Slashdot Mirror
AMD Takes Case To Public, Japan
Kez writes "Following on from Tuesday's post on AMD filing a lawsuit against Intel in the U.S., Reuters is reporting that AMD is claiming damages against Intel K.K. in Japan, over the Japan Fair Trade Commission's recommendation that Intel has violated Japan's Antimonopoloy Act. They are seeking to claim $50million in damages in the High Court and have also filed for damages in the District Court. AMD continue to throw the punches, but will they come out on top?" At the same time, Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that Advanced Micro Devices yesterday ran a
full-page advertisement in several major North American newspapers urging readers to
familiarize themselves with its 48-page
complaint against Intel Corp's alleged anti-competitiveness. By taking its case to the
people in this way, AMD arguably may pique investor interest and raise its market profile.
At the same time, these antics may however lead AMD into a precarious legal position."
From TFS: Um...how is this news? From the Groklaw article referenced in Tuesday's Slashdot article: New day...old news.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I hope AMD wins. Intel wants to make as much money as possible from each small innovation before giving us the next.. see : 64 bit computing
Will the other smaller chipmakers somehow benefit from this? For example, I seem to recall a story about some company or another tanking because they couldn't sell competitive chips anymore. Is this really just an AMD publicity stunt, or do they somehow hope to help the "little guys"?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Good for them. Intel's actions are exactly what anti-monopoly laws were passed to suppress.
Heh, when will it end?
Large corporations, who make most of the money for the U.S.'s economy, are the most-discriminated-against group of people in the world...for being too successful.
Lawsuits are sometimes interpreted as a hallmark of a desperate company. Perhaps things are not looking so rosy for AMD?
Please, AMD do not use this in some SCO-like attempt to pump your stock price. Instead, advertise your products. Let the courts decide whether or not Intel has had an unfair advantage. Mud slinging just makes you look like you are hiding something.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
"Japan's Antimonopoloy Act."
Habayahava mayagayadaya?
""You may not be aware, but Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers -- everyday," read the ad, which mostly is a 350-word letter from AMD chief Hector Ruiz. "Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits."
I thought consumers paid lower prices since Intel charged less to vendors with exclusive contracts?
We need both AMD and Intel in order for innovation and lower prices to remain. If AMD destroys Intel we'll just trade one alleged monopoly for another.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
On the other hand, AMD seems to have done this fairly carefully. They haven't repeated the charges so much as called people's attention to the filings themselves. As the proceedings of the courts are a matter of public interest, that's going to be hard to challenge.
At least, it will be as long as Dr. Ruiz doesn't take Darl McBride as his role model.
[1] For an extreme example, consider SCOX.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
that's not too expensive ...
and I just thought I was searching wrong.
Figures.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
AMD appears to be making a no-holds-barred appeal to the american people and the courts that Intel is bad for them (and by extension, bad for the consumer. Whether that is really true is another story). I find it hard to believe that OEM's are really happy about this. I'm pretty sure that OEM's want to keep a low profile at this point; even if they agree that Intel is using strongarm tactics they will want to wait for the case to progress before they make a stand. I think AMD is digging itself its own grave. AMD is making a stand and is not going to find many allies at its side. As the second article points out, if this suit is unsuccessful, Intel can sue for libel. If they distance themselves from the OEM's, it is very likely the suit will fail.
-everphilski-
Do you honestly believe that if AMD had an inferior product, they wouldnt spin their ads to make it seem better?
Its advertising, get over it.
MythTV skips over these commercials you speak of, and if you dont have a Tivo/MythTV/ReplayTV then you can simply mute the television it like I do.
In stead of watching the commercials over and over... dont.
And in the United States too...
But who will think of soviet russia?
^_^
If the suit fails it is likely that it will be down with AMD. Intel can sue for libel; with such a small market share it is uncertain how much money AMD can cough up. And with a shaken reputation if they do lose, and if Intel does successfully sue for libel... they may not be around much longer.
-everphilski-
What? No pictures of AMDs supposedly cool new case? How will I decide if I'm gonna buy it?
AMD still has the 1337ness card to play.
I wonder if this has anything to do with Apple choosing Intel. It seems that AMD are very jittery lately, just as everyone who's in the know is touting their chips as superior. I mean, who's using whose x64 implementation? What are they so worried about?
It's ridiculous fanboydom like this that makes reading comments too early sickening.
What's best for the consumer is not Intel's death. Intel goign bankrupt will be about as good for anyone as AMD going bankrupt. After all, we can safely assume that Intel's demise would leave AMD as the only major x86 chip maker, and hence give AMD a monopoly over that segment of the processor market.
What promotes growth is competition, both to drive down market prices and provide incentive for innovation and continual progress. Competition is a good thing. Monopolies, whether they were the underdog or not, whether they were evil or not, are bad. With a monopoly, everyone suffers except for the few top brass in the company.
I've always liked AMD processors, because of better performance/price ratios. My last one was an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ or something like that.
Still I think it is a good idea to reserve judgement until all facts are on the table. I would not slam AMD for going to the courts, and I wouldn't slam Intel until we know if AMD's allegations are actually true.
However, know that AMD is NOT a small company. It is in fact a massive multinational company. This is not a David vs. Goliath, it is a giant against an even bigger giant.
In the complaint filed by AMD you will see that Intel KK actually DOES ADMIT that on several occasions complaints brought under the JFTC were actually true. This is NOT SCO-like tactics. It is demonstrable fact.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
NT
Yes, if your competitor uses a monopoly position to crush you.
Is it the case with you ?
Intel, in the interest of not riling the FTC, has been treating AMD with kid gloves, allowing it considerable leeway in infringing on proprietary technology and conducting anticompetitive practices itself.
I suspect with this petulant outburst AMD has obviated any sense at the FTC that it needs protecting.
Intel is going to lay into AMD like a pissed-off mom finally going ballistic at her second husband's spoiled children.
