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
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?
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
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.
Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
This does sound pretty damning, but I still want to hear Intel's side of this story. Personally, I've always preferred AMD chips over Intel chips, and I think that if AMD is successful here, it will do great things for that company. I will, however, take these claims with a grain of salt. Many people identify with AMD as the underdog with an undersung product (I sure do), and are often quick to side with them. Intel may have legitimate reasons behind all of their business practices, and since these comments and 'facts' have come through what I like to call "the AMD filter," I would like to see the story through "the Intel filter" as well. Perhaps then we will be able to see glimmers of the truth, and be able to decide fairly if Intel really did overstep their bounds. I know who I'm rooting for, but it doesn't make it any less important to gather the facts.
I'd rather be cycling.
"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
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.
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.
Nowhere on the IPP package does it say that it won't use optimized code. If someone wasn't a developer like I am, they might have just thought (incorrectly) that AMD chips are slower than Intel. This is false, as when I hand write the assembly code and use SSE2 the Opteron, even at 2.2 Ghz, blows the doors off of a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4 Xeon - and that's just 32 bit instructions. I haven't finished porting my code to 64 bit, and then I suspect that it'll be even more of a massacre in AMD's favor.
Yes, image processing is more memory bound than CPU bound, but for things like jpeg compression the CPU matters. (And since the memory controller is ON the Opteron, it ends up absolutely rocking for image processing.)
It makes me sad to say this, but in the current political climate within the US, I don't think that any of this (what you're asking for) is going to happen.
Much of the late-90's dotcom boom was predicated on the 1996 PSLR Act. This act was Clinton's ONLY Veto, over a Republican Congress, and they overrode him on it. This law opened the floodgates for corporate accounting fraud and corruption on an unprecedented scale, and only a very few of the criminals were ever caught or punished, including Enron, Worldcom, Citibank, Krispy Kreme, Arthur Anderson, Veritas, AOL, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The ones who were punished were given very minor slaps on the wrist, as a token gesture during a very brief era of symbolic regulatory tightening that began in late 2001, and ended recently with the appointment of Cox as SEC head.
Cox was the criminal bastard who WROTE the PSLR Act. So the brief era of symbolic regulatory tightening on oversight of corporate accounting practices has ended. It is now open season on shareholders, and especially consumers. I predict that this AMD action will go about as far as Netscapes complaint against Microsoft. A long, drawn out, and profitably-entertaining courtroom drama, AMD will falter and die, somewhere along the way, and in the end, a slap on the wrist for Intel.
Some of the folks who support this kind of wild-west business climate simply have a loyalty to their rich crony-capitalist buddies. Others have a more nationalistic ideology (They're an American company, we have to protect them so they can compete internationally - look what's happened to Boeing, they're effectively a jumbo-jet monopoly, but they're getting their asses handed to them by Airbus). In the end, companies like Intel, or Boeing, end up with no competition - and of course, it makes them still weaker. You think the Chrysler bail-out by the government had nothing to do with their eventual buy-out by Daimler? Corporate Welfare, whether by direct bailout, deregulation, or preferential treatment, or even special tax breaks, breeds nothing but dependent Corporate Welfare Queens. ONLY competition, in a fair, intelligently regulated marketplace, will breed excellence.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That's the smartest thing I've read on here all day - it's so true. When tech companies specifically break code because it's a competitor, just like Microsoft with IE only pages, it goes to show they can't compete, so they have to resort to intentionally breaking things, which only hurts the consumer.
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.