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."
Good for them. Intel's actions are exactly what anti-monopoly laws were passed to suppress.
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
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
Whether or not this story is "news", there's a pretty clear difference between the two blurbs you cited.
/. - the tidbits of new news.
1. The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) ruled against Intel, saying that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices.
2. AMD decided to claim damages against Intel in Japan, a logical decision seeing that Intel has already been found in violation of the law.
Call me crazy, but Intel being found guilty by the JFTC and AMD claiming damages as a result of that ruling are not the same thing. Perhaps you think that #2 logically follows from #1. But at least as of Tuesday, it hadn't *actually* happened yet.
So for people like me, who are interested in what happens in this case, this is not only news but new news. Which is why I read
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.
Yes, if your competitor uses a monopoly position to crush you.
Is it the case with you ?
Via dying? I'd say it's way too early to start writing an obituary. They're actually expanding their x86 compatible offerings quite a bit at this point, with the recent release of the C7, C7-M, Eden-N, and "Luke" chips. And Hewlett Packard just chose them to power their entire thin client line.
The thing about Via is that they're in a fairly invisible market segment, as far as mainstream computers go. They compete against the Pentium/Celeron M ULV and AMD Geode, not the Pentium IV and Athlon lines.
The industry is only just starting to focus on the issue of power consumption seriously, and the classes of devices where this is a key feature (e.g. tablets and ultraportables) are only just starting to show significant growth.
I have a feeling Via has a lot of untapped potential here. Intel finally coming out with decent low power designs hampers things a but, but Transmeta's exit from the marketplace balances that out somewhat and they still have a very compelling overall platform.
For those that are interested in reading a bit more there are better articles out there such as this one It's a bit negative on AMD but the infor is better.
Hard to believe that one could bully a big company like IBM. Maybe monopolists like to stick together.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Intel's exclusivity contracts make Intel CPUs cheaper for an individual vendor, but presumably, unfettered competition would make it cheaper for everyone.
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.
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.
Dunno if it went that way. Right now, Apple needs intel a lot more than the other way around. I doubt Jobs would have had an intel version of OS X for so long if he hasn't been damn worried about IBM screwing them. I don't think it probably took much convincing from Intel (aside from finances), and I'd think Jobs probably initiated contact.
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
Conventional wisdom was if either Intel or AMD was going to have chips in Macs, it would be AMD for many reason(64-bit chips, collaboration on HyperTransport, image of the most powerful CPUs, etc)
I was under the impression that a big part of Apple's switch away from IBM was due to recurring supply problems in getting enough G3/G4/G5 chips to meet demand. If that really is the case, why would they go and switch to a new vendor that is notorious for supply shortages in their high end offerings, regardless of any technological superiority. I doubt AMD really ever had a chance at that deal, regardless of any tactics Intel may have used.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?