblity to this platform, windows can afford to charge more, at the same time using lock in tactic to make sure more windows installed PC will be sold. Which is exactly what this Law is trying to address. The fact that there are some competition surviving have nothing to do with the fact that domination of windows combinated with lock in tactic can hurt competition.
Same with telephone company. Government giving some early business adopter advantage have nothing to do with the possibility of some Telephone company bring big enough nowday to give consumer less choice.
"The argument that they are not breaking laws because the legal authority has not yet spoken is a silly one."
Their argument that they're innocent until proven guilty is a silly one.
> Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that
> Apple would use AMD products...
Another Apple user who doesn't even understand what Apple is selling. They aren't likely to ever use AMD chips. The only way that would ever happen is if AMD became a bigger BRAND than Intel. That is what Apple is in the business of selling, a premium BRAND. They aren't even really in the technology business as such, any more than Nike is in the shoe business.
They are in the business of creating a premium brand identity and monitizing it. They would never buy AMD parts so long as they are seen as second fiddle to Intel. To sell a premium brand requires that all of the major parts have premium branding, Intel has that. When they pushed PPC they made sure their marketing made sure their customers got the message that they were getting something 'better than that consumer trash Intel puts in those crappy Dell boxes.' When that line of marketing failed they shifted gears and are now saying 'Intel is THE name brand in processors and it's Inside every Mac. And of course a Mac is still going to be so much better than those crappy Dell boxes.'
It isn't really about having better tech, we who read slashdot and actually care about tech make up a small amount of the market. It is about making the customer feel elite enough in owning a Mac they won't mind paying the premium to get it. Just like people who pay $200 for the Nike shoes and aren't even atheletes or anything, they just want to be seen wearing Nike.
Democrat delenda est
Amazing how X hours after the release there still are plenty of more important stories on the frontpage of http://us.cnn.com/, so this one just can't make it there.
while i expect that intel probably has done soem anti-competative acts, the one argument that can make is a matter of production capabilities. AMD, simply can't produce as many CPus as Intel can. they coudl argue that this is the main reason for companies pickign Intel.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Grammar, something that morons don't bother learning.
Thanks for trolling, but as many wonder, I will explain.
Libertarian socialism is an aim. I aim for management of the common good in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority.
The principles of libertarian socialism make it partially incompatable with our current societial structure. Property rights are as such now that I could not give up all my possessions and continue to live any sort of reasonable existence. In t his case, living beats out political philosophy. Furthermore, under most forms of libertarian socialism, you can still use objects as your own, but you can't technically own them (see Kibbutz, Gift economy).
The Consumer Loses
What a superficial, naive analysis.
If two competitors are trying for your dollars, they can choose to price their products competitively, ensure that they have the best product, market extensively, or pursue other customer experience factors to earn your business. This is good, constructive competition.
What we're talking about here, though, is a firm limiting your ability to buy the competitor at all. Doing this by forcefully strong arming the middle-man (in this case computer manufacturers) into not actually giving you a choice. Only in delusional land is this a win for the consumer. Only in delusional land could you think Intel's "fuzzy math" (some economic agreements intended to stifle competition) somehow end up as better deals for consumers.
Why "former"? Did he get fired?
Because of Windows being the majority, and the rest of the market will want compariblity to this platform, windows can afford to charge more, at the same time using lock in tactic to make sure more windows installed PC will be sold. Which is exactly what this Law is trying to address. The fact that there are some competition surviving have nothing to do with the fact that domination of windows combinated with lock in tactic can hurt competition.
But Windows got to be the prevalent OS BECAUSE of competition. MS earned it. It wasn't handed to them. Are you saying that in the US, you should be allowed to earn a set amount of money, and everything you make after that, you have to give up? If so, how is that determined, and whose job is it? And, how is punishing a company for being successful a good thing? That sends a message to business owners (such as myself) that says, "You can only be so successful, because after that point, we're taking it away from you".
I don't respond to AC's.
