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
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.
Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?
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!
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?
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 :-)
What? A well known secret you say?
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
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?
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?
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...
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!
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,
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/
Intel is their new hero. They'll probably brand AMD as a vile corperation bent on destruction of all things pretty or some garbage like that. :-)
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:
He said a well known serect, which is a perfectly valid pertrefection to the well known affirmatization.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Wow, I just described Wal-Mart.
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?
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.
Which part of your ass did you pull those numbers from?
According to IDC, AMD has only 10% of the CPU market.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19972
... 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-
"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
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!
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...
How many of those AMD systems were overclocked? If you're living in a house of geeks with a dozen homebuilt systems, I can guarantee more than a few will be overclocked. And we all know that it's easier to overclock AMD chips than Intel.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
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
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. "
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.
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!
So you've chosen the company who extorts its marketshare higher, instead.
Nice.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
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.
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.
Q4 2001 (same article) - Intel 80.6%, AMD 18.5%
2002 - Intel 86.8%, AMD 11.6%
2003 - Intel 82.6%, AMD 15.8%
2004 - Intel 81.9%, AMD 15.8%
In 2001 Intel dumped their surplus in Japan and gained some market share that way. Another thing driving the figures is the number of chips in the X-Box. Personally I am surprised by these numbers since I do prefer Intel but find the price range and functionality of AMD to be more appealing to my budget.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
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..."
"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!
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
AMD and Intel should be competing over who has the better product, not over who is better able to lock 3rd party vendors into exclusivity.
In terms of product, AMD DOES compete. But Intel isn't giving them the opportunity and is locking them out of dealing with various companies.
There has to be more than one contestant at a beauty pageant. It's not real competition if one of the contestents is preventing the other contestents from participating in the contest.
Better chip in what way? AMD has basically held the IPC crown since the K7 came out. Now with the AMD64's they not only hold the IPC crown [very firmly] but the power-efficiency crown.
Are you talking about cost? AMD chips costs less.
I'm sure if you went out and signed a multi-billion dollar with AMD they'd consider a new fabs [e.g. think if Dell+Compaq+Sony for instance all went to AMD for the next set of desktops/laptops].
Intel is no way the leader in efficient and powerful processor design anymore.
Put it this way, my AMDx2 4200+ [which I bought on the weekend] is idling now at around 29C in a 21C room. That's two cores at 2.2Ghz.
Intel at it's best with the P4 can't even come close to that. Under full load my X2 hits around 45C with both cores going. The intel single core chips routinely hit 50-55C at full load.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Well, Intel WOULD be preventing AMD from competing if they say, hijacked their trucks, or threatened AMD employees directly. As it is, they're convincing vendors NOT to carry AMD products. And, they apparently offer products that offer a lot of value to the vendors, so vendors are choosing to no carry AMD products apparently (I've seen no sign of this from my end as a consumer... I can get AMD stuff anywhere). I have vendors every day trying to convince me to carry their product instead of somebody else's. Intel simply has a lot to offer, so they get to use that weight accordingly. That's what happens when you're successful. I take choice away from customers, too, whenever I decide not to carry a product because I don't like, say, the terms, the pricing, or even the sales person. Does that make ME a bad person? No. I'm yet another vendor that chooses to carry or not to carry various products based on all sorts of criteria. Some of those criteria are financial, some aren't. I fail to see the difference.
I don't respond to AC's.
(I've seen no sign of this from my end as a consumer... I can get AMD stuff anywhere).
Yeah, you can get it anywhere, EXCEPT from the biggest vendor of PCs in the world: DELL. So while joe-schmoe, I want to buy a Dell computer cause it's simple to do, browses around the DELL website, he's not being offered the option of having an AMD processor is his box.
The real question is: Would Dell sell AMD boxes if they were not at risk of being charged more by Intel? Considering the amount of volume they do, the cost of changing their assembly lines to have processor/motherboard swaps is negligable. It would probably make them more money in the end because they could sell cheaper computers and thus more volume.
To continue the beauty pageant analogy. Intel isn't locking out AMD by pouring acid on AMD's body or flattening AMD's tires. Intel is boning the judges and the contest administrators to prevent AMD from entering the door.
