Slashdot Mirror
Intel Replies to AMD Antitrust Lawsuits
pr1000 writes "The New York Times is reporting today that Intel has replied sharply to AMD's lawsuit. This lawsuit sounds like it will be a bruiser." From the article: "The claims are factually incorrect and contradictory...The evidence will show that every failure and setback for which A.M.D. today seeks to blame Intel is actually a direct result of A.M.D.'s own actions or inactions."
More like a playground argument.
"You did it!"
"No YOU did it!"
"No YOU did it!"
repeat ad nauseam
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Intel's formal response came nine weeks after A.M.D. accused Intel of unfair pricing and rebates, and of coercing customers to prevent them from using A.M.D. microprocessors.
While I rather like AMD, I really can't argue against lower prices. Um, yay intel?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
MS/Intel: "We did nothing at all to try and impact our competition or operate in anyway unfairly"
Netscape/AMD: "So what about this memo where you say you are going to do everything to 'kill' us"
MS/Intel: "You made us do it, its your own fault"
Its going to be brusing but the key is going to be disclosure.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Would you really expect Intel to say "Oh, we're sorry that we're monopolists. Please punish us!"
Who knows. Maybe Intel is right, maybe not. Court will decide.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_543~100845,00.html
I still think this is more of a playground argument. Nothing we haven't seen before.
Has Company A ever offered any sort of incentives to Company B to NOT sell or buy products by Company C. (Note: I did not say incentives to buy/sell Company A, I said incentives to NOT buy/sell company C.)
If this is the case, the company has committed a crime. If this isn't a crime, then what the fuck is?
Intel's official press release and text of filing(.pdf)
95% of all sigs are made up.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
Intel is right to an extent. AMD has always had trouble with production and all that. But that doesn't really address AMD's assertion of Intel's anti-competative practices in the least. They seem to be hoping everyone will be too busy saying 'oooooh snap' to realize that its all a bunch of double-talk.
I've gotten the impression that Intel is evil, and you don't want to mess with them.
Is AMD evil enough? Or is this just some P.R. campaign for them, where they hope to get some serious attention and maybe a bit of business based on their competitive offerings?
I wish AMD all the luck!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
El Dorado Executive - Listen Peter, the last thing we want is for kids to start smoking
Peter - Well, what about that graph that says "The first thing we want is for kids to start smoking" *points to said graph*
EDE - That? Oh that's just something my son made in art class
Peter - Oh yeah? Well what about that sign that says "The graph was NOT made in art class. We really DO want kids to start smoking" *points to said sign*
Let's see now - first of all, a fucking great hurricane wipes out that sordid nigger city New Orleans and drives the remaining coons into a big ol' stadium. From here they proceed to rape and kill each other, as niggers are prone to do - sort of a self correcting problem really. I think Bush made a wise tactical desician in delaying assistance to this crime prone city - maybe it is best that we just let it rot and sink?
The 2nd best news, was the death of almost 1,000 crazy Islamic terrorists in training - oh, sure - they were women and children, but they were on their way to the Islamic "Church" to get the daily dose of brainwashing that they should kill all good Westerners [excluding the criminal niggers from NO, of course]
How perfect was that to see - someone yells 'BOO' and, like the LEMMINGS that the muslims are, they flee and jump off a bridge - allu be praised.. hehe - allah be FUCKED more like it.
Anyway, I just thought I'd summarise these exciting developments.
By the way - FIRST POST
If I were Intel I'd respond by drastically lowering prices for a few years. By the time the lawsuit actually got to trial AMD would have long since went out of business.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
That way, there would be no competition at all, and Intel's prices could leap upward, unbridled.
What AMD should really do is relocate to Canada. That way they'll get the benefits of cheaper operating costs yet retain the benefits of the North American market thanks to NAFTA.Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
I don't know if I actually believe anti-trust laws are a good thing. I mean, let's take a look at the market, Intel had the crown in the beginning for a long time; then AMD put out something better (Athlon) and for a while, people were flocking towards AMD (be it for the cheaper prices or the underdog appeal).
During those times when the cut-throat competition between Intel and AMD brought about great changes on processor speed and performance (remember how fast we went from 266Mhz to 1Ghz?) it seemed there wasn't any need for lawsuits.
Now innovation is getting pretty stale and all of a sudden, we're seeing the lawsuits. Don't get me wrong, I use AMD for all my rigs; but is there really a need for the anti-trust laws today? The next company to build the better processor will get their advantage, instead of just watching who will win the next lawsuit.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
At the end of the day the only people that will really benefit from this whole scenario are the lawyers. Either way they get paid out so they dont really care. There has been several antitrust cases brought before intel in the past.. there must be some level of truth to it otherwise there would be even more risk for AMD that has just began to emerge in the last few years after a disasterous run in with intel previously.
I'm not sure that Intel is disputing that they took unfair trade actions. They are disputing whether any damages resulted.
Intel is saying that AMD shot themselves in the foot by not having enough production capacity, and even if Intel leveraged their weight against AMD, there were no damages as a result of it.
If the court finds in favor of AMD, it'll add up to a small fine and some bad press... unless AMD can prove damages and make Intel pay.
AMD (and any other plaintiffs, should the cases be consolidated) has a hell of a battle in front of them.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
AMD by far has a superior product for the use in servers. However companys like Dell will never use AMD in the servers because of the exclusive deals with Intel. Dell would have to pay more for Intel chips if they used AMD anywhere. I wish AMD the best of luck and hopefully our judicial system will not take 3+ years to resolve this.
Reason #32767 not to use VB6: Integers are 2 bytes... Think about it!
The most interesting part is the timing of the lawsuit. It will be all over the media by the time AMD gets Fab 36 to full capacity, and then not even Dell can argue that AMD cannot supply enough volume. I am curious to see what's the next excuse Dell will use.
Well, since this case will never make it to the courtroom, it will be interesing to see what the parties are going to settle for. Regardless of whether or not AMD is right, or Intel is right, in two years Intel is going to give AMD some cash, or some tiny market share, and nothing will change.
Unfortunately, AMD acting in this manner isn't going to help them with attracting firms to their side. They are just going to have to beat Intel in some other way, with some new product. In business, David doesn't beat Goliath, unless Goliath is alseep at the switch.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
Just like Microsoft is no monopoly...they succeed solely on the basis of their products technical merits--not!
AMD can't sell the Turions in the white-box market, where most of its CPUs are being sold, and must rely on bigger players in the PC industry, like Dell or HP to include it in their notebooks.
After all, who builds his notebook himself at home?
Now just the fact of the existence of the lawsuit will force Intel to tone down on their rebate practices, and this may open a window for AMD to sell the chips in quantities larger than the bare usually allowed by Intel's rebate system.
Good luck, AMD!
Its not a crime; its a tort.
So basically their saying that AMD also had the oppurtunity to act as deceitfully as Intel do, but because they didn't it's their own fault?
Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.
I admire the way Intel's going about this. They know they're caught, so they use their response to badmouth AMD.
Hey, everyone, lookit here! AMD has crap management! They can't meet demand for their product! Their production is teh suxx0r!
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Not to mention, they have to be able to afford to innovate. These designs don't come to engineers in their sleep (well, not all of them). They have to be able to make a living while they work on a design that can beat the big guy. If there is illegal behavior going on, it could create an environment where they have a better product but are financially unable to bring it to market.
Never confuse volume with power.
It was the best first generation Athlon motherboard out there. But Asus would not admit to actually MAKING the board at all. Why? They were afraid of Intel.
Here's a link to help you remember:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=1153
Click on the board's picture and look for the Asus name. It's usually printed quite clearly on the PCB.
You may remember the past as rosey, but I remember the FIC SD11, Asus K7M, and the Gigabyte boards as the only three available. No manufacturer wanted to piss off Intel. It took some major wins to get companies on board.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Your history is a little off. People didn't just "flock" to AMD. AMD fought tooth-and-nail with prices nearly half those of Intels starting around the same time Intel release the Pentium.
