Slashdot Mirror
AMD Subpoenas Skype
I_am_Rambi writes "AMD has issued a subpoena to Skype in the battle of the anti-trust case against Intel. From the article: 'AMD is now focusing on a feature in Skype 2.0 that enables the ability to make 10-person conference calls only with Intel dual-core processors. Users with AMD dual-core chips or single-core chips are restricted to hosting five-person conference calls because only Intel's chips offer the performance necessary to host the 10-way call, according to Skype. [...] Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that function detects an Intel dual-core processor on start-up.'"
Skype into this relationship? Why is this not a perfectly acceptable competitive advantage offered to a partner?
Not trolling...whats the skinny on this issue?
Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
As multiple people pointed out, there was no way that this was going to slip through. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/13/201523 6/
Intel isn't helping their legal cause when they are waving a red flag waving 'we are anti-competative'.
If the deal between Intel and Skype isn't the DEFINITION of antitrust, I don't know what is.
How fine editor humor,...
Related Stories is about "Intel and Skype Exclude AMD"
-Woof woof woof!
Cor blimey. A relevant first post.
Stick Men
And I thought the Intel compiler ignoring features of AMD chips when it knows full well how to use them was brazen . . . . . . .
I wonder how easy would it be to set up an environment variable for "GetCPUID" and have it return a different CPU-ID to the program? If that is possible, I'd like to know how and set my computer to return and INTEL CPU. Once done, I'd like try Skype out with my AMD machine.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
about processor speed it could simply have a list of processor minimums that it checked against. Or allow the user to set the parameter much the way video clips let you pick "Broadband" or "56k modem".
And every other piece of software on the shelf just has the requirements written on the box, and it's up to the user to make sure your system is up to spec. But for some reason, Skype, and only Skype, has to check your CPU's make. Not clockspeed, not memory, not cache or storage space but cpu manufacturer to run.
They're gonna get nailed on this one. Hard. And they deserve it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Apple, for failing to include AMD processors in their offerings, upon their switch to x86.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
If only AMD had used open source as the underlying code for their CPU.
Users should be allowed to change their CPU User Agent.
I have a super duper 16 terrahertz mega AMD processor now serve my phone calls biatch.
liqbase
Then again it says a lot about skype that they even put in a hard limit in their software. Since hardware is improving all the time this will make your software quickly fall behind. It is like those software installers that check the platform string and refuse to install if it doesn't match their list. So you have to hack the game to work install on w2k3 (MS greatest gaming platform ever, would want it in a server room but runs games perfectly).
Even if intel launches some 6hgz chip skype would still be limited to 10 callers. Even if you run it on a super computer, skype would still be limited by 10 callers.
Oh well, pretty much everyone here on slashdot predicted this would end up in court.
Limiting your online product to a segment of the market. Oh yeah, the bubble is back with a vengenance. Does their website insist you run IE as well?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I wonder if the reaction would still be the same if it was AMD that was chosen by Skype for the 10-way call feature.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
I wonder how long it will take someone, somewhere in the world to 'fix' this little feature of Skype? IMHO, it does not take a lawyer to realise this is a very sharp practice indeed. It makes a total mockery of Microsoft's "Designed for Windows xxxx" branding marque. Personally, I hope that Skype gets sued all the way to the bankrupcy court on this one and drage Intel along with it. Consider this analogy Esso/Exxon produce a brand of unleaded fuel that can only be used by Brand X vehicles. If you use it in any other marque then the engine will only deliver 50% of the horsepower that it would in an equivalently sized & tuned vehicle of Brand X. The fuel was able to tell what sort of engine it was being burnt in and changed its chemical formulae of the fly. What sort of rucus would that scenario raise with the users of other vehicle makes. Very soon there would be a million class action law suits filed. Just my take on the issue. I was using IP telephony 4 years ago so skype is nowt new. /s
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Threats such as retroactively withdrawing rebates and removing future discounts on chip purchases have ensured that the major PC manufacturers in the US push Intel chips. To do otherwise would increase the cost of a given manufacturer's PCs to the point where the manufacturer couldn't be competitive.
Illegal? I'm not sure, but I don't think so (IANAL). Immoral? Duh (IAAHB)!
