Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Replies to AMD Antitrust Lawsuits

Posted by Zonk on from the let's-get-it-on dept.

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."

5 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. AMD already has a response, btw... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. My test by Epistax · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  3. Intel's full response by brajesh · · Score: 4, Informative


    Intel's official press release and text of filing(.pdf)

    --
    95% of all sigs are made up.
  4. Re:Your PC is too cheap... by PsychicX · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right, but there are rules about this sort of thing. In Japan, for example, Intel was found guilty of (or admitted to?) giving rebates on Intel processors based on how many AMD processors the OEM was buying. More AMD processors meant the Intel chips cost more. These are precisely the same tactics that MS was sued for, remember, and that slashdotters everywhere bemoan as being the cause of Linux's lack of adoption (whether that is true is a different discussion).

  5. Re:Your PC is too cheap... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem with market forces is that, when unchecked, tend to lead to just one company being a monopoly and having pricing freedom, because it actually kills every competitor.

    Here's an example: In the town where I grew up, there was a nice floral shop. Then in came a huge chain supermarket that offered lower prices on cut flowers. After a while, the local mom-and-pop florists died under price pressure. Once they were dead, the supermarket raised its prices on cut flowers.

    So what you get is a temporary price reduction while the big company kills the little one. And perhaps whenever it needs to kill a competitor. But most of the time the prices stay high.