After reading the whole AMD filling, I'm starting to doubt if the Tyan Tiger S2875 and the S2875S aren't dual core ready because of a/an Intel "quota" requirement... if so, i'm thoroughly pissed off at intel now. Looking at Tyna's lineup, there are other opteron boards not dual core compatible, and just as many that are according to this: http://www.tyan.com/support/html/cpu_athlon_duron_ opteron.html
I can't seem to find a particular pattern that might say the S2875 should be dual core ready, and I don't know if Tyan is a staunch AMD supporter, it seems like it is (it also seems like anyone would have to be to put up with Intel and AMD at the same time, from the full brief I read).
This is all I can find other than emailing Tyan myself: http://forums.amd.com/lofiversion/index.php/t45729 .html
BTW, I have the Tyan Tiger K8W S2875
"You can only be so successful, because after that point, we're taking it away from you".
Exactly.
New industries will continue to come up, and government will continues to punish those who managed to become very successful, simply to allow smaller player to have a better chance. The law itself were never meant to be fair to business. IT is meant to make a fair industries and make it fair to the consumer.
seriously this to me seems like luke skywalker vs darth vadar... i must be a fanboy... or just delusional.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
I called Intel on Friday morning because I had trouble with one of my CPUs in a dual Xeon rig (read: I fried it like a mofo). They offered to replace it immediately, and while listing the serial numbers of my CPUs in the machine, they technician realized that I had different CPU steppings in my server. With his manager's permission, he then offered to send me a replacement with the proper stepping.
The kicker: I received the CPU on Monday, 2 days after I called for it. Meanwhile my defective CPU is still lying there, waiting to be shipped back to Intel...
Not trolling, but I can see that for a bunch of major corporations this level of support will be the difference between purchasing Intel or AMD. Not speed or price neccessarily.
I'm not so sure Theo.
Look at his name. The real Theo is Theo de Raadt, not Theo de Raabt.
You've been suckered.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
How, with out the use of force, do you get people to follow your system?
If AMD don't like Intel's compilers they are free to make their own compiler or work harder on improving gcc, pathscale or whatever instead of whining about it.
This post was made by I, Mojo Trolljo, for you to read that was written by I who is Mojo Trolljo!
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 companies, unsurprisingly, have a hard time knowing where that limit is.
The problem is that the line moves, it's not stationary.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The Intel processor development groups are half in Portland and half in the bay area, an Intel employee told me. Intel's experimental fab group is in Portland, apparently.
Naturally limited choice is a perfectly legitimate thing, because the consumer still benefits. It is artificially limited choice that is bad for the end customer.
So, giving the consumer a wide array of choices is more important than maintaining property rights? Essentially, the gov't is punishing Intel for being successful (by becoming large enough to exert this much pressure on their customers) AMD can benefit. You can't say that this is for the benefit of the customers, because who says that crippling Intel won't raise prices across the board, or decrease quality? 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. In the long run, this is always a bad thing.
1. It dissuades companies (or even individuals) from doing business in the US. At a certain point, your personal property is simply no longer yours. You actually are *penalized* for being successful. If I were running Intel and this case was successful, I'd say, "Fuck you, US", and move all business operations to another country that doesn't penalize success.
2. You're sending the message to companies that may not be as efficient that they can continue, because the gov't will help them out. For all we know, AMD isn't able to compete as well because the CEO's are simply pocketing too much money. Whatever the reason, AMD isn't as successful as a company as Intel, and they stand to benefit from this.
3. The slippery slope. Already, we can see this happening. Intel is in no sense of the word, a monopoly. Yet, the fact that we're even talking about this shows that virtually any company can cry, "no fair" and get a government handout. Our company is somewhat impacted by Petsmart moving in the street. They're a big, successful company. Can I call Petsmart a "monopoly" and sue them for protection?
4. The consumers will be hurt. Sure, in the short run, AMD will do better. Customers will be able to buy Dells with AMD chips (big deal). In the long run, they'll pay more and get poorer quality because the pressure for AMD to perform is lifted. They simply don't have to worry about going under.
I see this as a lose-lose-lose situation for everybody involved, except in the immediate short term.