Is it possible that the code that handles multiple connexions takes advantage of an Intel-only instruction? Or register operation? Mayhaps they've managed to get the Skype code to be stable at ten connexions on the Intel, but not the AMD? More overhead? Hoops to jump through? Unoptimised or unstable machine code on the AMD?
I'd love to see Skype's technical case for the rationale behind this.
It had better be good. IT had better be because they're pushing the limits of the hardware and the investment for optimising it for AMD's processor just isn't worth it economically, or technically.
I'd mod you up, but Slashdot hasn't given me mod points in a long while.
Depends who put it there. If Doritos put it there, hey, its Doritos product, and it is a free market. The consumer will decide whether they want to consume doritos with an alternate beverage or consume another chip.
If however Pepsi had some say in the design there are other issues...
*THAT* is the question GP was asking and you completely missed...
Reading this article really warm my heart. News articles rarely speak of proper uses of the legal system.
It's not a function, it's a machine code instruction. This means you also can't override it by simply changing the CpuId function in some DLL. You'd have to trap the instruction itself.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
I wonder what the Mac users think about Macs now having Monopolistic Intel making the most important hardware component in their ideal computers.
I'm obviously not a mac user. But I know that the Mac users made heavy use of evil monopoly mentality to stoke the fires against MS and Intel in the past. I just wonder if any Mac users feel a bit uneasy about supporting an evil monopoly now that Intel CPUs are the workhorse of every new Mac.
It's an honest question. Will Mac users find a creative way to spin it? Or will some of them now actaully admit that it's a mark against the Apple/Mac reputation and mentality?
I noticed that too. It's very odd. It's as if a million slashdotters suddenly were silenced....
-- I have fans? Wow.
Skype should be ashamed of themselves. If anything, they should simply check CPU usage and warn against adding more callers when there isn't sufficient horsepower left in the tank for a good connection. To claim, however, that only Intel dual cores have the power to support twice as many calls is pure garbage!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you were lookin' to get modded.... I think it worked :)
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
... whether AMD's lawyers hibernate during the winter? That might explain why this took so long, I have been waiting for this to happen since that deal was announced.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
But, having the right to do it doesn't mean they SHOULD do it. It's not entirely wrong, but it's also not appropriate.
Yeah, bogus tie-ins suck! Excuse me while I go play AMD/Crytek's 64-bit version of Far Cry, complete with added textures and graphics to trick gamers into thinking the game looks better on an Athlon64 even though such a thing is entirely GPU-dependent.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If Skype really needs extra horsepower for a 10-way audio conference it is impressively lame.
I understand the real time encoding and decoding required for multiperson video is processor intensive but audio streams should be pretty light weight. iChat AV can support 10-way audio conferencing using the now ancient G3 processor. http://www.apple.com/ichat/
Really? I thought that every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
Ten to one Skype found the AMD kit just couldn't handle the load of that many calls. Instead of burdening their customers with inferior performance and choppy connections, they decided to restrict those connections to chips that could actually handle it. Why is there so much fapping over AMD here anyway?
An Uncomfortable Truth
Skype optimized and tested their code on Intel duel core CPUs. Maybe they compiled using the Intel compiler and their code will only support 10 users when running on an Intel CPU?
Intel chips do tend to out perform AMD cpus on programs that are optimized for SSE3. It may be just laziness and not a plot.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Assuming intel is behind this, it would only be illegal if they were a monopoly. All of the recent numbers show that AMD is selling close to as many as intel is now. Historically intel has been a monopoly, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Intel and Skype worked together to produce code which would allow the sound processing to be done faster than it could otherwise on intels processors.
I find it interesting though that after having contact with Intel, they chose to use the CPU ID to enable extra features, rather than a speed test, so fast machines could do 10, slow machines less than that, and have it purely based on the speed of the processor.
If this continues, I'm sure AMD will end up providing an option to give out
false CPUID info, simply switch this bios setting, and you look like a intel... now that'd be an uguly day.
Its an anti-trust lawsuit, AMD vs Intel, so whether or not its ok for Skype to block AMD procs is not the question.