Athlons came much, much later.
Maybe they're starting to get frustrated that they don't have more marketshare than Intel already?
They're usually cheaper, and they usually outperform.
It can take a while for an engineering company to realize that their competition is being underhanded. Today, it's certainly late enough in the game for them to realize this. "All of a sudden" has actually been a long time coming.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
0mg wtf? Intel is t3h sux0r!
Seriously people, a lot of you need to start looking at things more objectively. Maybe Intel illegally leverages its market power. Maybe poor planning and management have hindered AMD's growth.
But to dismiss either side purely on ideology doesn't speak highly of your ability (or willingness) to comprehensively consider issues like this.
Let's wait for the facts to come out, and then we can start making our judgements.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Of course Intel is saying that they're a monopoly because AMD produces faulty products.
No company it its right mind is going to confess to maintaining an illegal monopoly, at least not with the current administration and weak anti-trust laws. Intel is going to go into court with a straight face and say "It's AMD's fault, and the customer's choice", and they are going to keep saying it.
It would be news if they said anyting else.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
"No she didn't" "Yes she did, bitch" "I ain't yo baby's daddy, hoe" ....
Doesn't do business with many of those same companies, eh? I though that was one of the major points of the lawsuit -- that Intel was using illegal tactics to pressure other companies to forego use of AMD chips. I don't see how Intel can claim that these claims are contracdictory. Maybe "Not My Fault" TM, but to call them contradictory doesn't make any sense.
You know, all those lawsuits coming and going between the (then) 3D graphics giant and pioneer 3Dfx and the newcomer nVidia.
Then, to the surprise of all of us, nVidia bought 3Dfx, dismissing all the mutual lawsuits and absorbing (or ditching, if you want) all of its technology.
However, any similarities are just that.
Regards,
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
Everyone here should note that AMD admits that they are "capacity restrained", meaning they sell EVERY SINGLE PIECE of product they manufacture, and at the end of the day they don't even have enough capacity to satisfy all their orders.
SO, how can AMD argue that they are under the thumb of a vicious monopoly when they themselves are responsible for their own lacking ability to truley attack the marketplace? Is Intel to blaim for their unwillingness to invest in adequate production to meet the demands of a growing market?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this point, but AMD really does appear to be the whining baby, while Intel appears to actually care about their business models, production capcity and business ethics.
It's called tortious interference. Near as I can tell, Intel is guilty as hell. This lawsuit was a long time coming. AMD is now just strong enough that chip customers are willing to take a chance and cooperate with the investigation. If Intel retaliates it won't hurt as much anymore.
The point is, eventually when Intel has kicked off AMD enough they can afford to raise prices slowly but surely. Thats what happens in a monopoly and thats why we have laws against them.
At the end of the day the only people that will really benefit from this whole scenario are the lawyers. Either way they get paid out so they dont really care.
Clearly as you said in your post AMD would be engaging in a really stupid risk if it didnt see clear favorable effects for its company in the future.
The only people who will benefit arnt lawyers. Believe it or not, lawyers actually do serve a purpose and CAN effect socially & economically important cases.
If AMD wins, then it is my belief that it will have a tremendous positive effect on the entire CPU market. It will benefit AMD immensley and it will also benefit the consumers.
Who cares about the lawyers
Intel is saying that AMD shot themselves in the foot by not having enough production capacity, and even if Intel leveraged their weight against AMD, there were no damages as a result of it.
AMD could easily say that BECAUSE of intels actions they didnt have enough market share to be able to invest in more production. Thus, they can cite plenty of damages.
Its a chicken/egg argument.
This is what DIDN'T happen: Intel: If you use any AMD chips we won't sell you ANY of our Intel chips.
... er ... chips. So to save money they ONLY use Intel.
This is what DID happen: Intel: If you use AMD chips the Intel chips we sell you will be more expensive.
Have a look at that list of companies. They must buy millions of chips. Some of them are known for very expensive, but quite sexy, products such as Sony. Sony stuff is so damn expensive anyway that their profit margin can incroporate an increase in price thanks to Intel being a pain in the butt.