If Intel's product is truly of value and has intrinsic worth then Intel would not need to prevent its competitors from displaying their wares. The prize bull at the country fair doesn't get to be the prize bull by having no competition. You need your crappy competitors present so that your benefits can be highlighted to the consumer. The problem is, AMD isn't crappy. Right now, AMD is the prize bull. It's Intel that is worried about appearing crappy next to AMD.
Whether you flatten your opponents tires or you prevent them from even entering the market place doesn't matter. You've prevented the consumer from having a real choice in the matter. That is what is unfair about the situation. The people buying Dell computers don't have an option to put AMD in their boxes. I think Dell would sell AMD computers if Intel wouldn't change their pricing scheme.
I decide not to carry a product because I don't like, say, the terms, the pricing, or even the sales person. Does that make ME a bad person? No.
You're right here. But this isn't the situation we're talking about. If Dell doesn't like the terms with AMD, then they can choose not to sell AMD. However the terms with AMD are being influenced by Intel and thus it's not a pure relationship between Dell and AMD. This is the whole point. Intel is influencing business transactions between other companies. Philosophically, I think the transaction should go through or not go through based on the merits of the transaction by itself, not based on whether this transaction will cause other transactions to become more expensive.
Intel clearly does not want the general consumer to have easy access to a choice in processors.
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.
Thanks for the thought out reply... the thing is that what about grocery stores? Every square inch of shelf space is critical (as it is in our store), so manufacturers will do whatever it takes to get shelf space in the store. Obviously, a grocery store, even a giant, nasty Wal-Mart one, can't carry everything, so they're going to pick and choose what they offer to sell. Now this may very well be influenced by rebates, etc. Often, it comes with terms such as "carry our entire line, and we'll give you a x% discount". Well, clearly, in order for that to happen, somebody is going to have to get bumped. So in essence, the same thing happens there on a daily basis.
And true, if the consumer wants to buy a Dell, they have to get one with an Intel chip (I'm assuming this is true... I haven't bought a Dell in a loooooong time). But what's to prevent the consumer from going to another vendor? Dell made their choice to stick with Intel only. So a customer who likes AMD chips can't buy at Dell. It's not so much a loss for AMD, as it is for Dell. If AMD is truly that valuable (and I have no idea... I haven't cared about chips until this case, and now I just won't buy AMD on principle), then why won't that consumer just buy an AMd machine elsewhere? Hell, I can go down to Best Buy, Staples, Wal-Mart, my local shop (where I actually do spend my money), etc. to get an AMD-based computer from somebody else.
The consumer certainly has no right to buy a Dell machine with an AMD chip in it any more than I have a right to buy a Ford truck with Toyo Tires. Ford doesn't have any responsibility to offer me a truck with Toyo tires, either.
So then, are you saying that AMD has a right to sell chips to Dell? I contend that they still DO have that right, but of course Dell may not choose to buy from AMD. Now what's the difference between Dell not buying AMD because Intel gives them a massive volume discount, making them cheaper than AMD, and Intel NOT giving them a volume discount because they also sell AMD's? I think it's splitting hairs, and certainly doesn't require any sort of government intervention.
I don't respond to AC's.
AMD get's much of it's FAB technology from IMB, they invented SOI and the first to introduce Copper interconnects. Something AMD licensed from IBM, so, no AMD has no need to steal from Intel on this front. The reason why Intel rushes to change Fab process I.e. the transition from .18 to .13 to .09, etc ... was because they have to, traditionally there CPU's ran hotter and consumed more power. This was due to Intels fondness for deeper pipelines, which allowed for easy scaling of frequency, but increased heat and power consumption. Intel pushed the MHz=power argument, although, it wasn't the case just part of the story so they had to keep shrinking quickly. AMD traditionally used the "smart-cpu" philosophy more efficient processing at the expense of easy frequency scaling. So, AMD had no need to shrink manufacturing process as quickly because they had a better designed CPU.
Prime Example, remember the Athlon was the first to hit 1GHz. Intel said they'd hit 1GHz to, but we never saw a P3 with that frequency until the copermine some 5 months after the announcement, because, Intel needed a die shrink to counteract the heat the P3 would produce and power a P3 1GHz would consume at that frequency.
The die shrinks had to do with neccessity for Intel, AMD could just as easily do the same thing, but they don't need or want to. Hence, they mature their process, why, do you think they moved of the time table for x2 athlon desktop processors by almost 3 months, their shrink to 90mm transistors went very well because they technology matured, no need to rush.
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.
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.
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.