These subpoenas are irrelavent. Skype's customers will hate them for doing this.
What skype is actually saying:
"I don't care about my customers I'd rather do some crossmarketing with intel, the next time I might omit features for those people that don't have [insert brand here] monitor XYZ"
Skype get the clue stick!
but the only obvious REASON for them to do it would be if they are getting bribed by intel.
it seems like amd wants this info as part of its anti-trust case against intel not to attack skype.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
If I want to write software that only works on a specific chipset, why can't I?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In an effort to prove that they're bigger than MS: Intel and eBay make a deal that delays the bids of all ebay users who aren't using the newest pentium processors.
In other news...AMD whips the snot out of Intel in yet another Tom's Hardware shootout.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Sorry, don't drink Pepsi... and the analogy is borked then cause intel doesn't own a major stake in Skype as far as I can tell.
At this point in time we don't know why there is a processor preference in Skype.
Was it a payback from Intel?
Was it some technical engineering thing at Skype?
I don't know, you don't know. That is the point of this subpoena.
The more Skype adds stupid restrictions like this, the more it will lose market share.
People should chill out, stop the lawsuits, and let free markets work. Free markets make dumb BS like this eventually go away.
Now this is pure BS on skype's part as it's common knowlage that even a single core AMD fx 64 will out perform an intel core duo in most real world apps esp in something that requires memory bandwidth. ,the presence of a dsp in the sound card,even the OS version etc also can effect performance. How hard is it to simply read the processor load from the OS with a synthetic bench and have the app give a recomdation of a perfered setting.
Last I check intel processors tend to perform lower in high memory bandwidth applications because they lack hyper transport and an integrated memory controller.
Also it's an example of shoddy programming as chipsets
Over clockers also must be upset over this since I personally have gotten sempron 64s to OC to 2.8 to 3ghz and still remain stable.
I got some mod points this afternoon, of course after I posted on the thread. All of the other mods must be on vacation today or they have given up /. for lent?? There is only one post under this article that is modded up(+1), what the heck?
FYI, FarCry 64-bit runs just fine on Intel and AMD systems, as long as they are AMD64-compatible and running on Windows XP 64-bit. It's just that they call it "AMD64" just like the good old x86 is "i386".
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
If the whole thing is only relying on the return from an API call, just wait until the program gets modified by someone so the conditional jump becomes a JMP (or the API is hooked to pretend to be an Intel processor) and it works on any processor. If they are using architecture-specific assembly for the realtime encoding/decoding it may be a poorly implemented program, but they have a shred of a case. If it works fine on AMD X2s or other sufficiently fast processors, I'd say the cover is blown.
This is clearly a case of artificial limitations. The phone companies probably had their hand in it too --- to limit it to 10 streams. :)
AMD should set their CPUID to "GenuineIntel". It's for interoperability grounds - Intel have shown they will use it to try and damage the performance of programs on AMD machines - so there shouldn't be any trademark issue, and it would stop this kind of crap once and for all.
I am trolling
looks like you found your self a leftover offtopic... i bet i find one too
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Even a sempron 64 can handle more then 5 web cam quality video streams with ease the daul core amd64 and opterons processors likely can handle much more then skype's max of ten. Last I checked my web cam app never took more then 6% of my processor time this is on a single core AMD fx.
In recent versions of Intel's MKL the README states that the AMD x86_64 architecture is supported but they still use the GetCPUID function on 32-bit OS and the code crashes when executed on an AMD processor.
My interpretation? I don't care. If I had a Windows computer, Intel would be making many of these decisions. With a new Mac, things are the same. While the independance of Apple was nice, it wasn't a big deal, and definiatly didn't outweight their CPU problems (the G5s were quite nice, but the laptops had gotten very sorry due to the old G4).
But what difference does it make? Apple can still add things. They can always ask for it on chipset (or get someone else to make the chipset, specifically the southbridge, for them) or they can add it on motherboard like everyone else. A few years ago it seemed like you couldn't buy anything other than a basic motherboard without getting an IDE RAID chip the manufacturer had added onto this motherboard. This stopped (mostly) when chipsets started to have that feature built in. If Apple wants to add a feature, they can just add the chip on the motherboard like everyone else.