Soviet Russia will think of ... itself
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Well in my not so legal opinon since IANAL, I think AMD has some standing with their suit. However, I do think they are headed down the wrong track by trying to involve the public. It's always been my impression when you have an active law suit going you keep your mouth shut. AMD should take lessons from IBM on how to properly handle the public relations aspect of a law suit.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I hear that old Koreans seem to care deeply for soviet Russia...
Well I don't know the reasoning but let's examine some facts
1. Leading Intel solutions [P4] are worse performers than the AMD32 and AMD64 [the P3 was better than the P4]. The PentiumM is a good runner but the recent AMD processors still take less power and get higher IPCs
2. AMD owns the 64-bit x86 world.
3. The future will be either x86_64 or not x86_* at all.
4. AMD processors are just as reliable and often more so as they generate less heat. Even a two year old AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ 1.8Ghz generates comparable heat to a NEW Intel Celeron 1.4Ghz [both Presarios] and have the same battery life.
5. AMD processors cost less.
6. AMD processors are x86_* compatible.
So coupled with all these facts why would you go with Intel? I seriously doubt it has to do with a technical advantage [specially in the SMP world].
Even the advertising isn't that important as the average computer buyer doesn't really know the difference anyways [hint: Intel commercials are not educational].
So a customer given fair pricing points is probably equally likely to buy an AMD box over an Intel box.
That is, if you had two beige boxes, with identical ram, video, monitor, disk, peripherals and cost you'd probably sell 50% AMD and 50% Intel if you just let the customer pick.
Yet, intel gets more share.
If you think companies like Dell and their "Intel only" sales don't affect marketshare you're a fairly stupid fellow.
But why doesn't Dell sell AMD processors? I doubt it's for technical reasons. They're by and large equally difficult to tech-support as well [I mean really how much tech support do they give for the processor anyways?].
It can't be for pricing reasons because they both RETAIL [I know Dell probably gets discounts which is part of the anti-trust as well] differently in favour of AMD.
Could it be Dell just doesn't want to sell AMD? What does it matter? It gives their customers more choice and more product to sell.
I wonder if it could be that Intel threatens to pull the plug if they include AMD lineups... geez...
That's the whole point. anti-competition means no free market. Dell should be free to buy both AMD and Intel without penalty and let the market decide what product they want.
Right now unless Dell wants to drop their ENTIRE Intel line [which they have marketted extensively] they're totally screwed.
Personally I find it funny. I bought an Athlon X2 4200+ [dual core 2.2Ghz, 2x128KB L1, 2x512KB L2] with a new mobo, GeForce6600 PCI-E card and tax for roughly 1300$.
At the same store the cheapest dual P4 with EM64T cost 1460$ before tax [all prices in CAD].
I'm positive that on all non-DMA tasks my AMDx2 setup will smoke the P4 setup and still cost a 700$ less [the X2 cost me 742$ or so].
Why would a store selling a "gamer box" want to pack a dual-core Intel in there? It doubles the cost of the cpu and gets you a slower box [==less happy customer].
But that's EXACTLY WHAT DELL DOES!!!!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I'm tired of seeing these Dell commercials advertising P4's like they're some Godly device brought to us for beastly processing.
I agree with this. I live in Mexico, and I recently heard a radio commercial advertising intel, with a nationwide famous comedian doing the following dramatization:
"What? Oh no, I can't believe it! The CPU my machine came with... is not Intel! What am I gonna do? My job, my kids' homeworks, why, why!! Why it's not intel!!"
(interpret as: non-intel CPU's are a scam)
After reading several independent tech reports showing how AMD beats the crap out of intel CPU's, I feel so offended when these commercials appear. I mean, commercials should talk about how good your processor is, not how bad the competition's processors are.
This is particularly important here in Mexico City, where a great percentage of computers are custom-made, and AMD's marketshare is not that insignificant.
I don't think AMD is planning to win that much. We all know perfectly well (*cough* MS) that anti trust suits don't do anything. I think AMD wants the world to sit up and take notice that they're being squashed, despite their better technology.
In short, they should probably just fire their entire marketing department; the lawyers are doing a better job.
Hi, I own a small software company (http://www.dreamsyssoft.com/), can I sue my competitors for doing well too????
/. fanboys apparently are *all* experts in anti-trust law. It seems that your competitor doesn't even have to have a monopoly any more. All you have to prove is that they're doing better than you, and the gov't will punish. We saw them to it to MS, we'll see them do it to Intel.
It would seem so... especially since the
I don't respond to AC's.
AMD has plenty of other business besides PC microprocessors. This is just the most high profile business.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Hi, I post on Slashdot, but unlike you, I wasn't born yesterday. Remember when Intel sued the crap out of AMD because they started to cut into their marketshare? No, I guess you don't.
AMD has a pretty big market. They have facilities worth billions, they have thousands of employees, and they sell a crap load of processors and other chips. They're not exactly a desperate company.
But if something like this DID happens (meaning, if Intel did strong-arm the PC makers) would you expect the competition to sit back and take it?
If you were looking for a job, and someone came in and said "if you hire this other guy, we'll give him to you for half price, but if you hire THIS guy, we'll charge you twice for any future people" you'd be pretty hurting. And you'd probably sue. I would.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Yay! Now we're one step closer to AMD destroying Intel. I'm tired of seeing these Dell commercials advertising P4's like they're some Godly device brought to us for beastly processing.
Agreed that Pentium 4's are unimpressive, but Intel doesn't just make processors.
do() || do_not();
So how long before someone goes after Ticketmaster with THEIR monopoly and their OUTRAGEOUS prices? They have much more of a monopoly than Intel...
AMD's action to attempt to make the public aware of Intel's actions may lead to increased awareness for AMD's brand, but brand awareness is definitely not the same thing as an actual "brand".
A brand is essentially how a company is perceived by the public, and if a brand does not have a good image, awareness will only lead to a speedy death. Starbucks, Apple, Harley Davidson and Google have excellent brands which contribute to the factors that make them successful. Dell built trust with customers and created a good image for themselves and now they are producing the most computers out of all the computer manufacturers in North America.