I don't respond to AC's.
big a c***sucker as MS, maybe even more so yet people on /. seem not to care or even love them.
it's about frigging time this happened. maybe fine them a few billion dollars... nah.. won't happen. it'll be another DOI vs MS. slap on the wrist.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
While it's true that AMD is working Intel over pretty good, Intel still has a large percentage of the market share.
I, for one, hope that changes soon.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
Gone are the days of 486DX4-75 to 100 and P133 to 166 overclockings, when overclocking really made a huge difference. These days the disk, memory latency and bus speed lag much behind, plus the computer is fast enough (it doesn't feel like crawling, though new software is intentionally made bad to support the need for faster), and instead, doing something about the humongous power consumption is what people yearn for. A chip that can be throttled to 500 MHz, and kicked up to 4000 if needed, on the fly, just like your volume control, now that's a cool cool underclocking. By the way the true megahertz on the bus only advanced to about 33 PCI to 133 to 400MHz for RAM, from the uniform 25 or 33MHz bus AND processor speed that the 486DX25 and 486DX33 had. The true megahertz only went to 200 MHz in a decade, the rest are all tricks, like using the falling and rising edge of the clock to get 400 MHz for memory, or using superdeep pipelines to 'technically' call a CPU 3 GHz, when it really ticks at 200 MHz x 15 pipeline stages working at the same time.
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.
I'd rather be cycling.
Anyone care to take a guess at what a successful ruling would mean to AMD in terms of compensatory damages?
Given that AMD has a market cap of less than 7 Billion (compared to Intel's $160 Billion) an award based upon lost marketshare could represent an unprecedented windfall for AMD.
Anybody out there have any idea what the pricetag to Intel might look like?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
If I were AMD, I'd want a pretty dang big settlement. Even then, I might loog twice, because what I'd really want is some sort of injuction-type thing to get these type of actions to stop.
What you say about processor speeds and price points is true. What you fail to realize is that most people just want the most value for their money, not the highest performing proc. If you don't believe me, check out AMD's market share. As an individual informed consumer, I don't much care what enthusiasts are willing to pay - I want the best value for my money, which at the moment is the 820 over the 4200.
Now, consider someone who knows relatively little about computers. Intel has tremendous mindshare among these average Joes. When he see that the lowest priced Intel dual core proc is $250 and the lowest priced AMD dual core proc is $550, what do you think he's going to do?
AMD needs to get their shit together if they really want to compete. That means offering a competitive proc at the same (or lower!) price point as Intel does. I don't care how you try to justify it; this kind of pricing strategy simply will not sell units in the general marketplace.
i agree with you.
who the fuck are other people to say what your business can or cannot do.
i routintely tell my employees to sabotage the factories of our esteemed comptetitors. and i even sanction whacking off a few people in key positions. i also condone kidnap and ransom of our competitors' family members.
frankly, this childish behavior that somehow "businesses have to be moral or legal" is complete and utter bullshit.
grow up motherfuckers.
this is the real world.
if you can't hang with the big dogs, go and suck on your mommy's teets.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
There was no "genocide" - the people were illegally moved off their land by the Botswana government, so the government could sell the diamond-rich land to De Beers (sounds a little familiar considering the recent US 'eminent domain' ruling, doesn't it?). Not quite as bad as genocide, but still completely despicable - wholesale theft.
i didn't realize how many intel shills there are here on /. .
makes you think how many so called "fanboys" really are just shills.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
I worked for Micron when AMD was selling the Althons.
I was part of the product team. We decided what would go into our computers. We were told from above that AMD was out of the question because we would be forced to take a huge hit on pricing from Intel, something we could not afford to do.
AMDs chips were better. Intel forced us to stay with Intel by threatening to pull our rebates which would have ruined the company.
AMD could not compete in that market at all. They couldn't even get into it because it meant the death of the company.
Legal? Moral? Bullshit!
DogDude... If this were a perfect world, this wouldn't be an issue, but it is not. Intel is FORCING companies to use their chips or die. This is unfair. Not only to AMD, but to ANYONE who wants to have a deccent brand-name PC with an AMD chip in it.
