Slashdot Mirror


EU Officials Raid Intel Offices

Eukariote writes "As part of the ongoing antitrust investigations, EU officials have raided Intel offices as well as offices of a number of IT firms manufacturing or selling computers. This follows the recent ruling by Japan's Fair Trade Commission declaring Intel's exclusionary practices illegal as well as the lawsuit filed by AMD."

235 comments

  1. Never been... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." more appropriate...

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Never been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever moderated this "Troll" must be smoking crack.

      Hear that "whooshing" sound? Thats the joke going right over your head...

    2. Re:Never been... by starrsoft · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Lol!

      1. A troll posts a FP.
      2. The mods correctly mod him troll
      3. An AC insinuates ("Hear that "whooshing" sound? Thats the joke going right over your head...") the mods were stupid and missed a joke.
      4. The mods still don't get the "joke" but they don't want people to think that they are so stupid as to not get the joke, so they mod the first troll up.

      Ahh slashdot... *grins and shakes head*

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  2. More Info by starrsoft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's my story submission, which provides some more info, that didn't make the cut:

    starrsoft writes, "Apparently AMD's lawsuit isn't just just a PR stunt, as some have suggested. In related news to today's earlier story about AMD's claims concerning Intel compilers discriminating against AMD, EU regulators raided several of Intel's European offices regarding 'an ongoing competition case.' From the article: 'European antitrust regulators raided Intel Corp. offices Tuesday, two weeks after rival U.S. chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices filed a lawsuit claiming Intel used its market dominance to bully computer makers away from using AMD chips... For more than four years, the EU has been investigating claims that Intel used unfair business practices to persuade clients to buy its microprocessors to the exclusion of rivals' chips.In March, the bloc said it was continuing its probe after a Japanese investigation found that Intel had violated antitrust rules there. The EU cooperated with the Japanese regulators.'

    --
    Read my blog: HansMast.com
    1. Re:More Info by mfloy · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate thing about all this is that even if AMD and the EU prove Intel has been both a monopoly and deceptive, the average computer user won't care at all. They will just be happy their fancy new computer has "Intel Inside".

    2. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it not getting accepted, another editor will see it and post it as a dupe, I'm sure...

    3. Re:More Info by Vodak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe that since Intel has been marketing many different processor types and technologies from Pentium 4, to Hyper Threading, to Centrino the marketing of "Intel Inside" has lost alot of it's luster.

      As such it is my belief that the current way general consumers look at processors are simply price driven and to hell with preformance.. be it AMD, Intel, or anyone else for that matter.

      We are in the world of 299 PCs... The new game systems will cost more then a end user PC platform.

    4. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the average computer user won't care at all

      So all Intel users are average computer users? I'm sure some professionel computer users do not care that it has "Intel Inside". Oh wait. Actually it might be that they do not care to have "AMD Inside".

      /flamebait.

    5. Re:More Info by str8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not a PR stunt? I think so.

      The article states that while the investigation has been going on for 4 years, two years ago they decided that there wasn't enough evidence to persue Intel. AMD still didn't drop the complaint so now that AMD is grabbing all the PR they can, the EU is searching (again) for evidence to support AMD's claim.

      I wouldn't call this a raid any more than picking up my order from Pizza Hut would be called a "Pizza Raid". Exciting text gets eyeballs.

      Psst, Hey buddy, Can you spare a .sig?

    6. Re:More Info by PhoenixPath · · Score: 2, Funny
      The EU is looking for evidence due to the Japanese investigation and the finding that Intel was in violation. They are now able to get a hold of all the documents from that ruling and it also gives them more effective reasoning for conducting the 'raids' mentioned above. They now feel they have a stronger case.

      The EU has been going after monopolies like a rabid dog lately with MS. It makes perfect sense they'd target Intel now that the MS thing has basically been resolved.

    7. Re:More Info by ccarson · · Score: 1

      Current customers buy ready built machines from Dell, Gateway, etc. They know they don't have to think about Intel vs. AMD. They just have to pay a rock bottom price and get a reliable machine. That reliable machine comes with an Intel CPU so in the end, this doesn't matter. The market dictates the future of Intel...

    8. Re:More Info by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "We are in the world of 299 PCs... The new game systems will cost more then a end user PC platform."

      But those $299 PCs won't have:

      1. Gigabit ethernet built-in.

      2. Won't export 1080p video.

      3. Won't have a Blu-Ray drive standard.

      4. Won't have decent WIFI from the start.

      5. Won't have a bundled Bluetooth based gamepad.

      6. Won't have a decent videocard included.

      So yeah, there are reasons why the new console (I'm referencing the PS3, btw) won't debut at the $299 MSRP.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    9. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, nobody said the PC would be better. Just that, for the first time ever, the "toy" (a PS3) will cost more than the "serious tool" (a PC). Compare this to the 1990s, when the average PC cost $1500 and the average game console was $200! Remember the shock when the first sub-$1000 PC appeared? And the first sub-$500 PC? Now, in a few years, we're likely going to see the first super-$500 console...

      It's not a comment on which is "better" for anything at all. It's just an interesting and unexpected development.

    10. Re:More Info by kenneth_martens · · Score: 1
      It is my belief that the current way general consumers look at processors are simply price driven and to hell with preformance.. be it AMD, Intel, or anyone else for that matter.
      I disagree. A few months ago an intelligent but not computer-savvy friend asked for my advice on buying a new PC. His biggest question was "If I buy a non-Intel processor, what sort of compatibility problems will I have? And are those other chips reliable?" I assured him that 1) he would have no compatibility problems, and 2) AMD chips are quite reliable.

      So you see, the Intel Inside advertising is still effective. The fact that my friend had to ask if non-Intel were compatible means Intel has already won.
    11. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The EU has been going after monopolies like a rabid dog lately with MS

      You forgot "American" before one of your nouns. The government monopolies don't like competition, that's all.

    12. Re:More Info by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      And Joe-Sixpack who buys his computer because he hears about all the great potential porn he can download from his buddies at work really cares about any of those things?

      Like the other poster said, nobody said that the computer was better than the PS3.

    13. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given my trust in Sony I might be surprised to see that stuff in the PS3 too.

    14. Re:More Info by dotgain · · Score: 1
      Since by the time your writeup is squished between the ads it'd take up three quarters of a page, I wouldn't be surprised they didn't run it. Cut out half or more of the text and you'd get another look.

      Not that there's anything majorly wrong with your writeup, it's just that a lot of folk don't like long runs of text.

    15. Re:More Info by starrsoft · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the constructive criticism!

      Please note that I wasn't trying to complain or anything, I just thought that my version had some interesting angles and provided an article summary and thus would be helpful in addition to the posted story.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    16. Re:More Info by jmoriarty · · Score: 1

      ...the marketing of "Intel Inside" has lost alot of it's luster.

      That is an incorrect assumption. The Interbrand survey for 2004 for top global brands put Intel at #5 with a brand value of $33.5 Billion. This is pure brand value completely apart from any product sales.

      Saying "Intel Inside" still has enormous value in the marketplace.

    17. Re:More Info by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      That's because PCs have become commodity hardware. The good news is, you can now get more than enough computing power for most home consumer tasks for about 300 dollars, which is actually pretty cool.

    18. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you 1 reason why you will see all that stuff in the PS3

      X-Box

    19. Re:More Info by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, the reason that that game console only sells for three or four hundred dollars is that the manufacturer sells it for way under cost in the expectation of recouping the loss in game sales. When Wal-Mart sells you that $299 desktop machine it doesn't expect that it will receive any future revenue from it. Sure, they may sell you some blank CDs or some printer paper, but that's about it. This is also the reason why Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are absolutely dead set against anyone wanting to "mod" their products or use them for any purpose other than gaming. The guy that buys an XBox and hacks some Linux variant onto it and never buys a game cart is just costing them money. They really aren't in the business of selling hardware, they're in the business of selling game software and they really, really want that lock-in since it's the only way they can actually make a profit on the box. Or so they tell us, anyway. I haven't actually seen a profit-and-loss statement from Sony or Microsoft, but that at least is the public rationalization they give for coming down on mod-chip makers and hardware hackers.

      Now, the problem with that, in my mind, is this: it's my goddamn property because I bought it from you and this idea that a vendor has some intrinsic right to determine the use of something that he sold and thus no longer owns is ridiculous. That's slowly getting enshrined in law, and that's going to cause problems, because really it distorts what constitutes ownership. That's already been skewed when it comes to owning property ... just try not paying your property taxes one year and just see how long your "property" stays yours.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    20. Re:More Info by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Wait 2 years.

    21. Re:More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The American EU" ... hrm. If you were specific to the UK, that might make some sense, but not the EU as a whole.

      "...like a(n) American rabid dog..." ... I don't think America (the USA anyway) go after monopolies very effectively at all - not lately anyway. The slap on the wrist they gave Microsoft isn't what I would call 'rabid dog' behaviour. No, the USA deal with monopolies like a dog on heat - ie they're just dieing to get shafted.

      "...a rabid dog lately with American MS." What is a 'dog with MS', American or otherwise, anyway?

      Oh, you meant, "American monolopies". You probably meant ones based in the USA. Well, I'm not sure if they care it's American (whether in the United States, or other parts *OF* America) or not. Of course, they do care that it's not an EU-based company. I don't think they're specifically biased against US-based companies.

