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."
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.
Perhaps, but it's a playground argument with big ramifications for both companies (for AMD in particular). They've been at it in the courts for years, but not without some consequences. As the article notes, a settlement in 1995 gave AMD the right to develop chips based on the Intel x86 design.
What I find interesting is Balto's claim that Intel is taking this suit very seriously and that it could take three or four years to litigate. That's got to be a big distraction in money and effort for both companies.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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 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!
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
Doesn't do business with many of those same companies, eh? I though that was one of the major points of the lawsuit
Go back and read again, especially the part where it says "AMD currently DOES buisiness..."
I believe the best defense is in the response, where Intel says that they've gained market share in the server buisness because of the Opteron. From the response:
I.E. When AMD does something right, they do better.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke