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.""

10 of 790 comments (clear)

  1. About time... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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

  2. AMD can't compete? More likely... by The_Isle_of_Mark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:AMD can't compete? More likely... by Iriel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And there's more. While I'm not the expert on this, it seems quite possible that AMD has had this case ready to go for some time now. There was a sudden rush for 64-bit (despite many software shortcomings to suit the architecture), and then the realtively short gap before the dual-cores hit the market. With this kind of CPU war that I've been seeing, it's not only (great | just plain) publicity, but it's well timed. How many of the major online custom PC builders offer the AMD X2? Not as many as the Intel dual-core.

      Methinks, AMD hopes to turn the tide from being the niche market of gamers/power users to a gereral audience.

      I just hope, for thier sake, that this all works out. I hope, for my sake, that an X2 will finally be affordable for me :)

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
  3. Re:No more business from AMD by myrick · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't understand what is wrong with countering one 'business tactic' with another 'business tactic.' If Intel really is strongarming AMD out of the market with illegal rebates and incentives based on how much business a vendor does with AMD, how is it wrong of AMD to start an investigation? If Intel is coloring within the lines, then AMD looks like a desperate struggling beggar, and Intel is all the better for it. But if AMD's allegation are true, then don't they have the right to fair competition?

    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.
  4. Re:Welcome to the new world. by cyclopropene · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you can't compete, legislate!
    You mean litigate? They're not writing the law...
    --
    Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
  5. Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You want Intel software to support AMD?
    When the only difference is changing "if (processor.has(SSE) && !processor.is(AMD))" to "if (processor.has(SSE))", it's not a matter of "Intel's not supporting a competitor" -- it's "Intel's completely fucking AMD in every single possible way imaginable".
  6. Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? by RailGunner · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I want software that claims to support SSE2 optimizations to use those optimizations regradless of whether or not the CPUID = GenuineIntel or not.

    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.)

  7. Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You want Intel software to support AMD?

    Why should they do that?

    Intel software doesn't have to support AMD, but it should not deliberately break on AMD CPUs.
  8. Re:Interesting by jafac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:You want Intel software to support AMD? by hawkbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.