      Are they looking after their own? I should hope so. How would it be expected to compete with other places that do the same, such as the USA, to name but one?

    22. Re:More Info by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      That's already been skewed when it comes to owning property ... just try not paying your property taxes one year and just see how long your "property" stays yours.

      That's already part of the law. "Real estate" isn't so named because it's "not artificial"; rather, "real" comes from "royal", meaning that the land you're inhabiting is owned by the king.

      Once you get your mind around that concept, the idea of losing your "real estate" for not paying property taxes makes more sense. Of course, having to pay taxes in the first place is the reason we dumped tea, and over a 3% tax, not the > 50% taxes we currently pay in the USA!

      So I agree with you in spirit, but in this world I'll pay my taxes.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    23. Re:More Info by karthik_r085 · · Score: 1

      intel inside, idiot outside.

  3. Compilers by mfloy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if they are going to pick up a copy of the source for the compilers. That could be a nice boost for AMD's claims.

    1. Re:Compilers by Trigun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets just hope they do to it what the lawyers did to CSS, and put it in public record. That'll learn'em!

    2. Re:Compilers by utnow · · Score: 0

      When I first read this I couldn't figure out why you were talking about lawyers putting cascading style sheets on the public record. ;)

    3. Re:Compilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey,

      they don't need to pick up a copy of the source
      for the compilers. It's sufficient to show that a
      given source tree compiled with the Intel compiler
      performs bad on AMD processors.
      I guess the need to disassemble the compiled code
      to prove that there is deliberate branching that
      can not be explained in a normal way, ie.
      conditional references to the CPUID

  4. Microsoft style case by Space_Balls · · Score: 1

    Looks like we are going to see another Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe?

    --
    this.showSig(false)
    1. Re:Microsoft style case by starrsoft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe" = Slap on the wrist, with some teensy, little restrictions that the prosecuted company can easily get around

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    2. Re:Microsoft style case by Space_Balls · · Score: 1

      exactly ;)

      --
      this.showSig(false)
    3. Re:Microsoft style case by b0wl0fud0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was a similar case brought against Pillsbury by Ben & Jerry's which more closely mirrors the case between AMD and Intel. Pillsbury (who own Haagen-Daz) were trying to drive Ben & Jerry's out of the premium ice cream market by refusing to sell products to stores giving freezer space to Ben & Jerry's. Ben & Jerry took Pillsbury to court and eventually won the case, forcing Pillsbury to pay damages and to allow Ben & Jerry's to be sold next to Haagen-Daz.

    4. Re:Microsoft style case by PHP+Addict · · Score: 1
      I think you mean...

      exactly :(

      --
      Laziness, check. Impatience, check. Hubris, double check!
    5. Re:Microsoft style case by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      But think of Pillsbury's perspective: who would want to buy Haagen-Daz when you can buy Ben & Jerry's?

    6. Re:Microsoft style case by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Ben and Jerry's doesn't do Bailey's ice cream :D

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    7. Re:Microsoft style case by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      "Looks like we are going to see another Microsoft antitrust style case in Europe?"

      You bet!

      Only the outcome will not be the same, because
      the Dubya regime doesn't yet rule Europe. The
      only thing that saved MSFT (IMHO) from being
      sliced-and-diced, Cusinart-style, was the MSFT
      lawyers' court delays until a change in venue
      (ie. a change in administrations).

    8. Re:Microsoft style case by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1
      Pillsbury (who own Haagen-Daz) were trying to drive Ben & Jerry's out of the premium ice cream market by refusing to sell products to stores giving freezer space to Ben & Jerry's.
      This doesn't just happen with the big guy vs. the little guy. There was a guy I used to work with who managed a pizza place. They had a refrigerator case from Coke (big Coke logo on the side for advertising) in the store. He did keep a few Pepsi products in the case because some of their customers preferred them. When the Coke rep was in one day, he told them that they can't keep any Pepsi products in there. The manager said, "Fine, have your guys come pick up your case. I will call Pepsi, and I don't think they will have a problem giving us a case and letting us keep a few Coke products in there." The Coke rep backed down because they didn't want to lose the free advertising.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  5. Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even though the wording of the last sentence in the blurb is misleading as it seems to mean that AMD's lawsuit was ruled illegal by the JFTC:

    Bruce Sewell, vice president and general counsel for Intel, said: "One of the core principles of competition policy is the notion that such policies should be based on sound economics. There is a broad consensus that competition regulators should only intervene where there is evidence of harm to consumers. It is apparent the JFTC's Recommendation did not sufficiently weigh these important principles."

    So, chips that *could* be faster (if companies were not using Intel compilers), less expensive, and have other better qualities (heat, size, etc), isn't good for consumers? Sorry to say Bruce, but obviously no one believes you.

    Anticompetitive strongarming via financial kickbacks is probably only good for Intel's market position and the companies that are selling Intel-based machines regardless of what your and your company's spin is. Unless you can, without a shred of doubt or lies, prove otherwise, I really suggest you just shutup and comply.

    Personally, I want to see Intel give back to consumers directly. Anyone who has purchased an Intel machine since AMD's introduction to the market should be given a large rebate and I'm not talking about settlements like $13.55 check or shipping mass quantities of unwanted product to schools. I don't want to see AMD get any money out of this as it will do little for the market's consumers who had to deal with the anti-competitive behavior just as much as AMD did (if not more).

    1. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the U.S. could sue Intel, and then the money would be going back to consumers in a way.

      Of course, that'd be asking the AG of a big-business friendly administration to sue a very large corporation for something they call the "free market." (Free as in, the bigger the corporation the more free it is for you and the less free it is for everyone else)

    2. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree. Breaking Intel's stranglehold on OEMs and suppliers would be all the benefit AMD needs. They're positive on the balance sheet, they have good parts, and they're preparing another fab. Sending them loads of cash would of course make them happy, but giving computer makers free reign to use AMD parts is all they need.

      Consumers have suffered a lot from Intel's monopoly, and they should be the ones directly compensated.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Donny+Smith · · Score: 0

      >So, chips that *could* be faster (if companies were not using Intel compilers), less expensive, and have other better qualities (heat, size, etc), isn't good for consumers?

      FYI, Intel's compilers do NOT support AMD's processors.

      >Anticompetitive strongarming via financial kickbacks

      Financial kickbacks (to h/w makers, presumably) just lower cost of Intel processors.

      >is probably only good for Intel's market position and the companies that are selling Intel-based machines regardless of what your and your company's spin is.

      Another way to look at it - Intel's behavior makes AMD have to really lower their prices in order to get people to sell their stuff, which is great for the customers.

      In any case, several independent analysts have predicted AMD's lawsuit is most likely without merit.

      >Anyone who has purchased an Intel machine since AMD's introduction to the market should be given a large rebate

      Your Honor, you have conflict of interest problem.

    4. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Funny
      Well, the U.S. could sue Intel, and then the money would be going back to consumers in a way.
      ... right - another lawsuit ... just what we really need.

      Time for a new poll - US suing Intel:

      [ ] No thanks, I have enough holes in my head already
      [ ] I couldn't care less
      [ ] I could care less, but I'd REALLY have to work on it
      [ ] Kill all the lawyers and be done with it
      [ ] In the soviet union intel sues cowboyneal's korean granny
      [ ] Free beer
    5. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Intel's real mistake is that they are essential to the industries involved in t=he false "war-on-terror". I like to call them the "Media-Terror-Industrial-Complex".

      This is the covert effort to get Intel in thier game, not as a side-player, but instead a wholly-owned subsidiary. LaGrande will be making all of us shoot the Alcoa stock through the roof, before this is done playing out.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      The American constitution demands that the peoples should have the right not to give a dam. Unfortunately it does not involve anything about Litagatoricide or soviet korean grandmother using Intel e-mails , and worse of all it states nothing about Free Beer.
      The document is obviously worthless

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    7. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      I'm a BIG deal GOVERNMENT! I can do ANYTHING to Intel I WANT!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Isn't this alittle too late. Damage is already done.

      Apple just claimed that are locking into Intel.

      Dell and every other corporate OEM are already locked into Intel.

    9. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hilarious! Why was it modded flamebait?

    10. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was a troll?

    11. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by BaudKarma · · Score: 1

      I doubt Intel will give back to the consumer directly unless someone holds a gun to their head. However, someone did file a Class Action Suit against Intel, so you might get lucky there.

      You'll have to check the details, I stopped reading after I saw the part about it only applying to people who had purchased an Intel processor since 2001.

      --
      It's the land of the brave, and the home of the free
      Where the less you know, the better off you'll be.
    12. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by PhoenixPath · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >FYI, Intel's compilers do NOT support AMD's processors.

      But they *do* support x86. And, even when compiled with the same command line should *not* break when run on an AMD system.

      >Financial kickbacks (to h/w makers, presumably) just lower cost of Intel processors.

      And force exclusivity agreements on the vendors ensuring AMD cannot compete on the same level.

      >Another way to look at it - Intel's behavior makes AMD have to really lower their prices in order to get people to sell their stuff, which is great for the customers.

      Thus making them uncompetitive due to lack of funds for R&D because of low/non-existant profit-margins.

      >In any case, several independent analysts have predicted AMD's lawsuit is most likely without merit.

      Yet Japan found them in violation of their anti-trust rules. I guess the analysts cannot always be right,. eh?