From early today until about now (5 PM, -5GMT) AMD's stock has rocketed up to 17.70, over a full dollar in just one business day.
It had previously been declining.
The company who's CEO testified on Microsoft's side in the Windows anti-trust hearings is crying about Intel's unfair practices and I'm supposed to be how sympathetic?
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.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Because you can still sell the competitors products and remain in business.
Duh?
Really, AMD has no choice but to play this now. They provided a bona fide technological coup with their 64 bit extensions, but Intel's market share and AMDs production limitations have kept Intel's predictions accurate -- adoption is slow, mostly just the gamer enthusaists and the server markets are moving 64 bit right now.
But now Intel is threatening to catch up in a serious way with new 64-bit capable processors in full capacity market dump mode. If AMD doesn't firm up its footing, it could lose much of what it has gained.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (usually), but it wouldn't surprise me if I heard that Microsoft and Intel have quietly agreed to hold off the mass shipping of Longhorn until Intel has staked its claim on the mass 64 bit market. It would strike a serious blow, both morally and at the bottom line, for Intel to remain the de facto chip choice for most of the world at something AMD has innovated and developed and shipped first.
I am sitting in my engineering cubicle, and there are no less than 10 CPUs in my cube engaged in various tasks in various boxen. Three are in-house risc based, one is a C3(!), and the other 6 are all Intel x86 32-bit. AMD is trying to establish itself as a viable corporate desktop / workstation contendor before Longhorn leads the corporate world through their next hardware / OS upgrade cycle, and now is the time to make that move, as I can guarantee that 5 years from now, there will still be 10+ cpus in this cube, the question is, whose?
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
But Windows got to be the prevalent OS BECAUSE of competition. MS earned it. It wasn't handed to them.
So far, so good.
Are you saying that in the US, you should be allowed to earn a set amount of money, and everything you make after that, you have to give up? If so, how is that determined, and whose job is it?
I don't see anyone in this thread saying that. Please elaborate.
That sends a message to business owners (such as myself) that says, "You can only be so successful, because after that point, we're taking it away from you".
Taking what away from whom? Taking away Intel's 'right' to use their dominant position to suspend market competition?
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
As an individual informed consumer, I don't much care what enthusiasts are willing to pay - I want the best value for my money, which at the moment is the 820 over the 4200.
If you're interested in value for money, rather than high performance, then why are you insisting on getting a dual-core processor? Won't you get better value for money on a single-core processor?
Now, consider someone who knows relatively little about computers. When he see that the lowest priced Intel dual core proc is $250 and the lowest priced AMD dual core proc is $550, what do you think he's going to do?
He's not even going to make that comparison, because he doesn't know what the hell a dual core processor is. Instead, he's going to look at the processor lineups completely arbitrarily, comparing the numbers after the names rather than any actual benchmarks, and buy whatever looks best value for money on that principle.
No, wait, even that isn't true. What he's really going to do is go down to his local big computer superstore and buy whatever the salesman talks him into thinking he needs. If Intel's anti-competitive practices have ensured that his local computer superstore only sells Intel products, then he's not even going to have the opportunity to compare price/performance between the two brands, because he'll never realise he has the option.
Hence the lawsuit, in fact.
they are on the right track and I support them in this fight against Intel. But it's only the first step in a fight against abusive business practices and monopolies.
For example, I fail to see how AMD is genuine about fair and open competition when it does nothing about Microsoft's monopoly. The anti-trust case against Microsoft was a joke. Not a single mention of how Microsoft has exclusive access to hardware documentation.
As the OpenBSD project notes in its page for the release of OpenBSD 3.7 (song lyrics section), Microsoft receives documentation on chipsets and such years in advance. Not only that, but Microsoft will often be the only receipient of documentation.
Microsoft has a monopoly on "consumer" desktop operating systems because an OS that can't drive the latest gadgets and other hardware gets no support in the mainstream market. OS/2 was far superior to Microsoft DOS, but it died because of the dearth of device drivers.
While AMD is at it with the Intel anti-trust lawsuit, let's see AMD support manufacturers who release programming interface documentation for their chipsets, PCI cards, graphics accelerators and so forth.
