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.
Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?
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(); }
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
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
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...
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/
Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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!
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.