      >Your Honor, you have conflict of interest problem.

      Yes, our interests of ethical business practices conflict with Intel's 'Buy or Die' tactics.

    13. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 1
      Apple just claimed that are locking into Intel.
      You mean in the same way they were "locked into" Motorola... and then "locked into" IBM? Yeah, that's what's known as the "not really" sort of way.

      In fact, if Apple so desired, it would be far easier to transition from Intel CPU hardware to that of any other x86 manufacturer than it will be to make the current shift, because it wouldn't require significant third-party development efforts.

    14. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by rejecting · · Score: 0

      the hell are you talking about?

    15. Re:Give the money back to the consumers, not AMD! by TheKnave · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'd say three parties have been harmed here:
      1) Intel customers - harmed by buying into an architecture that is comparatively less than it appears to be - and governed by a company with a market position gained through cheating. Ultimately these people payed too much.
      2) AMD customers - their time was wasted / equipment crippled by Intel compilers. Time = Money, therefore they also deserve a rebate.
      3) AMD were damaged by appearing worse than they are.

      Surely all three injured parties deserve compensation?

  6. All hail the free market by James_Aguilar · · Score: 1

    This is wonderful news. Any move that causes the free market to gain more force in this world should be heralded with joy.

    Especially if you want 120 more FPS by Christmas 2006.

    1. Re:All hail the free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      120 more FPS isn't going to come from this kind of processor. Now if ATI and NVIDIA were getting free money from somewhere, maybe you'd be right. It's your GPU that's the problem these days.

    2. Re:All hail the free market by niskel · · Score: 1

      If ATi and Nvidia were getting free money, why would they even bother making any more cards? They don't need to sell any if they are getting free money. Then we would be stuck with Intel integrated graphics *shudders*.

    3. Re:All hail the free market by damian+cosmas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nothing says "free market" like "multi-national bureaucracy raids corporate offices."

      Note, the Japanese oraganization mentioned is the "fair" trade commission, not the "free" trade commission. Fair trade and Free trade are usually mutually exclusive.

    4. Re:All hail the free market by James_Aguilar · · Score: 1

      When I think anti-trust, I think free market, no matter who is implementing it.

    5. Re:All hail the free market by snoopsk · · Score: 1

      Actually, high end GPUs are CPU-limited. My new 7800GTX is only marginally faster than my 6800GT at resolutions below 1600x1200 when bound to my A64 3200+. Even an overclocked FX-57 would limit a 7800GTX SLI setup.

      GPU power has been increasing at a much faster rate than the relatively stagnant CPU power.

  7. Evidence. by Cuchullain · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This should provide evidence that they have tried to grind their competitors into the ground through monopoly techniques rather than fair competition.

    I will be interested to see if they find a direct series of actions that can be connected with the failure of TransMeta as a chip maker.

    Beyond that, there should be some interesting material in there relating to AMD.

    K

    --
    "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine
    1. Re:Evidence. by bhima · · Score: 1

      TransMeta!? I'm still pissed about Alpha!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  8. Conspiracy? by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else wonder if the whole AMD lawsuit and allegations of intel code biased against AMD hardware is just a front to keep boosting prices? I mean, they gotta fund the legal battle, right?

    Bah, who am I to complain, my favorite application is a nice MUD client written circa 1998. If anything it works too fast.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Conspiracy? by Trigun · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, so Intel jacks up its prices to pay for the litigation, and AMD doesn't flood the market to cut market share? Or vice versa? That's more credit than is given to even the oil companies for high gas prices.

    2. Re:Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No. That's the stupidest way to add value to a product I've ever heard. "Buy AMD Processors, now with legal action!"

    3. Re:Conspiracy? by noc007 · · Score: 1

      IIRC AMD is has some spare cash on hand that can be used for a two year leagal battle like this and not put the company in a bad position like SCO did. I suppose it also proves that this isn't a publicity stunt or a last ditch effort to get some money out of someone to stay afloat.

      I believe this was discussed already here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/28/12 3253&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123&tid=218
      but I'm not completly positive. I know it was discussed is some /. article.

      Oy, I'm tired.

  9. What kind by savagedome · · Score: 4, Funny

    What kind of RAID was it? 1, 2, 5...

    1. Re:What kind by ohyedoggies · · Score: 5, Funny

      Someone mod parent redundant.

    2. Re:What kind by bdcrazy · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    3. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this stupid high-ID teenage Slashbot down...

      Oh, and to the mods: what are you thinking? the parent isn't even remotely meant to be funny, and the grandparent isn't particularly droll either...

    4. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RAID 1 since they're mirroring all the documents at the photocopier.

    5. Re:What kind by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      huh, huh...that took a while to click and I had to scroll back up to your post so I could laugh. Reminds me of the old proverb "He who laughs last, thinks slowest."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey dumbass Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks ... ... ... by now you must have caught your mistake...

    7. Re:What kind by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      ahhh.
      How droll. A AC bitching about the ID of another poster...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    8. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, and to the mods: what are you thinking? the parent isn't even remotely meant to be funny"

      Seeing as it is completely a joke with no other features, I'd say it was meant to be funny. If you don't get the joke that's your deal.

    9. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1, 2, 5...

      Three, sire!

    10. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, didn't know if I should mod you funny for the slowest joke or overrated for your sig, but guess what, joke won the battle

    11. Re:What kind by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      And again, @#!%, what is this "Undoing moderation to Comment" after posting as Anonymous Fuckin' Coward? Do I realy have to mod people proxy connected over ssh tunel, telneted trough wiretaped neighbours wireless while listening to fucking hillbilly music and preteding it is not me???

      Have I high hopes, /. just fucked you over a friggin' mod point.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    12. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoemdprn eudn.
      oen o aetrdnat
      Smoemdprn eudn.
      oen o aetrdnat

      (it's striping and mirroring, you see...)

    13. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone have a link to the Mirror yet?

    14. Re:What kind by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1

      My eyes hurt. *winces*

    15. Re:What kind by rob_squared · · Score: 0

      Someone mod parent funny.

      --
      I don't get it.
    16. Re:What kind by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Impressive

      You must have a really slack job. Lucky bastard.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    17. Re:What kind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3, sire.

  10. I'd have rather by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Read that they found something as opposed to reading they "have raided". The headline makes one believe something will be found.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  11. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by James_Aguilar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you kiddding me? The truth is much more important than national boundaries!

    And why should I care any more about people working in CA versus Canada? They have about the same impact on my economic standing.

  12. I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As I said in another thread that was not as sharply focused on this issue as this one: I would like to see Intel decleared -- and punished -- as a monopoly.

    Why? Because I think it would result in lower prices to me. While regulated monopolies (phone, electric, gas, etc.) may be necessary in order to only build a single service infrastructure, I have yet to see a market monopoly declare: Now that we've eliminated the competition, let's lower prices and improve our service!

    Different code being generated. Did they really think someone wouldn't figure this out?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by coflow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Intel should be persectuted as a monopolist then ostensibly you view them as a monopoly. How do you reconcile this with your claim that no monopolist will lower prices? It seems to me that Intel's prices have come way down steadily for the past 10 to 15 years. It seems contradictory to me that they should be punished for behavior that you claim leads to higher prices, when all evidence points to lower prices.

    2. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Different code is not surprising, nor is it wrong.
      As I pointed out here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&cid =13043743
      The most likely answer (IMHO) is that they produce optimized code for their chips and use the _most compatible_ path for other producers' chips. The most compatible path is not the fastest, but it guarantees they don't have to worry about their compiler breaking on any other CPU. That they don't optimize for AMD _at all_ is not their problem. Their goal is to optimize code for their platform and not break on anybody else's nothing more and nothing less.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by databyss · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between un-optimized code and horrible code.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    4. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      Problem is, Intel is being pursued for supposedly monopolistic practices defending a market they originated. AMD did not come up with the x86 chips, they don't own the original IP this springboards from, all of Intels x86 competitors have to do everything through reverse engineering, licensing, or both.

      I think it is time for people to get off Intel's case and propose a new instruction set and so forth, open source if they're such flaming fanatics for it, and get Intel and the rest to offer compatible products. Go on, invent an entire cpu instruction set, all the registers, etc., etc., etc...

      AMD or no, we're still essentially stuck with a chip family from Intel. A single species of chip with a couple halfbreed variants. Thanks to the combined uber-idiocy of Compaq and DEC we don't get the Alpha as a platform, Apple was the last major user of Motorola's products, and where now are IBM and Cyrix?

      I could care less about this pissing match between two companies that would rather raise prices and processor temperatures and power consumption with shrinking performance advancements. I want fast, cool, low power, easily harnessed for smp, multiple cores, good balance between CISC and RISC, etc...

      It's like watching Microsoft and IBM argue over OS/2. Who cares? Where's the new stuff? What have you done for me lately? Well, they've managed to raise their prices at AMD... Ooooh, there's something I wanted.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    5. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by Penguin+Programmer · · Score: 1

      They haven't come down any faster than the prices of all other computer components (not other processors, but RAM, hard disks, etc) have. If Intel wasn't anti-competitive, they would need to lower their prices to where AMD prices their processors (somewhat lower than Intel does) in order to compete.