I didn't read the article, but what AMD has to do is decrease public trust in Intel and increase public trust in their brand, which may be difficult for them to do.
...that some are in dark : http://static.thepiratebay.org/sega_response2.txt
I suspect that AMD's lawyers have told them that they can't be sued for libel even if they lose. You can't sue for libel or slander for statements made in court, or in court documents. If AMD just told people to go read the court documents, and didn't actually repeat the potentially libelous claims in those documents, then they can't be touched.
AMD doesn't have the capacity to fill the whole market demand. Getting rid of Intel might well mean the smaller players like VIA became competitive.
I am trolling
AMD does have other product lines but the most profitable is flash. They just spun that business off. Sounds like they are trying to protect it from the possible liability from this stunt.
.sig?
Just my $.02
Psst. Hey buddy, can you spare a
You! Back under your bridge NOW!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
So-called "anti-trust" lawsuits stifle innovation. How can Intel be expected to come out with great products if it is not guaranteed to be allowed to do anything to stay on top? We have to stop socialist liberal Democrat companies like AMD from abusing our legal system to push their communist special interests.
Legislate instead of compete, and try this in the court of public opinion. I thought AMD was gainng market share and making a comeback. Are they so worried about their finances and roadmap that they must resort to this. There may have been a time this case had merit, but everyone except Dell (and Apple) is shipping AMD systems. How effectively did Intel "coerce" these vendors for that to happen? Sounds like AMD is worried about slipping in the near future so they want to cement their gains by using these unsavory tactics.
First, the Apple card is irrellevant. That is more a function of Jobs continuing to limit what is a pretty easily portable OS to ONE architecture and I don't mean the CPU, I mean the motherboard and BIOS. If Jobs would finally get it through his head that Microsoft continuously kick's Apple's arse for, among other reasons, the fact that Apple refuses to position themselves as a software/OS company and tries to straddle the line, which Microsoft has carefully tried to avoid doing since forever. OSX is a good product and it is that which should be driving them. They'd go a lot farther if they went over to the PC hardware side with it. Imagine OSX on a quad 64 bit dual core Opteron SMP board. You can do it with Linux, Windows, BSD, etc. Not OSX because Jobs can never admit he has ever been short of perfectly omnisciently right.
Second, AMD is in no danger of having a sizeable portion of their market taken by Intel and instead AMD has been making inroads into Intel's area with server class CPU offerings and the mobo makers have been making boards for them right along. For instance, that quad 64 bit dual core Opteron SMP board I mentioned above. I'd gladly buy one of these... if I won the lottery.
Third, yes, Intel should NOT be strong-arming anyone and they deserve to be rebuked by the courts for it, but it should be a criminal anti-trust slap and not a civil court slap as it looks more like vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness. "Look at us at AMD not getting enough of Intel's market because Intel is daring to defend themselves through unfair practices! Someone punish Intel for us so we can eat more of the market share!" Yes, I know that this administration isn't likely to do it, and a liberal Democrat administration would do it for politics sake so there's no real morally neutral enforcing the law angle there, sadly. Ideally, we'd need a business-friendly Republican administration to say, "okay, this is just wrong and you need to be called on the carpet for it." I ain't holding my breath so I guess civil court is the only recourse, again, sadly.
AMD already has the paranoid (and hypocritical) anti-corporate geek brigades behind it and has for a long time now. FUD based nonsense hate of Intel for ruling the market of a chipset they pioneered in the first place? Perfectly acceptable. Love of AMD despite them being also a big company? Perfectly acceptable. (Reminds me of the Google thing despite their lack of Linux support) I take all this with a grain of salt. On the merits, I find just the tactics bother me, not that they are actually trying to defend their market share. If AMD had pull themselves, I have ZERO doubt they'd do it themselves.
I'd be happiest if both of them combined all their instruction sets and promulgated a new baseline X86 instruction set. If NEC, Motorola, etc all made compatible chips and the mobo makers made boards for them, it would be better for the consumers' bottom line. Adhering to standards though would be the single most important thing so as not to fark the users and cause all sorts of unavoidable code forking. I don't need sixteen different Windows and Linux builds per type of either, ie, I don't need sixteen different FC4 builds due to processor differences...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
With such a small market share, it's unlikely that Intel can sue for libel. I mean, what are they going to say? "No! Even though we did engage in the practices they're accusing us of, and even though we aren't selling 10x more products just because of our good looks and charm, and even though AMD has put out a comperable, even superior product for the better part of a decade, there is NO TRUTH to these allegations!"
It's been a long time.
Seriously, this is a good thing. I'm sick of people playing monopoly instead of making better products. I love AMD chips. I say more power to them!
Now, how do we go about suing Microsoft (again)? I don't want just media player gone, I want MSN Explorer (Yes, it is included on defualt XP installs) IE, and Outlook off the next version of XP/Longhorn (when it comes out).
I'm sick and disgusted with the quality of computing now days. It needs to change.
Apple is nothing.
There was an article recently that notebooks finally passed PCs in sales. Intel's lockout of AMD is particularly strong in the laptop market, where there are practically no vendors for AMD mobile processors, despite the lower clock and power requirements of the AMD platform relative to the P4 (the Pentium M only recently changed the performance equation there, although it appears that the Pentium M is mostly equivalent to the Athlon architecture clock-for-clock for power consumption).
Futhermore, AMD has gross advantages in speed, and is poised to dominate the desktop and server market if they can just get Intel to back off. If anything, this suit is a stun punch, which will get Intel to stop behaving in an anticompetitive manner while the spotlight is on. If AMD can keep attention on the situation, they can crack into a few major vendors, and if they can get to 30-40% shipment share in several major server vendors, a real possibility with their kick-ass Opteron platforms, then Intel's monopoly may be a moot point.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
The problem that Mr. McBride got into was that he was running around shouting "we've got proof", "MIT mathematicians", "millions of lines of code", and other choice phrases.
This certainly made SCO's statements about needing to do more discovery to levy/prove their charges ring hollow. IBM kept saying if it's a copyright infringement then identify the infringing code. SCO never did.
So, talking to the public shouldn't prejudice the case any they just have to be careful not to have their words thrown back at them in court.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You obviously didn't RTFA, or any newspapers this morning that ran the ad....
"You may not be aware, but Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers -- everyday," read the ad, which mostly is a 350-word letter from AMD chief Hector Ruiz. "Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits."
The ad claims Intel is a monopoly. It says that Intel engages in illegal activities. If Intel is found innocent in the suit, that ad can be considered libel. Consider what else the author of the article has to say:
At the same time, these antics may force AMD into a precarious legal act. If the company's suit were unsuccessful in court, there would be no penalty against AMD. But when it makes those allegations in a public forum, it potentially bears itself to a libel suit from Intel.
"Is this a lawsuit or a publicity stunt?" said Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds. "This is going to make the lawsuit a little less easier to run with... The judge is going to wonder why was being tried in the court of public opinion before it comes to him."
-everphilski-
If AMD made a product that was of interest to anyone but the kids overclocking in their mom's basement...
How about if his competitor has 80% of the market and threatens major supliers if they use the competitors products?
Intel apply things like retroactive incentives (ie we'll give you money back later if you have been good). From one article where they nailed HP: "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."
Also, the Clayton Antitrust Act includes "sales on the condition that the buyer not deal with the seller's competitors. (Section 3)". AMD can quite easily claim that Intel is enforcing vendor lock-in, another major part of anti-trust law.
East Coast Brewers
So coupled with all these facts why would you go with Intel? I seriously doubt it has to do with a technical advantage [specially in the SMP world].
Three reasons: i) chipsets, ii) motherboards and iii) overall case, power supply combo
Supermicro makes fantastic Intel motherboards and cases/power supply combos to go with the motherboards. If I wanted a 1U linux server, I ask my favorite vendor what he would recommend and he invariably finds a Supermicro product that fits like a glove. I cannot find a similar supplier for AMD CPUs.
Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
I work for a medium sized OEM in the southeast USA... Intel pushes us hard to keep AMD off the shelf, but we still sell quite a few (20%+) AMD systems, because those that use them know that they are typically superior products. AMD offers little in the marketing arena, as opposed to Intel's mammoth marketing fund, but still the AMD line grows daily. I don't think that the "down with Intel!!!" crowd has it right, but I won't run Intel gear on my systems either...there has to be balance between innovation and speed, speed and reliability, reliability and cost. Intel needs to rethink it's 80's era IBMesque strategy.
1. Leading Intel solutions [P4] are worse performers than the AMD32 and AMD64 [the P3 was better than the P4]. The PentiumM is a good runner but the recent AMD processors still take less power and get higher IPCs
FACT: The Pentium M is only competing with the Athlon64 in the mobile market, where battery life is king. If you look a the battery life benchamrks, you'll see why people buy Intel there...perfomance means less for most mobile users.
2. AMD owns the 64-bit x86 world.
FACT: Intel has sold more 64-bit enabled Pentium4 processors in the last year than AMD has ever shipped. On what basis do you declare "own?"
3. The future will be either x86_64 or not x86_* at all.
Since Intel has equipped low-end Celerons with this feature, I would agree...
4. AMD processors are just as reliable and often more so as they generate less heat. Even a two year old AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ 1.8Ghz generates comparable heat to a NEW Intel Celeron 1.4Ghz [both Presarios] and have the same battery life.
Apple to apples, please: Celeron is a low-budget part, so it has many of the power-saving features disabled. (They're available in the Pentium M part...which is lower heat...)
5. AMD processors cost less.
Pentium4 XE 840: $999 (in volume) Athlon X2 4800+: $1137 (in volume)
6. AMD processors are x86_* compatible.
Or people wouldn't buy them at all.
What everyone fails to realize is that market share has very little to do with technical superiority and a lot more to do with the ability of a company to match the demands of its customers (OEMs). If you have a solid supply chain for volume parts, you will have more customers than someone who can only supply what those customers needs today. They need you to be able to scale with their growth. It makes sense to choose one or the other, since maintaining two identical competing products complicates your supply chain, and one is almost certain not to seel in favor of the other. Technical superiority only plays a part when one product is better than another by a VERY significant margin (and we all know how fickle benchmarks can be...) Until that happens, keeping with teh same supplier makes sense. So why is Intel ahead? They can push out more wafers than any other chip manufacturer, which leads to lower manufacturing costs, which allows them to match their customer's needs, and rake in the big profits.
And that's the way it supposed to work.
How is publishing a public complaint, to be argued in a public court, "antics"? Kez sounds like a lawyer who doesn't want the public, which pays for the justice system, to do anything but pay the bills, and live with the results. The old system of "public notices" of court actions published in newspapers is quaint, but essential. Especially in producing a public record not directly controlled by the government. Maybe we should all just keep our eyes down, while the experts take care of us?
--
make install -not war
There is a valid technical (and financial) reason for buying Intel. Its called a chipset. Intel markets chipsets supporting their CPUs. AMD, in general doesn't. As a result, people like Dell go for the package deal CPU and chipset. They don't have to depend on a third party to create motherboard support. I think, this more than anything else, was responsible for Apple's decision to go with Intel. One stop shopping, chipset and CPU, from the same manufacturer.
AMD is not going to lose any customers by doing all of the legal stuff and they might actually win some money in settlements and free publicity. AMD should have sued Intel 4 or 5 years ago. I don't know why they waited so long.
Not so. Simply the market changed. AMD wants to focus on advanced, innovative products like their CPUs not on commodity. The Flash memory market recently acuired commodity status so it doesn't fit their business any more.
As you said, it's the marketing. When people think of a PC, the first thing that pops into their head is "pentium *" followed by the stupid jingle every commercial ends with, "ding-ding-ding DING"...
"Dude, you're gettin ripped off!" -Dell boy
Nah, AMD is looking for a settlement which includes agreements by Intel (without admitting any illegal activity) that they will stop their anti-trust violating practices (well, maybe not in those exact words).