And they are still Apple. They can still make those moves that everyone else in the PC industry seems to be afraid of. They went and used USB (only) when no one else had the guts. They went with the ExpressCard with the new MacBook Pros, which I hadn't seen anywhere (on the market yet) until Apple did it. They have options.
They can always go to AMD anyway. They won't need to do anything to do that like the big preparations to go Intel. And even if they don't, they can threaten it; like Dell does.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Someone will write a code wrapper that will tell Skype that it is on an Intel when it could be on a Mac or AMD for all i could care. Someone will do it if they get desperate. Either that or switch to Gizmo Project
I bet the program will work on a viretey of platforms, wait Macs have DC Intels never mind.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
All I know is that using oggenc/lancer I'm getting 35 times real-time encoding on my dual-core AMD 3800+ rig (a single-core Athlon64 at 2.7GHz encodes at 45 times real-time -- or to put it another way -- a six minute track is encoded in less than 8 seconds).
Did I mention oggenc is single threaded? I'm not naive enough to believe this translates to 2*35=70 real-time encodes, but less than ten?! No. Way.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
If Intel is a monopoly then you are right, they can't go and do anti-competitive shit like this. However if they aren't there's no restrictions, companies do this kind of thing all the time. I don't know if this has been tested in court yet, but I wouldn't want to be AMD challenging it at this point. AMD's market share has done nothing but grow and grow and they have lots of big name support behind them (like nVidia making chipsets). It's hard to argue "They are an anti-competitive monopoly shutting us out of the market" when your chunk of the market is growing apace.
Just remember: It's generally only illegal to act in an anti-competitive manner if you are a monopoly, otherwise it's generally permissable.
This seemed like an obvious thing for AMD to do in their case. A lot of people thought this was fishy when it was first announced, especially since AMD appears to be making a better product for less than Intel is charging. Skype arbitrarily picking Intel on a whim is one thing, but there's no real logic behind any reasoning people have come up with. Unless you factor money into it.
With Skype being one of the leaders in VoIP and also a popular pick for podcasters, requiring Intel processors is an interesting, but smart, way for Intel to tap a growing niche market. And I doubt that it will be a niche market for too long.
Insert Sig Here
The one where customers research and don't buy things from companies that do things like discriminate, pollute, spam, etc; forcing those to become bad business decisions. Of course, pigs fly in that world too.
Of course, that's fiction, but it has the same absurdity. If you don't like the deal Skype has done with Intel, then go and use another VoIP client. There's nothing stopping AMD doing the same sort of deal with the Firefly IAX client. Even a simpleton should be able to see this.
...They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade.
And this practice restrains trade.
I dont think the guy you responded to is
completely on base, but he is not completely
off base either.
emt 377 emt 4
From my AMD dualcore based Linux server. My Turion notebook does SSE3 too. SSE3 is a way for Intel to win synthetic benchmarks versus earlier AMD CPUs that didn't have it more than anything else.
I wonder how much Intel paid Skype to do this? There certainly isn't a technical reason for rigging their program. It had to be $millions. You don't put an asset you spent several $billion on at risk for nothing.
Personally, I marked myself unwilling to moderate, because I think the moderation system is such a bullshitfest. I still meta-mod, though. I wonder what percentage of slashdotters who would otherwise be eligible to moderate are set unwilling?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Unless a law is passed and its declared illegal, they have the right to do what they want with their products and their partners.
No law says you have to give non partners the same treatment that you give business partners ( unless you are declared a monopoly, then the rules change )
Amd should be counter sued for brining up a frivolous lawsuit like this because they are jealous.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Processor usage for video/audio in a one-on-one convo in Skype ~85%
Processor usage in a camfrog chat room handling up to 100 camera streams (101 including your own video stream) and a dedicated audio stream (half-duplex) ~30%
Bear in mind that my Pentium 4 was one of the FIRST ever released, with a shameful 256KB of L2 cache (as opposed to the 512KB or 1 Meg in current-gen P4 processors.)