    6. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by coflow · · Score: 1

      They haven't come down any faster than the prices of all other computer components (not other processors, but RAM, hard disks, etc) have. If Intel wasn't anti-competitive, they would need to lower their prices to where AMD prices their processors (somewhat lower than Intel does) in order to compete.


      I think there are plenty of industries where companies charge more for a competing version of a product. Dining (Outback vs. Morton's), software development (Accenture vs. Infosys), automobiles (BMW vs. Ford), you get the point.

      I feel like a successful company can get blamed (and attacked) for any level of pricing they choose. If Intel charges more for their chips, they must be a monopoly. If Intel charges too little for their chips, they're charged with predatory pricing. If Intel charges the same as AMD, they are using illegal market collusion. I know you individually might not make these claims, but the past 50 years provides several examples of each of these types of claims.

    7. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That would not be a problem, if it were the case. The complaint by AMD is that Intel is specifically excluding other vendors' chips from running extension sets that are known to exist (SSE/2/3 etc.), simply because they aren't "Genuine Intel(tm)."

      "Optimized" does not equate to "Disable the competition."

      If it's false, AMD doesn't have a leg to stand on, and you are entirely correct. However, we don't *know* for certain at this time that what AMD claims is false, and must await the evidence.

      Personally, I'm inclined to believe it, with a grain of salt. I remember certain programs running a check for a "Genuine Intel(tm)" CPU, and adjusting their performance accordingly. I believe the game Privateer II was one of those programs. While the performance delta wasn't *huge*, there was enough of a difference between the two vendors' CPUs that you could see the difference.

      There may have been other reasons for the difference in performance, hence why I said "with a grain of salt." I have seen a difference where there should not be one, in a game (and other programs) where it actually gave me feedback stating that it found a Genuine Intel(tm) processor. If it hadn't very bluntly told me that it was looking for a difference, I'd be more unbiased about the whole thing (what you can't see doesn't necessarily exist, neh?).

      Intel is a big boy now. It doesn't need us defending it. AMD is big enough as well that our m4d pr0pz are unnecessary. Personally, I'm interested to see what comes of this investigation, and what evidence AMD brings to the table. This will have a rather tremendous effect on the local economy (Hillsboro, OR), so I'm hoping no stone is left unturned, and that no mistakes are made by any party. I'd hate to see a judgement based on bad or missing evidence.

    8. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think there are plenty of industries where companies charge more for a competing version of a product. Dining (Outback vs. Morton's), software development (Accenture vs. Infosys), automobiles (BMW vs. Ford), you get the point.

      Neither Outback nor Morton's have 90% of the restaurant market. Neither Accenture nor Infosys have 90% of the development market. Neither BMW nor Ford have 90% of the auto market. Intel do have 90% of the desktop processor market. That's why it's different.

      And Ford are not building roads that detect whether the car driving on them is a BMW and cause it to burn more gas if it is. Accenture are not writing programs that delete any Infosys software they find installed. Morton's are not putting chemicals in their food that cause food poisoning in any customers who have eaten at Outback in the last month. Intel are bullying OEMs into selling only Intel products, and tricking software companies into releasing programs that, entirely unbeknownst to the software company, contain what is essentially a trojan that causes them to run suboptimally on AMD processors. That's why it's different.

      If it was just a case of Intel's pricing policy, nobody would have any complaints. The problem is that Intel are engaged in illegal anticompetitive practices that are shielding their high prices from the free market, while denying AMD any benefit from whatever pricing policy they adopt. That is not good for anyone, least of all you and me. That's why it's illegal, and that's why Intel and AMD users alike will benefit from lower prices all round if Intel are made to stop.

      Does that make any more sense now? I don't expect my arguments to change your mind, but I hope you will at least concede now that the other points of view are not as irrational as you appear to have been thinking.

    9. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by coflow · · Score: 1

      I see where you're coming from, it's certainly a distinction that changes the complexion of the discussion (although as you presciently guessed, it really doesn't change my mind :)

      I didn't think your arguments were irrational, I just wanted to point out that pricing discrepancies aren't indicators of foul play. I will say that I am a little bit skeptical of companies that go to court with claims of anti-competitive behavior. I prefer companies that go about it the old-fashioned way (make a better product, focus on an under-served portion of the market, find a way to get to market with new ideas quicker, etc.) Kind of like when Ford used to dominate the US market for cars (admittedly not 90%) and Alfred Sloan decided to offer "mass customizations" and financing plans that permanently changed makeup of the automobile landscape. I realize that the Intel-AMD situation is comparable, but I do wish that in general companies would spend more time competing in the marketplace and less in the courtroom.

    10. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by coflow · · Score: 1

      I realize that the Intel-AMD situation is comparable I meant not comparable, sorry....

    11. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Problem is, Intel is being pursued for supposedly monopolistic practices defending a market they originated. AMD did not come up with the x86 chips, they don't own the original IP this springboards from, all of Intels x86 competitors have to do everything through reverse engineering, licensing, or both.

      Actually, IBM created the market. They GAVE the manufacturing of the chips over to Intel ON THE CONDITION that there be a second source for the chips so Intel wouldn't pull a Microsoft on them. AMD had their own architecture at that time, but agreed to let it go and co-operate with Intel in manufacturing chips for IBMs new platform.

      Intel got their start the same way Microsoft did. IBM gave it to them all wrapped up and they've both been using what they were given to screw everyone, competitors, cohorts and consumers, ever since.

      And as for "what have you done for me lately"... I'd say coming to market with dual-core chips that are pin compatible with the motherboard you already own is a hell of a lot better than anything Intel has done lately. Whats their cutting edge these days, P3 architecture with modern fab and free Wi-Fi?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  13. American? Not. by jasonhamilton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The offices that were raided were located in Europe.

    So you're saying that an EU office of Intel being raided by EU police will cause intel to move jobs away from the united states and into EU?

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
  14. Intel's into warez now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel is really running a warez server! That's the only way you'll ever get the EU, or FBI, or whatever to raid you.

  15. OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, by them seizing chips from office in europe, I think they're indirectly saying that they hate America.

    /sarcasm

    1. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only freedom hating terrorists seize microchips.

    2. Re:OMFG by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      The question is: Mod this troll or funny?

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  16. Wow I knew it by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    It seems quite clear that most European police officers massively read Slashdot while on the job.

    I bet Intel is already bracing for another raid when the dupe is posted...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Wow I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA YOU MADE A DUPE JOKE ON SLASHDOT HOW FUNNIES!

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  17. boiler room by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

    every time i see the words "raid offices" i think of that scene from boiler room.

    1. Re:boiler room by xlr8ed · · Score: 1

      I think mirrored or striped....

    2. Re:boiler room by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      now you've got me thinking bass

    3. Re:boiler room by cbrocious · · Score: 1

      I know that water on a fish out of water can look very shiny, but can it really be considered mirroring?

      --
      Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
    4. Re:boiler room by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      ok, i'll bite (pun intended). i was thinking about the striped part.

    5. Re:boiler room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does water on a fish have to do with very low tones, and for that matter, what does striped have to do with music at all?

  18. Apple deal by Stevix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how this lawsuit will affect Apple's decision do use Intel Chips? True, a case like this could stretch for years, but developing and integrating new chips into your product line could do the same. If Intel actually recieves a relevant anti-trust court decision, or greater, gets broken up, would this be better for apple (perhaps buy up the company) or might any instability hinder Apple's decision to use Intel?

    1. Re:Apple deal by Morky · · Score: 1

      Apple will be able to use Intel or AMD chips if they want, just like Windows can.

    2. Re:Apple deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >>perhaps buy up the company

      Wha?? Huh?

      What fool modded this interesting?

      You cannot be serious ... look we'll let the old standby Yahoo! Finance explain it:
      Here are Apple Computer's key financial statistics, if you're too lazy to click it says Apple's market cap is 31.51B and their enterprise value is 24.33B. Compare that with Intel's statistics: market cap is 171.30B and enterprise value is 155.56B.

      Market cap is the product of the number of shares outstanding and the price per share. These are both large-cap companies by the way (generally >1B cap).

      Enterprise value is basically what the market believes an entire company's operations are worth. That is to say, the market cap + debt + preferred stock - cash and cash equivalents.

      Now looking at this information, I don't see how any sane person could even entertain the notion that Apple Computer could buy out someone the size of Intel Corp. Even if as you say in the event that Intel gets broken up (which is closer to zero than Microsoft getting broken up) Apple still wouldn't have the capabilities to buy Intel's processor division.

      You very obviously have an internet connection, please use it next time before making yourself look foolish.

  19. Which type? by PhotoBoy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    TFA doesn't say how the EU officials raided Intel's offices, did they choose to RAID 0 or RAID 1 them?

    1. Re:Which type? by joejoejoejoe · · Score: 1

      Only RAID1 is redundant. RAID0 is not. This was incorrectly mod'd. :p

      -J

      --
      Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
  20. Sorry, AMD just raised it's prices... by Critical_ · · Score: 1

    AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors. Go search MSNBC or google news for the article. AMD doesn't care about giving you a price break and weakening Intel won't help you out there. For there to be innovation, two companies must compete. AMD has a nice product but they can't simply employ the courts to earn a solid reputation. If anything, AMD and what is happening to Intel is starting to sound tired much like the SCO case. I have no doubt this case will linger in the courts for years and maybe you can come back to this post and see how wrong you were. AMD is a corporation interested in profits and NOT you saving a dollar here or there. When will you slashbots understand this?