It all just looks like a game to hold Intel off a bit, get them to settle with an acceptable agreement to both sides, some money in AMD coffers, then they both go on their merry way.
In my opinion, AMD is doing this because Microsoft is behind them, pushing this action, and promising ongoing support.
This is just one more step in Microsoft's ongoing promotion of AMD, and FUDing of Intel -- a process that has been going on for a few years now. The original trigger for Microsoft's courting of AMD may have been this:
ZDNet: Intel courts Linux developers with Itanium specs
Of course, Microsoft has threatened to do it before, as described in the DOJ Findings of Fact:
> In February 1997, one of Intel's competitors, called AMD, solicited support from Microsoft for its "3DX" technology, which provided sophisticated multimedia support for games. Microsoft's Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: "If Intel has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladly give up supporting this if they would back off from their work on JAVA which is terrible for Intel."
Also note this quote:
> Near the end of March, Allchin sent another message to Gates and Maritz. In it he wrote, "I am positive that we must do a direct attack on Sun (and probably Oracle). . . . Between ourselves and our partners, we can certainly hurt their (certainly Sun's) revenue base. . . . We need to get Intel to help us. Today, they are not."
This second quote, along with the SCO case, shows a pattern of Microsoft coercing its partners into attacking its enemies. Microsoft involvement would also explain why AMD would take this action now, despite the risks.
As those who have been following the action know, Intel has not been playing Microsoft's game for some time now. Microsoft's inability to support new technologies within a reasonable time frame has been holding Intel back, and Intel knows it.
The situation is as follows:
1. Microsoft knows that Intel had a lot more to do with the PC's success than Microsoft did. Intel continuously improved their product, and reduced prices, while Microsoft barely managed to keep up, making poor copies of other companies' software, years late. Microsoft is afraid, correctly, that Intel still has the power to move the industry forward, with Microsoft unable to follow.
2. With the growing acceptance of Linux, Intel no longer has to hold back, while Microsoft catches up (as, for example, when an entire decade passed between the introduction of the 80386, and Microsoft's eventual use of its memory management capabilities). Intel can now move forward with things like 64-bit, multi-core, and parallel CPUs, with the necessary operating system support in place to allow Intel to sell their products. But that OS is going to be Linux, because Microsoft can't improve Windows fast enough to keep up.
3. Intel has made it clear that they are no longer going to be held back by Windows. When Microsoft could not make Windows run efficiently on a 64-bit CPU, it was AMD, not Intel, that compromised their design, and wasted 64-bit CPU real estate in order to add the 32-bit support to overcome Microsoft's weaknesses.
4. In order to stop Linux, Microsoft is trying to decommoditize PC hardware, with hidden interface specs (as described in the Halloween document). NVidia and ATI have gone along with Microsoft, cutting back on their help for Open Source driver developerment (instead, during this embrace stage, providing closed source drivers, and increasingly complex interfaces). AMD has also gone along, for example, when AMD gave Microsoft the necessary information to fix the AMD "Processor Bug," but Linux developers were left out in the cold, until they figured out the problem for themselves. Meanwhile, Intel has comtinued to keep their specs open, even going so far as to release a series of platform specs just for Linux.
5. Intel is now cooperating with Apple, a company that just recently broke out from under Microsoft's thumb. With the availabi
I did RTFA, and this...
...amounts to nothing more than the barest description of the complaint being brought against Intel. In other words this is the same as saying "we acuse Intel of being a monopoly, go read the complaint".
"You may not be aware, but Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers -- everyday," read the ad, which mostly is a 350-word letter from AMD chief Hector Ruiz. "Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits."
If you read the complaint your head would probably spin with some of the allegations against Intel. Granted, the complaint is only AMD's side of the story, but if even half of the allegations are proven, Intel deserves a serious spanking.
What good is innovation if Intel strog-arms OEMs to keep it from getting to market?
AMD has done all the innovation they should need for a while (at least until P4s catch up, if they ever do). The problem is that it's not getting to the consumers. And what's the point of having all this innovation if nobody gets to use it?
You cannot blame any company for volume discounting. Any company that markets a high volume, low margin product will do it to assure they stay profitable. Dell, as a customer, wants cheaper chips so that they can have improved operating and profit margins. It has been mentioned that Dell should sell both processors. Hypothetically, say each company takes half the market share. Then Dell pays more for chips from both companies because the volume discount from either AMD or Intel would not be as great. So Dell doesn't do it.
It should also be mentioned that the last 3 years for computer companies, and tech companies in general was less than stellar. Dell now estimates that within a few years, extending financing to customers will bring in more profits than the money made by actually selling the computer. Lastly, bureaucracy is not the answer to the problem. If AMD thinks that it has the superior product, it needs to prove it in the marketplace. If an AMD chip was twice as fast and half the cost, AMD would have no problem convincing people to switch. As it stands now, to the average joe computer user, any performance advantage in an AMD vs. Intel battle is marginal at best.
It has become very clear that Intel do have special relationships with many companies, builders etc. because you find yourself constantly asking the question "I know AMD chips can do this and they're out there. Where are they?" There's a heavy slant towards Intel chips, especially in laptops, and it's much more than just general supply and demand. Look at HP, Dell and even IBM. They're extremely hesitant to even take any questions on the subject of using AMD chips.
All power to AMD. They make by far the better chips (apart from possibly a very lone Pentium M in a laptop) and they're willing to fight the monopoly and dodgy business practices. Let's face it - if AMD can crack this then there's a hell of a lot of money to be made and Intel would be seriously bloodied.
1. That's business. It's been re-hashed in all of the previous AMD threads.
2. Since when have Slashdotters become such rabid law-following people? DMCA = Bad, Clayton Anti-trust Act = good? WTF?
I don't respond to AC's.
the big guys haven't been buying. AMD has evidence in the form of email from these ;big guys' and much that they are not showing that Intel uses the, 'buy our server chips, exclusively, or you won't get a discount on our desktop chips'.