The people in suits who run the tech companies need to understand that developers having programming interface docs is not the same as giving out circuit schematics.
Dennis Ritchie tells me of his experiences with Plan 9 development: even with good support from company X, a lot of documentation was flat out wrong. We've got no hope with unavailable or wrong docs.
Let's see graphics cards, sound cards, USB devices, memory controller chipsets, PCI and USB chipsets, scanners, digital cameras, and everything else documented WITHOUT the requirement for ridiculous NDAs.
Let's also see Phoenix Technologies relieved of its cozy little monopoly on BIOSes. LinuxBIOS is far superior to their junk, with one board going from power-on to Bash prompt in just 3 seconds.
How is it that AMD whinges about Intel when they are in bed with Intel and others in the Trecherous Computing scandal? How is it that they do not pressure VIA to release chipset documentation? How is it that they ignore Microsoft's monopoly while harping on about Intel's monopoly and business practises?
It is SHAMEFUL that the Linux and FSF developers either sign NDAs or encourage other developers not to cooperate with those seeking documentation or those pressuring companies to release documentation:
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#37
How can we end Microsoft's monopoly with free software and open source developers turning their backs on everyone else, and with AMD complicit in supporting Microsoft's monopoly?
James Buchanan
Zombie Chief Executive/15th President of the USA
I've already covered this topic to some extent here.
Basically there is no way to get people to follow. You would assume that those who wish to follow that system would do so. Those that don't wish to follow it may leave at any time. The goal isn't to "convert people". The goal is to live according to one's wishes to be free from governmental and corporate control while doing one's part in bettering the community.
Cowboy Neal's?
I for one do not welcome our Intel Overloards!
I think you missed the point. What would your business do if petsmart were to tell its customers that they could have a fifty percent discount only if they avoid doing business with the store were you work?
Intel is not beating AMD by selling superior or cheaper products. Instead they are using their higher market share to manipulate what is offered to the end users.
You sell 980 units of product x per day, down from 990 a day last year.
You sell 20 units of product y per day, up from 10 per day last year.
Company x calls you up on the phone, and tells you that if you don't stop selling product y, they have a bad feeling that the cheque with the money they owe you will end up lost in the mail, and a clerical error might result in your stock will be delayed by a few months, possibly putting you out of business.
This is not the same as Wal-Mart coming into town with cheaper prices. When Wal-Mart comes to town, they come offering the customer deals they can't resist and the market decides. When Intel pulls this kind of shit on their vendors, on the other hand, the customer doesn't get to choose, because when they get to the store, there's no competing product on the shelf TO choose.
If you aren't astroturfing and really can't appreciate the difference between the two situations, you must be fucking retarded.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Actually, it was handed to them by IBM. Which is rather ironic, as IBM might not have handed it to Microsoft but for its own antitrust issues.
I'm quite fond of amd64 and it saddens me to see this. A lawsuit is a sign of weakness. Nothing will come of this, just lost money and time. Intel will still be in great shape, and AMD won't. Very dumb move.
Preponderance of evidence is all that's needed to win in a civil case, actually. Also, only 9 of 12 jurors need to agree that Intel is guilty of anti-trust practices in order for AMD to win the lawsuit.
Meaning: AMD just has to convince 9 jurors more than 50% that Intel is doing bad, naughty things.
I, for one, hope they do.
I'm cancelling my new shipment of new AMD machines as soon as I get to the office this morning.
/pinkie to mouth/ one million AMD desktops.
In that case I am putting in a new shipment order for
It must stroke your ego to think that you are in a position to order computers. To think that people listen to you enough to dump an entire order on your say say.
It must be better than being paid by intel to astroturf on web forums from your mother's basement, the screen reflecting on your palid skin.
meh
"Bug fucking difference" ?
How can your argument stand when you can't even spell a three letter word correctly?
Yours in Christ,
Some Obnoxious Nutcase
Maybe this explains why it's so damn hard to find AMD stuff in Korea?
ATI is pretty uncommon, too.