    As for different code being generated. It's time to do a simple test. Is the code being generated for AMD processors the same as Cyrix processors or Transmeta processors with the same capabilities? I've ran the test here and the binaries generated are exactly the same for comprable processors that don't happen to be Intel Pentium 4's. Please, conduct your own tests before rattling off another slashdot poster's comments.

    Ya go ahead, mod me into oblivion for saying what had to be said.

    1. Re:Sorry, AMD just raised it's prices... by berj · · Score: 3, Informative
      re: different code.

      AMD's argument wasn't that different code was generated.. but rather that two different code paths were generated (in the same binary); on highly optimized, the other less so. When, at run time, an AMD processor is detected the less optimized path is chosen.

      From page 40 of AMD's complaint:

      125. Intel has designed its compiler purposely to degrade performance when a program is run on an AMD platform. To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to compile code along several alternate code paths. Some paths are executed when the program runs on an Intel platform and others are executed when the program is operated on a computer with an AMD microprocessor. (The choice of code path is determined when the program is started, using a feature known as "CPUID" which identifies the computer's microprocessor.) By design, the code paths were not created equally. If the program detects a "Genuine Intel" microprocessor, it executes a fully optimized code path and operates with the maximum efficiency. However, if the program detects an "Authentic AMD" microprocessor, it executes a different code path that will degrade the program's performance or cause it to crash.
      ie. the problem isn't manifest at compile time but rather run time. So your simple test isn't actually testing anything.
    2. Re:Sorry, AMD just raised it's prices... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors. Go search MSNBC or google news for the article. AMD doesn't care about giving you a price break and weakening Intel won't help you out there.

      Sure, they are a corporation and they want profits. The problem is, AMD tried lowering prices to gain share and it led them to nowhere fast. Intel is forcing AMD into a corner, by making abusive deals with OEMs.

      Even giving one million CPUs for free to HP did not get them a toehold in the business desktop segment.

    3. Re:Sorry, AMD just raised it's prices... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to test the flags to see if a feature (e.g. SSE) is present. Intel on the other hand tests if the processor vendor is... Intel.

  21. An old rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in '98, a friend of mine was an intern for
    a summer at Intel. He described a curious
    practice. They would evidently hold practice
    raids on employees. The legal staff would ask
    the employee to drop what they were working on,
    and step outside. The legal staff would rifle
    through the office, looking for anything that
    would help an antitrust suit. (E.g., even
    memos that said "We dominate the chip fab
    market...") They would then confiscate and
    edit the documents that looked like they would
    help an opponent in a suit. (E.g., rewrite to
    "We are competitive in the chip fag market...")

    So, I think the EU Intel offices are well
    prepared for this raid.

    1. Re:An old rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      We are competitive in the chip fag market

      Wow, that'll really throw the raiding company for a loop.

      "Didja find anything can help our case?"

      "Nah, just this memo talking about cheap cigarettes, or homosexuals who pleasure themselves with potatoes, one of the two, but nothing about the microprocessor industry."

      "Damn. Fancy a fag?"

    2. Re:An old rumor by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      What in God's name is the 'chip fag market'?

    3. Re:An old rumor by lolocaust · · Score: 0, Redundant

      its a just a typo. you know what he meant. look how close b and g are. at least someone else *attemped* to make a joke out of it.

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
  22. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, who cares if they're screwing over consumers, they're an American company so we must do our patriotic duty and support illegal and anti competitative behaviour.

  23. Is all x86 created equal?... by parvenu74 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...or can Intel's x86 chips take advantage of compiler tricks that are not baked into the output for AMD processors because Intel would not be privey to what AMD is up to inside their processors?

    And is there not an AMD x86 compiler set -- and if not, whose fault is that? This sounds like sour grapes to me.

    1. Re:Is all x86 created equal?... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The thread that everyone has already read concerning the Intel compiler states it time and again.

      Intel isn't writing code that's not optimized to AMD.

      Intel isn't even writing code that runs the same for everone.

      Intel is putting out code that actively searches for non-Intel chips and if found outputs the most deoptimized code imaginable.

    2. Re:Is all x86 created equal?... by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 1

      Who cares? It is INTEL compiler!!! Why does no one get this... it is THIER compiler... it has NO requirements to be nor has it been marketed as a generic compiler for all platforms. It has in fact been marketed as an optimised compiler for the Intel processors which it sounds to me like it does. So what is the friggin issue? You want your program to run on AMD you compile with something else, hurt thier sales and you have excercised your rights as a consumer to influence the market just like you did buying the processor. If on the other hand I want to run an Intel processor and have super fast code running on it I will compile it with the product designed for the processor. Simple enough?

    3. Re:Is all x86 created equal?... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      It's not actually an optimised compiler for Intel processors either though. Infact, unless you're running an Genuine Intel Pentium 4, or disabling the hardware check, it's a sabotaged code machine.

      Furthermore, Intel does not market it as "superfast code for Intels" nor is that even the common conception of what it is. The Intel compiler is a compiler made by intel using their years of engineering experience to produce some great code. Or it would produce great code, if you only want to use Genuine Intel Pentium 4s! Not becuase it's incapable of producing good code for others, but becuase they intentionally broke the code for other processors, including their own.

      Furthermore, all of this is part of a larger anti-trust case, and in the contect of an anti-trust case, as stated in the other thread, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to use your market power to utterly destroy the competition through hardball tactics (like their marketing practices) or through unfair advantages from crossover markets (compilers & processors) This isn't a best tool for the job issue, and trying to treat it like it is is the hight of ignorance.

    4. Re:Is all x86 created equal?... by farnz · · Score: 1
      The complaint is that Intel uses the CPUID instruction to verify that the code is running on an Intel processor, uses reasonable (but non-optimal) code for unknown (unreleased) Intel processors, optimal code for known Intel processors, and intentionally sub-optimal code for non-Intel x86 chips.

      If Intel's compiler treated AMD chips like unknown Intel processors (check for extension support like SSE or SSE2, and use if available, else use sane code for Intel-sized cache lines), the code would still be faster on Intel chips than on AMD chips, as it'd be optimal for Intel design decisions, not AMD design decisions. However, in order to give the impression that non-Intel chips are much slower than Intel chips, the Intel compiler creates code which checks for Intel trademarks in CPUID (as against feature support), and deliberately uses slow code paths if those trademarks are not present. This ensures that Intel's competitors cannot do a fair like-for-like comparison with Intel's chips, as Intel says that code not compiled with their compiler is unfairly slow.

  24. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "a company based mainly in the United States and employs our people."

    Posting from Indonesia, are we?

  25. Wow by pestilence669 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Intel has done dirty things for years...

    Let us not forget where the Pentium actually came from... stolen designs from the DEC Alpha. Cyrix, VIA, ...???

    This is a huge company and they play hard. On one hand, I have to admire a company willing to implement espionage and sabotage to competitors. On the other, they're so large, they don't NEED to.

    The end is certainly not near for Intel. Consumer confidence will probably remain the same. AMD *MAY* be compensated in a decade or two. All of this aside, at the end of the day, nothing has or will change. This is history repeating itself and it tends to do that.

    Smart business move? Yes. Consequence free actions are generally good ones. Until a slap on the wrist becomes substantial, they can do whatever they want.

    1. Re:Wow by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "On one hand, I have to admire a company willing to implement espionage and sabotage to competitors."

      Just out of curiousity, may i ask why?

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Wow by pestilence669 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Espionage is the ultimate way to discover what your competitors are up to. It's risky. It takes careful planning. You need flawless execution. There's a certain art to it.

      Too many companies see a competitor and then lower prices or try to outperform them. Tossing morals aside, propaganda and sabotage are much more efficient.

      It takes balls. Big ones. Intel has proven that they will do what it takes to maintain market dominance. When someone has a better idea, they will buy it or steal it. Either way, the consumer benefits.

      Some may argue that the consumer is hurt by anti-competitive behavior. That's true, but the opposite can be true as well.

      "Anti" competitive behavior is actually the most competitive kind there is.

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us not forget where the Pentium actually came from... stolen designs from the DEC Alpha. Cyrix, VIA, ...???

      Proof?

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anti" competitive behavior is actually the most competitive kind there is.

      So, how's that MBA working out for you?

    5. Re:Wow by pestilence669 · · Score: 1

      Here's the settlement for patent infringement, as DEC was going out of business: http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80427intc.htm There was a heap of pending litigation over theft of technology before and up to this time. Keep in mind, that by 1998, it was already over. Intel had crushed DEC.

    6. Re:Wow by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      So, will you admire me when I break into your house, steal all your valuables, trophies, diplomas off the walls and defecate on your kids' beds? After all, it would be risky, and require careful planning and flawless execution, which clearly you seem to hold in higher regard than your own dignity.

    7. Re:Wow by pestilence669 · · Score: 1

      lol.

      If companies didn't play like Intel, then we wouldn't have the laws to protect us against people like them. You can't have competition without anti-competitive people drawing the line.

      I think of it similar to computer viruses, which I wholly support. Without them, computer security would remain an after thought. Viruses expose the holes that would-be attackers could exploit in secrecy otherwise... for much worse intentions.

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>On one hand, I have to admire a company willing to implement espionage and sabotage to competitors.

      Why?

      Seriously, what has led you to become a person that has to admire this?

