Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Officials Raid Intel Offices

Posted by Zonk on from the serious-chips dept.

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."

3 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  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.