This sort of tie-in is prohibited in the USA and many other contries. It is anti-competitive in that the big company, Intel, can squeeze the little company, AMD, out of the market for it's superior product by tying sales of another product, the desktop parts, which AMD can not produce in adequate volumes, to NOT buying the server parts, which AMD can supply.
AMD is taking some advantage here though. Look at the timing. By the time this stuff wangles through the courts, AMD will be in a position to supply boocoo server parts from it's new fab.
It's a ballsy move for AMD, but a smart one too.
You'd think all those folks who have been propping up SCO would bail and jump in on this 'legal win is possible and big bux are there when it happens' scene.
Does anyone (especially the Intel haters) remember when AMD's CEO Sanders testified at the Microsoft antitrust trial -- in favor of Microsoft? Even though Microsoft was accused of many of the same things that AMD now charges Intel with, such as bullying suppliers? I guess it's OK to abuse a monopoly position, but only if you add support for someone's processor in your OS.
I wonder if that courtroom appearance will come back to haunt AMD.
Forget the word 'monopoly', since it doesn't mean what you think it means. Let's try the concept called 'competition'.
History shows that free markets work better than any other type of economy. The key is competition. Competition is what provides all of the benefits from free markets.
But there corner cases in 'free' markets where competition is restricted. Maybe those shouldn't be called free markets, but many people wrongly assume that laissez-faire means free market. The key issue is not government involvement, but whether competition is vigorous or supressed.
Companies sometimes try to suppress competition, instead of competing hard. If the company's share of the market is small enough, such suppression will usually fail, as customers switch to other suppliers. But a company with a commanding share may be able to avoid such market-driven correction, and get away with predatory actions.
That's not good. The benefits of a free market come from competition, and any behavior that reduces competition also reduces those benefits. Examples of competition-suppressing actions include collusion (price-fixing), corruption (bribery), and dumping.
So look at Intel's, or Microsoft's, actions and ask yourself whether the customer benefitted from increased competition, or suffered from reduced competition through coercion.
One simple sign of coercion is when dealings between two parties depend on a third party. Intel's prices should depend on how much a company buys from Intel, not how much they buy from AMD. Microsoft's prices for Windows should depend on how many copies of Windows you sell, not how many copies of OS/2, Netware, or Linux you sell.
Pepsi can get away with exclusive contracts, and so can Coca Cola. Both have large, but not commanding, shares of the market. Exclusive contracts are usually not in the customer's interest, but amount of harm that they cause is limited by the presence of substantial competition. Exclusive contracts are an attempt to strangle competition, but the law doesn't try to prevent them when market forces will correct such attempts. The government won't protect you from paying higher prices when you could pay lower prices.
It is when a company has a commanding share of the market that the correction fails, and government action is needed. In fact, it is the evidence that a company CAN get away with anti-competitive behavior that shows that it is a monopoly.
It's good to compete. It's even OK to eliminate a competitor. But it is not legal to eliminate competition, which would be the result of eliminating the only serious competitor. Intel may have crossed that line.
There have been rumors of Intel strongarming tactics for years. Let's settle those once and for all. Would you rather the FTC investigate? I think civil discovery will be far more effective.
I do hope AMD takes the high road and declines to settle under secrecy.
1.) This won't get rid of Intel. At best, it will lower public opinion of them and give AMD a momentary flurry of cash-flow. 2.) AMD has more fab capacity than you are apparently aware. They could have taken on Apple and not hurt at all. 3.) Intel has engaged in illegal business practices. Wheather the courts decide so or not, that is fact.
For a statement to be considered libelous, they typically need to be known or suspected to be false. Given the fact that Intel has already been found guilty by one court of the behaviour they're being accused of, it is very unlikely it would pass the legal standard for libel.
IMHO, this should be a slam dunk case for AMD.
Vs AMD who... doesn't want to make as much money as possible?
Maybe someone here knows the answer to this. when the heck did japan enact antimonpoly legislation?? AFAIK(new) Japan was a breeding ground for monopolies.
The x86 versions of Windows and Linux, the two operating systems that dominate the business and consumer computer worlds, have spawned a huge installed base of Windows- and Linux-compatible application programs that can only run the x86 instruction set. This has given Intel effective ownership of personal computing. Although other microprocessors are offered for sale, the non-x86 microprocessors are not reasonably interchangeable with x86 microprocessors because none can run the x86 Windows or Linux operating systems or the application software written for them.
I found it interesting that Linux no longer runs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, xScale, etc.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
All the while Intel will be forced to release another version of Pentium 4 resulting in a mass riot of slashdotters and fellow geeks tearing down their fabs, and dismanteling the company. (The riots would of course take place before world pease was set into motion)
That's the way I see things at least.
The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.
yeah, if the puppy practices unfair, illegal unethical business behavior, then they should screw the pooch.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
This is so true. What is the major complaint about Apple? It costs too much! When was the last time you heard that about a Windows PC with the blame put on Microsoft? How about never.
Intel should NOT be strong-arming anyone and they deserve to be rebuked by the courts for it, but it should be a criminal anti-trust slap and not a civil court slap as it looks more like vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness.
Do you see the criminal courts doing this? I don't. And until they do, I don't find it vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness to stand up for yourself. I admire it, and wonder why it took them so long.
Now what would happen if the Apple faniatics and the AMD fanboys could ever get together on the same platform?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Ironically, Supermicro makes opteron white box systems and motherboards.
Monarch computing supposedly carries them, relabelled as "Monarch" brand.
