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."

24 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. A bruiser? by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:A bruiser? by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
      More like a playground argument.

      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
  2. Your PC is too cheap... by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Your PC is too cheap... by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather have access to lower prices that arise from market forces rather than coercion. AMD asserts that Intel only gave the lower prices to companies that agreed not to install AMD chips in their machines.

      With fair competition, prices would remain just as low, and people would be able to choose between an AMD processor or an Intel processor in their crappy new Dell. Lower prices + choice > lower prices.

    2. 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).

    3. 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.

  3. Reverting to the Microsoft defence... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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
  4. What would you expect? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    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. Re:What would you expect? by IpalindromeI · · Score: 3, Informative

      Would you really expect Intel to say "Oh, we're sorry that we're monopolists. Please punish us!"

      Having a monopoly is not a crime. Using that monopoly unfairly to stamp out competition is the crime. Maybe you meant to write: Would you really expect Intel to say "Oh, we've employed anti-competitive business practices. Please punish us!"

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.
  8. Took them nine weeks? by kihjin · · Score: 4, Funny
    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. At 63 pages, the Intel rebuttal was 15 pages longer than the lawsuit itself.
    ... time for an upgrade?
    --
    This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
  9. Blah blah blah by SpazAttak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Blah blah blah by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intel is also trying to limit their liability by disproving any claims for damages.

      But, if AMD was not competitive due to internal problems, why would Intel need to bother strong-arming their clients?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. The reason for the lawsuit by vojtech · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's just pure speculation, but I guess the real reason for the antitrust lawsuit by AMD is the Turion® mobile CPU.

    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!

  13. Re:Anti-Trust by jim_v2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    You're looking at this from an I-Build-My-Own-Computer perspective. AMD doesn't care about selling to you. You're pocket change. AMD wants to sell to Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway....the commercial market. And right now AMD is claiming that because of financial blackmail, Intel is keeping AMD from being able to compete in that market.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  14. Too much Kool-Aid around here! by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Too much Kool-Aid around here! by KagatoLNX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've always pitied AMD because they seem to have a better engineered product (certain K6s and K6-2s excepted) but never seem to get anywhere because the right people don't adopt their product. Until fairly recently, I couldn't get a SuperMicro server with an AMD in it. Even now you can supposedly get an Opteron, but can't fit it in all of their rackmount options and they don't even list it on their web site!

      It's the deals like this that make it really tough for AMD. Admittedly, as a customer, I can't find a vendor that satisfies my need for an inexpensive, reliable, AMD-based server. Looking a their pricing, this isn't AMDs fault and I don't really believe it's a technical issue either.

      Similarly you'll note the dearth of 4+ processor AMD systems. This is important. Their MP model makes it easy to scale this high and it shows in the custom market (many 32/64 proc Opteron options if you're buying a custom-built supercomputer). However, the low end ones are not being built and its only because Intel puts a lot of pressure on its technology partners to insure that they can't afford to build a sub-$800 8-processor Opteron board. Either you lose your processor pricing or you'll get exciting new "patent-licensing" deals.

      WRT to the market forces involved, the assumption is that, barring bad management, a good product at the right price should prevail. While Intel can complain about AMD's management, I think the problem is that they never have the money to operate correctly because of Intel's influence. The effective choice is that your management can hinder the company to match the amount of business the monopolist lets you have or it can operate with an aggressive but realistic business plan that falls on its face because of illegal practices. In short, Intel says, "your management should have planned for the material damages from our illegal activities" and AMD should very much answer "damages are damages, it may not have been really good business to not account well for them, but that doesn't dimish your responsibility for the damage".

      And as for "waiting for the facts to come out", this is a court room. I'm sure any facts involved will be mangled beyond all recognition once they finally "come out".

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
  15. Re:Great idea. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
    I thought AMD was a european company?

    it's not. AMD Headquarters One AMD Place Sunnyvale, California 94088-3453 (408) 749-4000 They have fabs in Germany, but they're a US company.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  16. Tortious interference by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.