So, I call bullshit on Skype. They just don't have a clue about optimization and streamlined code. I see their program getting larger and larger with each update. Camfrog gets smaller. Camfrog used to be 4 megs, now it's 3.4 megs, and they're improving with each version as well. I paid my $50 for the ability to view 100 cameras at the same time (depending upon my internet pipeline, of course) and I'll testify that while Camfrog has no conference call features (AS OF YET,) it far pounds Skype into the dirt, video, audio, and general speed. Skype starts lagging after a while, Camfrog has yet to really do that unless I'm running many other programs at the same time, but it does manage to keep up.
*Uninstalls Skype from his computer*
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I seem to recall something about Intel bribing webmasters to host multimedia content so that their MMX technology would be seen as a nessicary feature back in the Pentium® days.
Intel is innocent until proven guilty.... but c'mon. You know they did it.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
You're absolutely right, the mod system is total BS and exploitable in hundreds of ways. For one, I've got about thirty /. UIDs, about any given time, two or three have moderator points. And I can post nearly anywhere from any UID since I've got access to hundreds of IP addresses, so I couldn't be blocked. Down with the moderation system. Put dedicated moderators in, and get something that remotely resembles a decent system of moderation into place. This is almost exactly like those loads of peer-reviewed journals. Yea, let my friend read this and mod me up!!! Fuck that, I want someone with knowledge (and preferably degrees and RL Experience) moderating posts about certain subjects.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Windows and Internet Explorer, so far..
[ insert meme here ]
Not being "appropriate" isn't grounds for a subpoena.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Also, I want to comment more than I want to moderate. I think there's more value in it. It would make more sense if you couldn't moderate a comment that is a [[great-]grand]parent or a [[great-]grand]child of one of your comments, nor post a new child to a comment you have moderated, than restricting moderating and commenting in the same story. It would be more programatically complex... but not horribly so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The appropiate way to handle this is spend your resources creating a GPL'd implementation of the skype protocol, not on lawyers.
Oh, puh-leeze. Next thing, you're not going to use Ethernet because your NIC has a unique ID code. Which, BTW, has been used forever by FlexLM to license software.
And, you can also determine what sort of AMD processor is installed on your machine ...
Skype is releasing an Intel-only feature, for something that will likely be used by .00001% of the market place. In addition to the fact, if you don't have the Dual Core Intel processor (which makes the percentage even lower), you won't be able to use the feature that likely won't be that appealing to begin with.
Either way, I don't get the hoohah about all of it. Skype is a relatively bloated piece of software whose concept is old and done by many other companies. Now they are supporting a specific processor for an unused feature, and AMD sicks their lawyers on it. If in fact, it does have something to do with the monopolistic practices, then it's understandable... but I think it's idiotic.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
You have a company making railroad tracks named Tagart Trans-Continental. An inventive engineer named Hank Reardon designs a new metal that can improve your railroad tracks. You make deals with him to make your railroad tracks and major train parts from this metal. Its called Reardon metal. Is it wrong for you as the train company to improve your product with this new metal exclusively? Maybe there should be two sets of tracks and trains. Lets argue fairly. GETCPUID is the problem. That single instruction allows the developer to check for enhancements. What kind of video card do you have? ATI? NVIDIA? You see the problem? Its up to the developer to decide how to code the software. If there is truly an enhancement that they can use and still ensure product stability they SHOULD use it. If Skype wants to right its wrong they could simply allow a user to set the setting and display a popup stating that the users AMD processor may not perform well with this setting. Bedammit!
Skype isn't the only show in town. AMD should check out Gizmo. Eventually we'll have a bunch of incompatible competing VOIP like the way we have instant messaging (Yahoo! AIM, etc). I can hardly wait!
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
IBM did similar by requiring an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP for it's desktop control of ViaVoice even though the same accessibility library used on XP was made available for Win2k.
:-(
IBM doesn't check for your computer's _ability_ to run the software -- they just hard code the behavior based on what OS version you are running.
The software owners have the right to restrict / cripple their software however they choose.
As someone else pointed out -- if Skype had to come up with a reason (and I don't see any reason why they would), they could simply say they only tested on Intel and only wanted to support their tested configuration.