Actually, they do have a "cause of action", because these practices are discouraging, and sometimes outright preventing, manfacturers from using AMD chips as they would otherwise.
My sig can beat up your sig.
>With longhorn's ever retreating arrival date beginning to actually appear on corporate upgrade path horizons,
I work at one of those 20,000 employee companies and we don't even have an XP upgrade path. For documents , spread sheets, solidworks and SAP the bloat of XP/Longhorn will only slow you down.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
This totally explains why I haven't been able to find many Athlon64 Mobile based laptops. I hope this gives me some more options other than the Acer Ferrari...
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
...Pentium M (I'm typing this on one) is a P3 derivative, not P4.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
- Monopolies are bad.
Which of these 2 exactly do you not agree with?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
I call BS.
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?
No, I don't! What the hell were "some of the Intel guys" doing in a mom and pop computer shop? There's the Intel Business Link, Intel Business Advantage Portal, the Intel this, the Intel that and yes, Intel even have telephones. Intel have many ways to talk to their customers and their customers have many ways to talk to Intel, for everything from orders to support to friendly chats on open source software! Just for laughs, try searching through the linux kernel changelogs for @intel.com when you have a moment.
I simply do not believe Intel would actually send employees at all (let alone ones with the power to hold orders or somehow get defects past QA) to a mom and pop computer shop.
Seriously, next time you feel like trying to tell a lie just because it sounds good, have a think first. On the off chance that you're not spouting pure BS here, why not reveal the name of your friend and his shop? That would at least be:
- another bit of help for AMD (every bit counts, right?)
- good advertising for your friend (who knows how many people might read your comment. there are bound to be a few sympathetic slashdot readers looking to buy AMD systems and living in his area!)
Anyway. I still think you're full of it.
Where did I say or imply that I mistook this commenter to be the Theo? The first thing I did was click on his nickname. His [her?] profile claims a netbsd domain! If I am to address a reply to this persons comment and they have given themselves the name Theo, what should I do, Address them as "dear person masquerading as Mr de Raadt"? Really now, why do you say I am suckered? Its not like I should only reply to comments by certified big name posters.
You call that a troll? I have a whole beltway full of trolls better than that!
that should be "openbsd"
You call that a troll? I have a whole beltway full of trolls better than that!
Sure... except for all the time and money Intel invested to develop the technology behind those patents in the first place!
That is what all the worst violators say. The truth is Intel like Microsoft, has done little innovation, and the ones who did are all broke while Intel now owns their patents and many others of less merit and controls the market. The patents are just another boost to their unwarranted monopoly.
It is all non-competetive, non-merit-based monopoly.
It's what everyone with a patent says. Having worked for/with companies that do genuine R&D, investing lots of time and money in smart people who come up with genuinely new ideas, it's frequently justified, too.
The way patents are implemented may be (OK, let's be fair: blatantly is) seriously flawed in some places, particularly the US, but the underlying principle isn't a bad one. My objections to things like software patents in Europe are because I don't believe the system will function as allegedly intended, after seeing what's happened in the US before, not because I think patents are in themselves a bad idea.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Not his only veto, I can name at least one other Bill he vetoed. He vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Bill. That's just one example. How this got modded up is beyond me...blatantly propagandic and biased. Chrysler was bailed out nearly two decades before the Dymler buyout. Check your facts.
Sure, mod me down too... (flamebait, offtopic, overrated, whatever).
But unless you are bitter b/c you work for AMD, or you own an AMD cpu, or you are an AMD stockholder, etc, then how the hell can you mod the parent as flamebait???
There are many analysts that agree that AMD is just using this opportunity as the least expensive path to publicity. There is a likely chance that all of you "uneducated masses" are being duped. LOL. If so, then what a monumental misuse of the courts and abuse of our capitalism!
But Windows got to be the prevalent OS BECAUSE of competition. MS earned it. It wasn't handed to them. Are you saying that in the US, you should be allowed to earn a set amount of money, and everything you make after that, you have to give up? If so, how is that determined, and whose job is it? And, how is punishing a company for being successful a good thing? That sends a message to business owners (such as myself) that says, "You can only be so successful, because after that point, we're taking it away from you".