    9. Re:Wow by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Wow man, what a troll. AFAIK the Pentium was developed in Haifa Israel. They modelled the whole thing with FPGAs. No stolen schtuff there.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    10. Re:Wow by pestilence669 · · Score: 1

      There were 10 patent violations alleged in the FTC filings by DEC... all of which, Intel settled on and were already implemented in the Alpha. This was no Rambus lawsuit. It had merit.

      Yes, Intel developed the Pentium. There was still a lot of work on their end, but without DEC's technology, the chip would have been very different. Intel made the perfect hybrid, in many ways, with the Pentium Pro // II.

      It wasn't just a money grab by Digital. There is merit to many of the claims, each of which we could discuss in mind numbing detail.

    11. Re:Wow by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the Pentium was developed in Hillsboro, Oregon, USA. Don't know where you get you information from...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think he was mistakenly talking about Pentium M which was designed in IDC Israel in Haifa (a very beautiful city BTW)

    13. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take anything you want, however defecating on the beds voids all mfg warranties so please don't do it.
      It doesn't matter how broke the bed is, if a stain can be seen visually, the warranty is voided.
      I'm not sure why they don't advertise lifetime warranties on bedding in the U.S., as every bed I've ever seen has had the warranty voided within a month of purchase.
      Ten year warranties on bedding is a fraudulent scam/come on to get people to purchase junk that the mfg has never/ever had any intention of standing behind.

    14. Re:Wow by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Smart business move? Yes. Consequence free actions are generally good ones. Until a slap on the wrist becomes substantial, they can do whatever they want.
      Depends on the outcome of the lawsuit. While government-initiated antitrust cases tend to be settled for symbolic fines (remember Microsoft?), damages in lawsuits between companies are sometimes pretty high. When googling for an example, I found some old news about the settlement between Sun and Microsoft:
      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1560909,00.as p
      Quote:
      The settlement, which stems from a lawsuit Sun filed in 2002, will include Microsoft continuing to support Sun's Java Virtual Machine, as well as Microsoft paying $700 million to Sun to resolve pending antitrust issues and $900 million more to resolve patent issues.
      700 million on the antitrust part of this settlement. Won't kill a company like Intel but it is not exactly cheap.
      Another one is
      http://www.webhosting.info/news/1/ibm-wins-$850m-s ettlement-from-microsoft_0701058182.htm
      where Microsoft pays $775m plus some free software to IBM.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    15. Re:Wow by typical · · Score: 1

      Some may argue that the consumer is hurt by anti-competitive behavior. That's true, but the opposite can be true as well.

      Yes, but said opposite is true in the same fashion that theoretically all the air molecules to one side of you could whack you at the same time that all the air molecules on the other side of you happen to be leaving the vicinity, thus knocking you through a wall. It's not that it's inconceivable -- it's just that it hasn't happened before and doesn't seem very likely to ever happen.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  26. broken up into what? by Critical_ · · Score: 1

    What are they going to break Intel up into? A Pentium vs. Xeon company? Give me a break.

    1. Re:broken up into what? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      *If* they were to break up Intel (which I don't think they need to do), Intel would probably be split along their product lines with CPUs, Motherboard Chipsets, Compilers, Flash Memory, and other products falling to one side of the company or another.

      Of course, I *wish* that Microsoft had been split. If there was a separate company producing Microsoft Office (or even two competing Microsofts!) there's a good possibility that MS Office would be running on a lot more OSes today.

  27. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by Mudcathi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What?!? Haven't you ever heard of "truth, justice, and the American Way?" It's not about jobs, or even us vs them -- it's about doing the right thing.

    --

    "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

  28. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Last I checked, AMD is an American company too. So, your point is what exactly?

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  29. YRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YRO? What?

  30. Amazing. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is Intel getting slapped so hard with anti trust when Microsoft seems to get away with it.
    Intel does have competition. AMD, Sun, and IBM all make chips that compete with Intel in the server market.
    MIPs, AMD, TI, and many more have chips that compete in the Embedded space.
    And AMD seems to be doing a pretty good job competing in the PC market. Is anyone shocked that the Intel compiler wouldn't have "If SSE2 and Intel use SSE2 else use emulation in the code generator?" Intel is not the only compiler in the X86 market, you have VC and GCC as options. What Intel has done while nasty is no where as anti competitive as Microsoft's tactics.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Amazing. by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      I think hardware antitrust is easier (for lawmakers) to understand than software. Look at how IBM got slapped in the 80s.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Amazing. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      it's not that they don't have competition, it's that they use monopolistic practices (which are illegal) in the market to harm their competition, giving themselves an unfair advantage. "monopoly" doesn't mean there is no competition.

    3. Re:Amazing. by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      Why is Intel getting slapped so hard with anti trust when Microsoft seems to get away with it.

      It's pretty early to be making this statement, I think. Initially, MS WAS investigated pretty hard, much like Intel is being investigated now (I seem to recall OEMs being asked to provide documentation and what not about their dealings with MS). It was only once the case went to trial that things fell apart.

    4. Re:Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i always thought that a monopoly, being a single company (mono == one) in control of the market, discouraged competition. maybe just a little?

    5. Re:Amazing. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surprising as it may seem to you, AMD isn't really doing all that well in the PC market. Or at least they argue they're not. Given the panorama when I enter any retailer that sells computers, I agree. Not one single AMD machine in sight. Sure, I bought the pieces and assembled myself an athlon 64 machine. But the question is: how many more people would do that? /.ers might, some non-slashdotting hard-core gamers might. But not that many more people. And Intel's market share is still WAY WAY too big for everybody's sake. A much more balanced situation is not only possible (ATi and nVidia seem pretty balanced to me), it'also advisable. At least, the perceived improvements in graphics cards technology, and the clear standards built around them (OpenGL and DirectX, like it or not) make for a much much nicer user experience. Sure, Microsoft is a pretty powerful monopoly as well. But the question should never be "hey, he's infringing too, why is it that I'm punished and he's not?". Punishment should eventually reach all. But since AMD processors, are fully transparent drop-in replacements for Intel processors, and that makes Intel's supposed monopoly that much more susceptible to attack. On a related note, when a full-fledged corporate migration to AMD is perfectly feasible without any significative bumps, but vendor limitations prevent it because of Intel's purported pressure, that is a much, much clearer indication of foul play than an already complicated switch from Windows to *BSD or Linux not happening supposedly because of Microsoft's pressure. Besides, it's not a matter of "They're doing well", it's a matter of "they'd arguably be doing much better if Intel didn't repeatedly screw them over in illegal ways"

    6. Re:Amazing. by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      One of the big problems AMD has with retailers seems to be their lack of ability to supply chips. Who wants to base their stock on stuff that might not arrive? Thus losing business to someone else.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    7. Re:Amazing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slapped hard? When? The Japanese case was relatively small, while the US and EU cases/investigations are ongoing and their outcome is yet to be determined.

  31. Raid? by Sebastopol · · Score: 5, Informative

    A bit overzealous term.

    They walked in, asked for documents they had called about. Intel's lawyers were there waiting because they had been notified, and handed over everything they asked for.

    So it wasn't a swat team breaking down doors catching barret with has pants down in front of a goat while grove was cramming confidential documents into his mouth.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:Raid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. The editors love to make the headlines appear more dramatic than they really are.

    2. Re:Raid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel lawyer: 'Oh, heyyo. Heye aye dhe phapheys yu wajnded. Thoyjy, I'm a bhid djy ijn my moudh adh phjethent.'

    3. Re:Raid? by Jamori · · Score: 0

      Bastard!! You ruined it for me...

  32. Intel's automatic doors by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know, those Intel automatic doors? They'd been programmed to open real slow if someone involved with AMD is trying to get in.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Intel's automatic doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A quick grammatical point: doors don't open "real slow". Some automatic doors might be slow. They might even be really slow.

      You're trying to describe a motion: that of the doors opening. Hence, you need some kind of adverb. "Slow" is not an adverb. However, "slowly" is.

      A grammatically correct version of your sentence might be:
      "They'd been programmed to open slowly.."
      or
      "They'd been programmed to open really slowly.."

      If you look closely, you'll find this particular error in worryingly many places, such as Apple's slogan, "Think Different". Disgraceful!

      I hope this post helps you to achieve better grammar in the future.

      --
      Grammar Nazi

  33. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, and please don't consider the jobs of those working at companies that buy Intel parts. It's okay for an American company to gouge people because it's good for Americans, even if Americans are the one being gouged. That makes tons of sense.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  34. Good for non-EU countries... by RexRhino · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wouldn't be happy about this if I lived in the EU, but no doubt the recent EU offensive on foriegn companies will encourage those companies to invest outside of the EU. North America and Asia seems a lot less hostile towards buisness nowadays.

    Asia might get the better of the deal than North America, but I don't think any company is going to be rushing off to Europe to invest given the lastest attacks by EU Kleptocrats.

    The only thing that frightens me is that the U.S. or Canada might try the same self-destructive protectionist policies. Just because Europe is crazy doesn't mean that North America is sane.

    1. Re:Good for non-EU countries... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      ? What .
      The EU did not do a violent raid , they sent some bureaucratic law officials round to collect some papers on behalf of the courts , which had sanctioned the confiscation of these papers on evidence presented by the lawyers on behalf of the plaintiff .

