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."

8 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What would you expect? by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A.M.D.'s lawsuit on June 27 came after the Japanese Fair Trade Commission concluded in March that Intel had stifled competition there by offering rebates to five computer companies, including Toshiba and Sony, in exchange for their agreeing to limit purchases from A.M.D. or Transmeta, another Intel rival.

    Apparently AMD does have a case. Much as I like intel's low prices, that won't last if they become a monopoly. I wonder if apple got an offer of this sort from intel?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  2. Intel == Evil? by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  3. My response by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:My response by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Eventually people will catch on that Intel processors are shit.

      Even though my AMD dual core cost 2x that of my Intel dual-core 820 it was well worth it.

      First off, the AMD dual core takes less power. Second, it's much more efficient in terms of IPC. I still clock a 3x improvement in bignum maht and both processors are 64-bit designs!!!

      Sure that means little to the average consumer but it can only go on so far. People who need to do serious computing [e.g. servers, workstations, etc] can't use Intel processors because they're so f'ing wasteful.

      Sure the PM may be good for laptops but so would a 1Ghz Crusoe...

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  4. Damages by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Anti-Trust by webwaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, what you've stated shows the need for this kind of lawsuit. Intel on top for a long time. AMD comes around, develops a better CPU for less $$$. Intel counters. Heavy competition leads to great innovation and avancement for a while. So why the sudden lag in innovation?

    Intel tires of putting so much time and money into chip development and tech advancement to protect their share of the pie, resources they'd much rather spend on marketing ("Intel Inside" - then those four little musical notes we ALL know so well). So...shift the strategy!

    Lock out AMD by coercing, bullying and bribing all the major OEM's into not only using mainly Intel's product, but specifically NOT using any of AMD's. Hence Intel's large market share, hence AMD's decline in the same, hence lack of innovation, etc.

    Even though MANY people would agree that AMD has been producing as good or better CPU's than Intel for years (look at the benchmarks) they just can't seem to get a break. This certainly would explain why. I, for one, welcome our hard-working, CPU making underdog and their already precedented lawsuit!

  6. This reminds me of 3Dfx v/s nVidia by PinkX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  7. Re:The reason for the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "...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."

    Yep. AMD has agreements for 3rd party production starting in '06. They also have their 65nm fab comming on line in '06. This means they'll have significant (and on demand variable) capacity in a few months. The lawsuit is just in time to enable increased sales. Even if the case drags on for years, the big manufacturers are likely to stop making these agreements with Intel right now. AMD sells everything they can produce today. This is about gaining the ability to sell next years capacity, so the OEMs need to start designing them in today without fear of the wrath of Intel.