Supermicro won't sell them to end users, and apparently won't let anybody advertise them as Supermicro due (presumably) to fear of damaging their relationship with Intel. It seems a weird way to operate unless there is something untoward going on.
reading comments from anonymous coward shills like you IS sickening.
intel clearly broke the law and is going to be screwed by the courts, as they should be.
that you are defending their clearly illegal and most of all immortal/unethical practices tells me you are someone who doesn't care about the facts, so much as you do in promoting illegal monopolies and strong arm tactics for MONEY.
intel will IN NO WAY go bankrupt over this. even if in the end they pay a few billion in fines (which i think is an appropriate ammount considering the damage they've done), they make more than that in a year. the fact that you bring up them going bankrupt is an obvious ploy to distract attention from the real matter. also it helps as an emotional attack (OMG, intel is going bankrupt and now AMD will be a monopoly).
how about you fuck off and die, and let the rest of us live in some semblance of peace.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
(nterpret as: non-intel CPU's are a scam)
Is your son a computer hacker? See number 3.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
It hasn't been rehashed. It's only been you acting like an ass because you own some business. You're a business owner and you think that these actions are okay. You don't think that Microsoft abused its position as a monopoly. I would imagine that you don't think that it's even possible to abuse a position as a monopoly - which means that you're in no position to evaluate the law because you refuse to admit that it exists.
Really, so many of you are caught up in what you believe is right. I doubt anyone who is complaining about this lawsuit has even read the filing. Its in very plain english, and really shows you how Intel has been shafting AMD. Since when has a lawsuit destroyed a company that held a monopoly? Some of you make it seem as this will make Intel go bankrupt. It won't even if AMD wins.
Is that nearer to Tokyo or Osaka?
They say the mind is the first thing to
1. Thats business that anti-trust laws were made to stop.
2. Err, since when does a bunch of slashdotters saying the DMCA is bad mean that Intel can do what they want?
Not that it matters, the point is you don't have to be a monopoly to be breaking anti-trust laws. Just powerful.
And you don't need to be an expert in anti-trust laws to see that taking Intel to court isn't a blatent bad idea. Maybe the courts will find that intel didn't actually cross the line, or maybe they will find them guilty. Either way its not just the fanboys supporting this.
East Coast Brewers
This is so true. What is the major complaint about Apple? It costs too much! When was the last time you heard that about a Windows PC with the blame put on Microsoft? How about never.
Two words:
Microsoft Tax
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
and it's not like they're really looking for a ton of money.
$50 million is not really much to AMD (it's not going to determine if their buisness continues or not).
I think AMD truly believes that Intel is not being fairly competitive and so AMD wants to put a little pressure on Intel to become fair using the courts.
That's about it.
Buy nForce chipsets. I just bought one on the weekend and I didn't even require a kernel change to get it to boot. Changed the network modules around and voila onboard LAN worked fine.
Yeah, dedicated chipsets are good but the VIA and nForce chipsets have always been good.
And you know what, get this
There are VIA ***AND*** nvidia chipsets for AMD processors.
It's called competition! Which is the whole point in the first place.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I say AMD owns it by the fact that any serious person doing work will not buy an Intel given the choice. AMD's performance is just too much higher.
...
...
Cost: You're comparing the entry dual-core Intel to the top of the line [currently] AMD dual core... You don't need 2.4Ghz and 1MB of L2 to match the performance of a P4 3.2Ghz
I know, I own a Prescott 3.2Ghz and my NewCastle 2.2Ghz would beat it in any build test you can throw at it [or bignum or crypto task]. A dual-core 2.2Ghz [e.g. 4200+] would more than be enough to beat a 3.2Ghz dual core [e.g. 840]. So your price comparison is a bit flawed.
The ability for Intel to meet demand is just based on their monopoly. Think about it. For how many years has Intel been the only choice through Intel pressure?
I imagine in the last 3 years alone they probably sold a few dozen million processors alone through Dell. That means at 56$ profit per processor they'd have enough to build a new fabs.
When you add in that Intel processors usually are bundled only with intel chipsets and intel graphics and intel networking
It adds up quickly. I'm sure if Dell went to AMD and said here's two billion dollars build us 50 million athlon64's they'd be more than happy to do it.
The point is that Intel has done things that are anti-competitive [or at least very likely]. It isn't a cry sore-loser thing it's what's best for all.
Think about it. By Intel owning such a large share of the market your ability to go out and pick what is best for YOU is basically neglected. Intel can tell you "if you want a computer you run our processor and you pay our price".
It's not like society would benefit from not having computers so we are forced to buy their processors at their price.
And you could say "well I could just stock AMD and let the chips fall" [pardon the pun] except you're there to make money and stay in business. If intel turns to you and says "stop selling AMD or we stop shipments" you have essentially no choice at this point.
So at the end of the day you pay basically whatever Intel wants for whatever overhyped piece of shit design they can spew on you [hint: P4 should have died on the drawing board...]
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
It's not really marketting. It's choice. If you look at the "ma and pa" computer stores they prominently sell both Intel and AMD because they're not big enough for Intel to push around yet there are enough of them to matter.
When you look at Circuit city, Dell, Compaq, etc... they basically only sell Intel [well Compaq has a few nice AMD laptops].
So it's not really that people are actively looking for Intel [though I'd say there are probably enough] but moreso they just want a puter to play and browse the web with and they're not going to hunt down for a different computer when they don't know much about Intel let alone AMD.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You mean the "our CEO is a big whiner" 1337ness?
Or the "our mobile processors suck" 1337ness?
Or the "we have supply issues at the high-end" 1337ness?
Or perhaps you mean the "we've been taking it up the ass for the past couple years b/c there is no 64-bit version of windows" 1337ness?
Or maybe you mean the "we are not affiliated with Apple" 1337ness?
Or maybe you mean the "we are libeling Intel" 1337ness?
Or maybe you mean the "we are more and more like SCO every day" 1337ness?
Should I continue...?
...is not allowed in California, if you read to p44 (hhaha) it is stated about the California code of conduct for businesses:
"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."
I'm sure most states have a similar clause.
...is not allowed in California, if you read to p44 (hhaha) it is stated about the California code of conduct for businesses:
"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."
I'm sure most states have a similar clause.