      Companies who conduct business in a moral ,upstanding and ethical way have nothing to worry about ,Criminals have (if they are found innocent then I'm sure reparations will be paid).
      This is not self destructive , its very much productive , Europe is a massive market and im fairly glad our governance are willing to actually do things about our laws

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Good for non-EU countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, AMD is an american company too. It's nothing to do with bieng protectionist, as this doesn't directly benefit any EU based chip developers, but rather, to ensure that consumers aren't bieng ripped off. If Intel really is guilty of the charges bieng levied against them, then there is a moral obligation for the governing bodies of whatever country they are operating in to deal with it.
      The alternative is to allow Intel to become a full fledged monopoly. That in turn is damaging to consumers, and ultimately to the economy.

    3. Re:Good for non-EU countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what part of the world is Japan in? Isn't your Asia, their home?

    4. Re:Good for non-EU countries... by mr.mighty · · Score: 1

      Maybe you'd like the even more business friendly policy of mugging people on the streets and handing the money over to the monopolists?

    5. Re:Good for non-EU countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asia might get the better of the deal than North America, but I don't think ***any company*** is going to be rushing off to Europe to invest given the lastest attacks by EU Kleptocrats.

      By *any company* you mean any dirty monopolistic coorporation?

    6. Re:Good for non-EU countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This already happens, it is called taxation.

  35. afRaid by Sirex · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to old-fashioned wiretaps as the feds used to use on the Mafia? Understandably, Intel probably doesn't have gun-toting thugs at their entrances, but I doubt that I'm the only one noticing a (recent?) trend of police organizations worldwide who like to conduct this "raid" thing.

    I'm just glad there is no one on the Intel EU Board of Trustees with the surname Koresh.

    1. Re:afRaid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      They don't have gun-toting thugs, but they do have both Excel-toting accountants and Starbucks-toting attorneys. :-)

      Where does that put 'em?

    2. Re:afRaid by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      Well which do you think would be more fun if you were part of the police organization. Sitting and waiting for that right conversation...

      Barging in with guns and knocking defenseless/unsuspecting workers in intel suits with the back of your assault rifle?

  36. In other news, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well known Slashdot troll Rosco P. Coltrane posts link to previous story hoping to collect up karma. Film at 11, if we can figure out whose basement he lives in.

  37. This just in.. Apple switches again by OsirisX11 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will Apple now go to AMD?

    1. Re:This just in.. Apple switches again by bohemian72 · · Score: 1
      Yeah and they can have an ad with Jobs standing there against a white background saying:

      We tried to switch to Intel, but like, OS X just went boop beep beep. Now that we're with AMD it like, you know. . . works.

      Or something like that.

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
    2. Re:This just in.. Apple switches again by GrievousMistake · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Apple is hardly one to be concerned about anti-competive practices...

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
    3. Re:This just in.. Apple switches again by Kineel · · Score: 1

      Will Apple switch to AMD?

      No way, the reason for them switching to Intel is now very clear. It's all about the free publicity that comes from being an Intel partner. Apple's Marketing budget was in trouble, and this switch will clearly help with visibility.

      --
      -- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
  38. Munich and Swindon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Wikinews, the offices that were raided include Munich (Germany) and Swindon (UK).

    I did a search for Intel Swindon, and found this funny article:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/04/intel_swin don_burgled_shock/

  39. My vision by Antimatter3009 · · Score: 4, Funny

    After reading the headline, all I can picture are a bunch of special ops dressed in black crashing through the windows of the corporate headquarters throwing flashbangs and ripping computers out of the wall.

    1. Re:My vision by BruceCage · · Score: 1

      In related news, Valve announced work has started on the long awaited sequel to de_intel. cs_amd, where an Intel death squad takes control of the AMD headquarters based Sunnyvale, California.

      --
      Perfect is the enemy of done.
  40. Isn't it simple? by PHP+Addict · · Score: 1

    ...the EU is searching (again) for evidence to support AMD's claim.

    Couldn't this claim be solved easily by either subpoenaing their compiler source code or disassembling it my hand?

    --
    Laziness, check. Impatience, check. Hubris, double check!
    1. Re:Isn't it simple? by Grotus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the claim were just regarding the compiler, then yes. However, the compiler issue is just one instance of anti-competitive tactics.

      The claim is that Intel employs illegal tactics to maintain a monopoly in the x86 market. What the raids are looking for is documentation that threats were made or odd financial deals were occurring. The compiler issue is extremely marginal in this case.

      --
      "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
  41. Microsoft tax next? by Teun · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In July last year the JFTC took similar action against Microsoft, calling for changes to contracts it makes with PC manufacturers.

    European regulators are also looking at Intel, following complaints from AMD. ®

    And now we need someone to take AMD's example to tackle the Microsoft tax.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  42. Intel had it coming by Roliverio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well.. we all see where this leads..

    If indeed intel made such practices then their arse is on the line, not necessarily a Anti-trust case similar as was with M$ (coz' the case brought up elsewhere than the US), obviously intel is gonna suffer with a non favorable ruling.

    I think the source code for icc is not needed as many of you already now that when using it on a AMD processor you need to pass the option to, let's say, "skip microprocessor detection".

    I'll like to see intel making good products and really competing , and, believe me, i don't like intel, but AMD is far beyond them right now, and if intel steps a lot behind (be it for any reason whatsoever), AMD will still make good products and maybe slow down innovation, and thats not good for either side.

    Maybe im totally wrong, who knows?, but AFAIK it's evident that intel will need to address their marketing (And PR) practices, coz' they have the money to really make good products, and really compete the right way.

    On a side note, i would like to see a ad where the blue man group get's smashed with a building scaffolding with some buckets of green paint on it. :D

  43. Nothing New by OctoberSky · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Under the guise of fighting terrorism the United States' FBI, CIA, DHS, and representitives from NAMBLA have already raided the offices of Intel and others. Ofcourse their findings were kept secret. Truth be told the entire account was done secretly, no court orders, no records, no backing by the constitution. In fact I shouldn't even be talking about this....

    Forget I said anything.

    This message will self-destruct in 5...4...3...

    1. Re:Nothing New by B11 · · Score: 0

      Why would the North American Marlon Brando Look-alike Association get involved?

      --
      insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
  44. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Justice should no know bounds and no borders. We are but one human race and we should act together to protect each others interests , Enough with the xenophobic talk.
    This is one American corporation Vs another American Corporation it just so happens the battle field encompasses planet earth.
    IF Intel are guilty , then let the company be subject to the law and let them be prosecuted and sentenced as such , if they are innocent then they are fine and will be reprised

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  45. Somewhere In the Distance... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in the distance, Steve Jobs can be heard crying "Noooooooooo!"

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Somewhere In the Distance... by Paperweight · · Score: 0

      That's what he gets for moving to the dark side.

  46. You're wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They're not checking for feature existence, they're checking for manufacturer. If a processor reports that it supports a particular feature, the compiler should use that feature. Their compiler is generating code that does not check feature flags, it checks for the manufacturer.

    1. Re:You're wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They're not checking for feature existence, they're checking for manufacturer. If a processor reports that it supports a particular feature, the compiler should use that feature. Their compiler is generating code that does not check feature flags, it checks for the manufacturer.

      Think for a moment about what the Intel compiler is supposed to do: optimize not just based on instruction set, but also based on details of the processor pipeline and internal information. Thus, they most likely said "if Intel Pentium 4, optimize like this, else if Intel Pentium M, optimize like this, ..., else use standard unoptimized code."

      If you already have to check the manufacturer, and knowing that tells you the feature set, why bother with the feature set? Since when is it Intel's job to make their compiler optimize for a non-Intel processor? "Free market" means that AMD is welcome to create a compiler which only optimizes for AMD processors as well.
  47. Here there is still a chance. by PAPPP · · Score: 1

    For this very reason it seems somewhat more practical to induce sanctions of some sort against Intel than it was against Microsoft; there still IS competition, both in the chip market at large, and within x86. With Microsoft, governments hands were tied as far as penalties, because there is truly NO competition for Joe User (Linux & co. arent quite there for the average user, OS X is close but only runs on Apple hardware), so restrictions are impractical. Here, Intel's dominance can be challanged driectly wihout serously changing the market.

  48. Care to enlighten the slower among us? by Skye16 · · Score: 1

    It's still completely over my head. I heard a really emphatic "woosh", though.

  49. GCC? by bhima · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This has me wondering How Much does AMD contribute to GCC?

    Obviously expecting there main competitor to build their main complier is a flawed concept...

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  50. Not really... by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering that the code is picking the worst possible mode (8-bit) for things in it's runtime lib, etc. it's not that it's "optimized" for Intel, it's de-optimized for AMD machines. Not acceptable. And, before you say anything to try to play apologist here for Intel, I will point out that they DO know that their compiler is doing this, they've been handed superior code that rocks on all x86 platforms, is 50% faster and is somewhat smaller and a hell of a lot simpler- with the understanding that they were welcome to the code with no rights reserved on it to improve the compiler. They weren't interested in fixing the situation save to improve Pentium 2/3 performance.

    I have a PROBLEM with this attitude and action. To be honest, everyone should.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Not really... by vinohradska · · Score: 1

      Interesting, if true. Can you back that up?

  51. From a can by bluGill · · Score: 1

    You are thinking the wrong RAID Try This one.

    Apparently Intel had a termite problem in their offices, and the EU had to step in before the problem spread to other companies in the area.