Some of those companies, eg Dell, try to make their machines as cheap as
Someone else mentioned that the prompt here might be the Turion chip. So far only AMD has released a 64-bit low voltage PC chip. They must be confused as to why very few manufacturers, other than Acer, will use it. Maybe Intel are saying to manufacturers "If you want to buy our fancy centrino chipsets with our Pentium M processors and everything guaranteed to work together, we'll charge you more if you are making Turion based laptops too".
Why would they do this?
Would a low voltage 64 bit chip outperform a low voltage 32 bit chip? Even on 64-bit XP?
Intel says: "If you buy AMD chips for your notebooks you'll just get a chip. You'll still have to go and part out motherboards, wireless chips, video cards, everything. On the other hand, you go with Intel, we'll give you an integrated motherboard with everything. You get the whole ball of wax from us, cheap! And if you want, you can pay us for a license to the Centrino brand name, too."
That's an incentive to buy Intel. It's also a disincentive against buying AMD. It also sounds like good business sense to me, not any kind of crime.
If Intel says, "If you do business with AMD then we'll charge you more for the Intel chips you're already buying," then that sounds sketchy. I don't know if they've ever actually done that. On the other hand, Intel is definitely saying, "If you use AMD chips you won't get to use the Centrino brand name and all your competitors have it, so you'll be cutting yourself out of the market." It still harms AMD, but that's just business.
I doubt this case is going to be anywhere near as cut and dried as some people seem to think.
Breakfast served all day!
First, the article claims that since Intel took the time to craft such a strongly worded reply, they must consider AMD to be a serious threat. I disagree with the reasoning (although not the conclusion), and call as reference a dispute between Pitney-Bowes and HP over some patent question some years ago, which was settled for $250,000,000.00 or so. In an environment where a single lawsuit can cost you a full month's profit, or almost a full percentage point of your gross revenues, EVERYONE should be considered a serious threat from a legal liability point of view. Maybe we need more legal advice to high level management. (Did I just recommend the use of more lawyers? Hmmmm...)
Second, just a quick observation, if you wonder who will win this lawsuit, I like to keep in mind the following algorithm, where A is litigating against B, and default behavior is next step:
1. Is B able to afford costs of litigation?
No: out of court settlement, B loses
2. Is A able to afford costs of litigating?
No: what idiot thought this was a good idea? A loses.
3. Is A obviously "right" to the most casual observer?
Yes: A will probably win
4. Who has deeper pockets?
A: A will probably win.
B: B will probably win.
My point being, I'm jaded enough to believe that whoever can afford the best legal team for the longest *cough Intel cough* is likely to come out on top here, as opposed to who violated who or who broke whatever law. Following my algorithm, this will be a long, protracted lawsuit, where SUM(LegalFees) > VALUE(Settlement) in high likelihood, and Intel will likely come out just fine.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
Does that mean that transmeta is entitled to damages as well, or does it just set precedent that they can use to sue as well?
It's not like AMD is a cheaper-and-suckier, they do make a good-quality product. In many cases their product is as good as, or better than Intel's, but they lack the production and PR. Also, AMD has nailed 64-bit technology, and when more take advantage of it (specifically servers needing more than 4GB of RAM) AMD will rise.
Does it matter who (if anyone) gets hurt? Granted penalties might be lesser, but a law broken is still a law broken, and Intel should be held responsible.
Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fuck off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we fuck off, O Lord?
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
I've been waiting for Intel to issue a press release admitting that they were wrong in every aspect and that AMD has a strong case against them. Intel's claims of innocence really threw me for a loop.
Intel chips "were" faster and more stable... on software compiled with the intel compiler (see previous articles). This is one of the reasons AMD is sueing intel... because they made the compiler product AMD-unfriendly code.
There are cases where families sue the bejesus out of offenders after a loved one was killed. It doesn't compensate the loss, but rather is in a way financial punishment on the offender (see OJ).