The problem is not that MS or Intel earned their success, it is that they are using the success they previously earned to keep other people from being able to even demonstrate how successful their producs are. Assuming AMD's claims to be true, Intel has methodically prevented companies from being able to see if AMD's products are better.
I am not saying that "once you make a certain amount of money, you can't make anymore." Quite the contrary, I'm saying once you make a certain amount of money, you have every right to make even more. You just can't take away someone elses right to make that same money. You take away a company's ability to make the money by providing either a better or a cheaper product (or some combination thereof). You take away a company's right to make money by preventing people from purchasing its product
Why "former"? Did he get fired?
No, he just didn't like the politics.
This is strong criticism from an AC, but not based on fact.
I talk to Intel employees because I meet them socially. I've discussed the issues mentioned extensively with them over the years. You would have a difficult time convincing them they don't live here.
I buy from AMD generally.
I wasn't "shopping online" with Intel. I was visiting a web site for resellers of Intel products.
It's good to discuss these things I think, because at the very least, it might give people with more flexible minds the ammunition necessary to begin caring about how much power they are willing to give the government, and how much freedom they are willing to give away.
I for one am not going to blindly accept that companies should be allowed to tie up my tax money in the courtroom simply because their marketing or business model is secondary to their chief competitor. The free market rules, and the less interference by the government, the better it is for consumers. Let businesses compete! Let the consumer choose! Leave the goddamned government out of it, I say. The government has NEVER given me anything that a business in the free market couldn't give me cheaper, faster, and better.
I think, therefore I doh.
AMD operates their own CPU fab in Dresden, Germany. AFAIK IBM has no direct role in the fabrication of the K8-based processors.
AMD and IBM do work together on developing fabrication technology. But frankly AMD is well beyond IBM in terms of its application. You can't ramp an x86 chip by 100MHz a year and expect to survive.
The whole industry had major problems with 90nm, 300mm wafers and SOI, but IBM slipped more than others. Please do not imply that IBM's gross failure to meet targets implies a similar weakness in AMD.
Basically there is no way to get people to follow. You would assume that those who wish to follow that system would do so. Those that don't wish to follow it may leave at any time. The goal isn't to "convert people". The goal is to live according to one's wishes to be free from governmental and corporate control while doing one's part in bettering the community.
Suppose your society existed...
What makes you think that a person with ambition will simply leave, rather than convert a few people to their side and roll all over the rest of you?
At any rate, even if nobody wants to conquer the rest of you, this philosphy that you are describing seems to promote the idea that it is possible to get a large quantity of human beings to simply contribute to society for no benefit over what the guy next door is getting.
Clearly, the winner in this system (like any socialist system) is the guy who does the least amount of work. Unless you are going to make them work (or leave)... and where is the liberty in that?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I was pretty amused by being tagged flamebait as well, but I just figured it was because alot of people that visit this site are socialists/communists etc that don't understand what freedom really means.
Yes, I can't imagine why you think
Freedom isn't always freedom from rules imposed by a government. Those who formed the first governments, thousands of years ago, were able to oppress people without calling themselves something. They used knives and clubs and took what they wanted. They did this without a police force. They did this without a method for taxation. They did this without a book telling people how to act.
Today, despite what you seem to believe, the biggest threat to liberty is from oppression from the rich and powerful. Even governments are being forced to bend to the will of corporations. You can argue that I'm wrong, but you can't argue that laws like the DMCA were not created for the people. You can't argue that KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON is really happening because the city really wants a mini-mall for socially-minded reasons.
And yes, you can argue that using the state means that it's really government oppression. But that ignores historical precident that says that when the government refuses to intervene, the rich will create their own armies to oppress the people. It wasn't police breaking attempts of workers to unionize in the early part of the last century, it was hired strike-breakers.
The problem with people like you is the same problem with people who think socialist or communist totalitarianism is a good idea -- You ignore that power corrupts, and just taking power away from one group of people won't make the other powerful people accountable to anyone.