  52. Off topic: EU Officials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU officials raided some offices?

    They have the authority to do that? Are there search warrants? Issued by whom? Can they just say "Let's raid Intel today!" Were the local police informed/involved? If I was a tourist in Europe are there people in "EU" uniforms that can order me to show my passport or detain me?

    I'm not trolling, I'd like to know what authority the "EU" has at the citizen level.

  53. Somewhat flawed thinking... by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Informative

    They (Intel) shouldn't be expected to make a main compiler for AMD's CPU's, no. But that's NOT what AMD's contending. What AMD's contending is that Intel's compiler isn't just optimized for Intel CPUs, it's de-optimized for AMD CPUs- as in, it picks the worst possible instructions for code when it knows that an AMD is being executed against. Technically, it shouldn't care about what CPU so long as the same runs x86 architechture CPU- it should be peak speed, etc. on a P3 or P4 or whatever Intel CPU, but shouldn't be running utterly crippled on other brands of the same architechture. What is happening with the Intel C++ compiler is that they're picking 8-bit instructions and the like in as many cases as they can get away with. This means you're doing memory copies in the form of byte copies instead of word copies, etc. That is a degredation of performance on the order of 20-75% (or more!) for those sets of instructions and I can guarantee that if they're doing 8-bit stuff (And this has been confirmed by alternate sources, by the way...), it explains why it's NOT happy on an AMD64 machine- 8-bit would choke the CPU hard because it eschews the 8-bit modes to accomplish 64-bitness... I've encountered some drivers for Windows XP in some of my porting work that BARFED on my AMD64 machine (the only machine I typically run XP on since it's my reference machine for Linux game porting, etc...)- when it was installed on an Intel machine and an VIA machine, it ran just fine.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Somewhat flawed thinking... by bhima · · Score: 1

      I hear you but I'm still interested in their GCC involvement

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Somewhat flawed thinking... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      I've read the previous story about Intel compilers creating slow AMD Code
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/13 20202&tid=142&tid=118&tid=123
      and several people confirm it. So AMD will probably win that lawsuit.
      But that may take a few years, and in the meantime it would be smart to ensure independent development of a good compiler for AMD processors. Supporting GCC might be a good way to do it.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    3. Re:Somewhat flawed thinking... by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Perhaps to be fair, Intel should modify their compiler to produce binaries that just plain won't run on an AMD part. That would be honest, direct, and only affect, say 2-5% of their customers in any way.

    4. Re:Somewhat flawed thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      You're claiming Intel is somehow compelled to allow their R&D and software development money to further AMD's processor performce? If anything, they should just refuse to run on AMD at all.

  54. In the case of CSS... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    The DVD CCA, the people who license out the magic keys, etc. for region coding and CSS unpacking, claimed that it was a trade secret during their trial. Their lawyers were stupid enough to submit decss.c as evidence in the trial- which abrogated the trade secret status themselves...

    For someone who was using breach of contract and trade secret violation claims to stifle and suppress a program to allow region coding to be unlocked- it was the stupidest thing to do. All court submissions are public domain unless the Judge orders them sealed- and Judges typically don't seal things unless they have a very good reason; and screwing yourself up like that isn't one of them.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  55. Charity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will answer the silly question with an equally-silly reply:

    Because they wuv us THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS much! ::hugs::

  56. competitive chip fag by OglinTatas · · Score: 2, Funny

    "We are competitive in the chip fag market..."

    Is a competitive chip fag that jerk who bogarts the Fritos?

  57. The compiler's not done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... till AMD won't run.

  58. Re:I can't believe Americans are supporting this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BAHAHAHAHA! Oh... wait - that post wasn't marked as Funny was it?

  59. Re:Sorry, AMD just raised it's prices...Not Exactl by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    AMD just raised its prices recently on its top processors.

    I don't believe AMD raised the price on any existing processors, as your statement implies.

    Instead I believe they brought out new, faster, and dual-core processors at higher prices than the already-on-the-market existing processor's prices. That is not "raising prices".

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  60. Re:I Want Intel Punished as a Monopoly! AMD64 by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    I think it is time for people to get off Intel's case and propose a new instruction set and so forth

    They did. It's called AMD64, and Intel copied it.

    Besides, your argument fails because once upon a time AMD and Intel signed a broad cross-licensing agreement to provide for a second source, which was once necessary to sucessfully sell in this industry. That agreement entitled each of them to the other's intellectual property. So the question of who came up with x86 chips is moot once you know the history.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  61. How soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before USA invades a few EU companies? We are the ones that have become known for goush actions.

  62. Microsoft Influence and AMD = SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Microsoft's influence in high places allowed them to avoid punishment, despite being found guilty in the DOJ case.

    That same influence is now being targetted _against_ Intel.

    As you point out, AMD is doing quite well these days. They are close buddies with Microsoft, they have their own CPU designs which are competitive with Intel's, and AMD CPUs have been selected by various large buyers, such as Sun.

    So for AMD to fight Intel in court right now is a risky move that makes little sense. AMD could end up pulling a SCO.

    And the analogy to SCO runs deeper, because, in both cases, you find Microsoft pulling the strings.

    While it makes little sense for AMD to fight Intel right now, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to push AMD (and the government) to do it.

    That's because Intel has become a threat to Microsoft. Not only has Intel been supporting Linux, but Intel is taking their hardware in directions that Microsoft is incapable of following (such as the Itanium, which depends on compiler optimizations to perform well). If this trend continues, then Linux is going to be running on some very powerful and popular PCs that won't run Windows.

    AMD, on the other hand, has been catering to Microsoft's inabilities, and optimizing their CPUs just for Windows. AMD is counting on Microsoft to help them increase marketshare.

    This situation has been building for some time now. For example, there was this quote from 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."

    Plus, just a little after that is another quote that shows how Microsoft uses its friends to attack its enemies (just like SCO):

    > 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."

    So there you have it. History tells us that this court case is most likely just another anti-competitive move by Microsoft.

    By the way, did you ever notice how the regulatory bodies used to scrutinize every partnership and purchase AOL made, yet those same regulators never lifted a finger as Microsoft bought up more and more Internet companies?

    And don't let anyone try to tell you that the government is getting involved to help consumers, or the industry. After all, those same government officials have allowed the world's most expensive denial-of-service attack to continue to this day. I am speaking, of course, of Microsoft's pollution of the Java market with incompatible Java clients. To this day, companies still can't trust the compatibility of Internet Java clients enough to build the interactive e-commerce sites that they were planning to build five years ago. This DOS attack by Microsoft has been costing the U.S. economy $billions per year.

    So, no, it's not about protecting consumers or industry. This is about Microsoft using its influence in government to try to remove any threats to its monopoly. In other words, just follow the money.

  63. Thanks, Kelsey. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    The contributions of the grammer nazi are always welcome.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  64. so, the other half of by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Wintel is having to deal with the consequences of their anticompetitive behavior. Of course, odds are they'll just receive a token punishment like Microsoft.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  65. Exclusionary in *Japan*? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
    Japan's Fair Trade Commission declaring Intel's exclusionary practices illegal.

    I don't doubt that Intel is strongarming customers in Japan, but Japan calling exclusionary practices illegal is like the pot calling the kettle an illegal color. If these same charges were leveled against Hitachi they'd vanish without a trace.

    --
    This is not my sandwich.
    1. Re:Exclusionary in *Japan*? by julesh · · Score: 1

      If these same charges were leveled against Hitachi they'd vanish without a trace.

      You see, the problem is, Intel isn't a Japanese company, so it doesn't get the protection from the law that some Japanese companies enjoy...

  66. Same trouble as BeOS had by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    When BeOS was making a push to get big they ran into the "phone call" trouble... They would pitch great offers, show great examples of how their tech was so much better, and cheaper... heck Be even offered the OS free to the any company to break ranks!!! In the end though, that phone call from MS legal came thru that threatened to take away retroactive rebates and basically tank any company that even tried something different. Within 30 days the deals went from closed to companies not even returning Be's calls!!! that was really fishy.

    The same thing is happening with intel/amd. AMD has a competitive product in terms of price, performance, and partnership... there's no reason some tier one vendor shouldn't be taking a chance on them... but WAIT.. serious applications written for intel might not work.. even though AMD has full legal cross-license to use the Intel special functions! They're designed specifically to be compatible with Intel compilers!!! Anybody seen talking to AMD gets the "call" from Intel and soon stops returning AMD's phone calls... sound familliar? AMD has had a good 5-year record of reliability and performance success.. They have a good 15%+ of the over-all chip market, but only 0-5% of the OEM market??? there's no LEGAL financial or techincal reason that at least 1 tier-one PC producer shouldn't be jumping ship right now... unless Intel is throwing the field by using illegal tactics to keep the customers tied to intel.

  67. You too can own a piece of AMD by tepples · · Score: 1

    I don't want to see AMD get any money out of this

    If you buy AMD stock now, then you get a share of whatever money AMD gets.

  68. I say this is good. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Not because Intel is getting sued and scrutinized rather heavily, but this paves the way to Microsoft getting nailed, too. Plus, if (and I'll say BIG if, but still possible) MS goes down, other companies might think twice... or they'll lobby for new legislation. Though that makes me wonder how much they'll take up their ass without lube before they finally realize that the laws they're making are screwing them as well?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.