Reading the post made it occur to me that whether or not its intentional, this could make for some good PR for AMD. Many of us know how AMD does in benchmarks and in price / performance ratios, but how many of you ended up checking that out or researching on AMD.com? And we are slashdot users. Joe Public might catch wind of this and decide to look into it. What do you think he might buy next? Just a crazy opinion, take it with a grain of salt because I don't have my tin foil hat on now.
lol: You see no door there!
You make me laugh.
:P
"We saw them do it to MS, we'll see them do it to Intel."
That is a load of crap, my friend. MS really was screwing around with OEMs. If I recall correctly, BeOS was trying to get into the OEM market too and Microsoft was forcing everyone to push them out.
Not only that, but why haven't major OEMs included Linux yet? Surely it wouldn't be too hard for them to make their own distribution to include with their own computers; in fact, they could do it at very little cost to themselves. As long as they include a user manual and the source code CDs, as well as making the entire deal a lot more user friendly, they'd be able to make a profit.
Another probable example of AMD getting screwed over is that Intel continues to give Dell discount prices, esp. when Dell threatens to go AMD. Now, if Intel is undercutting themselves to a major manufacturer/distributor (and the manufacturer count is questionable, I know this already) solely to prevent them from using a processor made by a competitor, wouldn't that be considered anticompetitive?
Of course, IANAL. But you're just being an asshole.
If you were looking for a job, and someone came in and said "if you hire this other guy, we'll give him to you for half price, but if you hire THIS guy, we'll charge you twice for any future people" you'd be pretty hurting.
I see you've worked with a union before..
STFU, just my 2 cents...
So coupled with all these facts why would you go with Intel? I seriously doubt it has to do with a technical advantage [specially in the SMP world].
:-)
Why do I go with Intel? Granted, I'm probably an exception in your general argument, but you asked, so I'll answer your question of why I go with Intel every time.
I have one scientific application that I run daily. It relies *heavily* on floating point math. It has been hand-tweaked (and no, not by me) to get every possible speed advantage out of the code...as in hand-coded assembler. And it has been hand-tweaked for both Intel and AMD processors (and can detect which one its on, and select its code accordingly).
And when run on an Intel (P4, not Celeron) processor, it will blow the fuck out of an AMD processor every time. Even if you go a few steps up in the chain and get an AMD processor with a supposed speed advantage. For example, a system with a P4-1600 will slightly beat an Athlon 64-3400.
So for that reason, and that reason alone, I won't even bother with an AMD box. But again, I will concede that I am probably the exception to the rule, and I'm running a specialized application. But you did ask
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
They said that Intel is hurting customers and is bad for the public. Uhh that's slander. Especially if they are found to be wrong. For example if you had a company and one of your competitors put out an add saying that your company was inflating prices and hurting consumers how would you feel? Especially, if you really weren't doing it. For all you know, Intel might be just offering better prices then AMD and AMD is having a hissy fit.
Who says Intel is inflating prices. So if they are inflating the prices why don't you just sell your processors for a fair price? Intel is technically not a monopoly. They are the big guys but they don't run the whole show. Monopolies can only inflate prices when they are actually a monopoly with no competitors. Intel has competitors and thus really can't inflate prices. Just cause one company sells their product at a high price doesn't mean you have to. And "monopoly profits", what the hell is that. That's bullshit. There is no such thing as monopoly profits. Its profit, something all good business's make. They made Intel out to be a monster. I mean, common, if they abused their power so much why would you only sue for 50 million? That's chump change to these guys. It's all bullshit. I don't doubt Intel abuses their power but AMD is full of crap. This is just as much about publicity as it is about monopolies.
Yup. And if Intel is found innocent, that is libel.
-everphilski-
They said that Intel is hurting customers and is bad for the public. Uhh that's slander.
No, that's just the current legal theory of what makes for an illegal monopoly. So as I said above, AMD has not said anything beyond the barest description of the complaint they are bringing, and there is no way that Intel will ever manage to base a libel case on that.
Monopolies can only inflate prices when they are actually a monopoly with no competitors. Intel has competitors and thus really can't inflate prices. Just cause one company sells their product at a high price doesn't mean you have to. And "monopoly profits", what the hell is that. That's bullshit.
The theory of monopoly pricing is old and well established. If you have a monoploy you can set prices higher than they would be in a competitive market. Even an imperfect monopoly can do this.
Just to give an example. Could Dell threaten to dump Intel and go with AMD? No. AMD could not supply the volume that Dell needs. Dell could threaten to go to AMD for some of its supply, but then Intel could threaten to hike the price on the rest because Dell really has no choice about where to go for *most* of its supply. In short, Intel gets to make the price, rather than the market.
If this gets to court there will be no real question about whether Intel has, or had, a monopoly. That part is too obvious. The question will be whether the public has suffered. Between economies of scale, and the effects of limited competition, AMD will have a hard time proving that prices would have been significantly lower in a fully competitive market.
Zuh? Perhaps they mean 'monopori'..?
It seems Japan's looking out for the future; naming it the Anti-Monopoloy act will make sure that certain companies can't defend themselves by claming that "It's not a Monopoly - it's a Monopoloy! There's a difference!".
The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
Though in some respects this seems like AMD is whining, I certainly do not see any evidence of them being in the red.. far from it. They got bucks and are not hurting. Certianly they will not lose any existing customers over this either. The thing is, it is obvious to anyone that something strange is going on when vendors sell little to know AMD chips, despite the fact that test after test shows their chips stomp Intel almost (I said almost) all the time. Their prices are not that much higher if at all.. definately more bang for the buck, and vendors constantly sell higher cost/ended pcs to those that want it. I certainly think that there is unfair and bad business practices going on with Intel, and they deserve to be smacked for it. The fact AMD is doing it civily allows them to collect damages, (which they should be able to if Intel is proven guilty) was smart. Everyone knows that this pathetic adminsitration with the corrupt DoJ wouldnt do anything anyway. And they have nothing to lose. And lets face it... so far the evidence is quite compelling. AMD is not stupid... they watched and decided enough is enough.. Intel needs to pay. And after the Microsoft fiasco.. who can blame them for sueing civily?