This is why the founding fathers of the US are so widely praised. They understood that the government, and therefore the people, must hold the power to prevent oppression while at the same time being accountable and having checks on it's power to prevent the government itself from being oppressive.
Libertarianism is naievete at best on the same scale as communism. At it's worst, it's just the rich deciding that they deserve to be powerful more than anyone else, and that nobody should be allowed to stop them.
It's been a long time.
Sections I.5.13, I.5.14 and J.7.6.
Clearly, the winner in this system (like any socialist system) is the guy who does the least amount of work. Unless you are going to make them work (or leave)... and where is the liberty in that?
Indeed; that would be no better than under the present system - just with a different set of parasites, and the FAQ acknowledges it in Section I.4.14.
If you just want value/$, you're not looking at the $550 OR $250 CPU market. You'll be looking in the single core neighborhood of $80-150 CPUs. I'm not entirely sure why you'll pay extra for dual core, but don't care about the performance per core. It's like having a 10 inch dick that's only half an inch wide. It sounds like something to brag about until you actually put it to use.
AMD's market position is a product of two things. Intel's browbeating and shady deals, and AMD's unwillingness to advertise to the unwashed masses. Intel even has a mystery shopper program that teaches retail PC sellers to push intel machines on everyone as the superior technology. They send in random folks to test you and reward (bribe) salespeople with $100 for pushing intel over AMD. OTOH, AMD commonly sells CPU/mobo combos to sales staff at steep discounts so they can try for themselves. Intel's brand name is so well known that some people actually think they make the whole machine, not just the CPU. AMD is generally thought of as an inferior generic knockoff brand. There are literally people who wouldn't take the AMD 64x2 4800+ over the Intel pentium 4 1.8ghz at the same price.
If you want dual core AMD for $250, get two Athlon-Ms. Stop bitching that they won't make a custom CPU just for your needs, though. Or just wait. Their dual core offerings will drop in price, of course.
You are still a fool. I did not say Intel was only in Santa Clara; the headquarters is there. And i'm sure you learned somewhere along the way that a subset of data is not always a clear indication of the whole situation. all i'm asking is you get your facts straight.
Intel isn't preventing AMD from using their software. They are preventing their own customers -- people who purchased the Intel IPP software -- from getting reasonable performance out of AMD hardware. That is anticompetitive.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
I am looking at the 50 page complaint that AMD filed.
Please tell me their logic is valid...
They claim that Intel is hurting the market with "monopoly prices". They assert Dell is exclusively Intel (and noone will argue with that) I now refer to charts on p.14.
Dell is exclusively Intel. Intel has a monopoly and artificially inflates prices. Dell has is locked to Intel yet has the lowest prices and most compelling products (to the average consumer) and is consequently dominating the market with incredible margins (for the PC world). If Dell, the whore of this PC world, thought it could make money by promising "a free hooker with every PC", believe me they would do it. They would definitely change to AMD if there were a business reason to do it. It has nothing to do with an edge in desktop benchmark numbers.
How can they argue with a straight face that Intel's pricing is monopolistic? Is it too high? If so, then why aren't AMD-only vendors picking up steam? Why can't AMD undercut Intel? Nothing is stopping Toshiba or Sony from abandoning Intel for AMD, except that it would be suicide to try to compete without having an Intel CPU, and it would be suicide to go with such flaky delivery that AMD provides, particularly with their high-end stuff.
There are many reasons, mostly non-technical, why AMD still loses in the market. Now, they abuse our courts in what should be a criminal way in order to reclaim market share. You apparently don't see a problem with this. You apparently think AMD and their $4 billion/year revenue is the "little guy" who is being oppressed by "the man". The fact of the matter is they are miserably managed by a series of whiners who fail to understand why they continue to lose to a smarter, better opponent.
I read the entire PDF, and quite frankly, I think the majority of it is absurd. It reads like a longass commercial. I am convinced it is mostly baseless, mostly exxageration, and mostly going to be dismissed in court. I am convinced AMD will not win this, and it is not because Intel is overwhelmingly powerful. It is because it is a sob story of the monumental money pit that is AMD.
3 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14
Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
4 Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15