-l
AES256 encyption can be done at speeds of 48+ MB/s. http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai/benchmarks.html This is on a Opteron 1.6 GHz, and it's a stock library. When I last looked, a Skype stream takes 5 kB/s, so 10 of those is 50 kB/s...
-- Sig down
"Restraint of trade" is the tricky part. Almost anything can be declared to restrain trade, or could also be declared to enable trade. The problem is that the law is not clear enough, so nobody knows in advance what a judge is going to say. That's why the legal costs are so high: because even if all the facts are known, it still isn't clear if anyone has broken a law or not. That is not The Rule of Law, that is The Rule of Man.
If company A bundles their product X with company B's product Y, and sells them at a lower price than individually, is that contract illegal? What if company C sells product Y' that competes with Y, and company C loses market share because of the contract between A and B? Does your answer change if company C is created after the contract was already signed between A and B? Is there ever a test involved about the actual result of the contract (i.e., whether trade increased or decreased after the contract was signed)?
It seems to me that by way of other people's actions, you could end up going from law-abiding to law-breaking. A person's legal status should not change based on market dynamics.
I lose a lot of respect for AMD for going after Intel on these shady "laws". AMD can and should compete in the open market place.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I'd like to start out by admitting, in Slashdot tradition, that I have not read the article.
To further underscore the depth of my ignorance, I will admit that I haven't been following the anti-trust proceedings against Intel at all, and certainly not with anything resembling interest.
However, I'm seeing a lot of posts here (including yours) that say something along the lines of "how is this any different from <insert exclusive agreement here>?" and I'm surprised that, this being Slashdot, I have to spell it out for you.
When there is an exclusive agreement between two companies and one of those companies is a suspected monopolist, the rules change somewhat. Because when you make an exclusive agreement with a monopolist, you are decreasing the competitive nature of the market and reinforcing the monopoly. The reason we have anti-trust legislation at all is because economists understand that a market oriented approach is only an efficient and effective distributor of resources in the absence of monopolies. They are bad, and so we periodically intervene to break them up when they form. At least, that's the idea.
If Intel is in fact a monopolist -- something that these anti-trust proceedings are designed to determine -- then by definition all the rules change.
Personally I think this Skype crap seems like a poor example of monopolistic behaviour, but presumably AMD is trying to show in a court of law that Skype made some agreement with intel to cripple their software. If intel is a monopolist, and has cornered the CPU market, this practice would be anti-competitive. The reason is simple to see: signing an exclusivity contract with a monopolist poses practically no risk whatsoever to Skype, because of intel's alleged monopoly status, but it does strengthen intel's alleged monopoly.
Personally, I'm not sure intel really has a monopoly -- AMD has been giving them a run for their money and in a number of things has been leading the market (forcing intel to license x86-64 is a great example) and I think the Skype thing is stupid.
As for the NFL/EA thing, I think that's lame too -- the difference is that the NFL, for some reason, is allowed a monopoly (perhaps people think it's a natural monopoly?) and no one complains about it. Sports franchises may be different. Who knows?
Yup, that CPU ID was certainly a good idea. It wasn't really about asset management or privacy at all... it was about screwing the competition when they least expected it!! Whoo-ya!
Under this definition, Intel isn't even close to a monopoly. I thought this would be obvious to everyone but apparently it isn't.
To list a few reasons why: I can buy x86 chips from Intel, AMD, or Transmeta. I can buy servers and desktops from Gateway with AMD chips, I can buy servers from SUN with Sparc chips, I can buy servers from IBM with PowerPC chips. I can buy laptops with Transmeta chips. I can buy desktops and laptops from Apple with PowerPC chips. There are about a billion Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers.
Currently I own 2 laptops and 3 desktop machines, and only 1 of these has an Intel chip inside.
So no, Intel isn't even close to a monopoly.
From the article:
A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips. He also said that Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that function detects an Intel dual-core processor on start-up.
I, personally, can not think of any reason why Skype would do this OTHER than Intel gave them money. I'm not sure it constitutes anti-trust or anything else illegal, but I find the effort patently rediculous.
At least Skype could say something like "we wrote optimized assembly code for the Intel Core Duo. Due to design differences between the Intel and AMD architecture, it's more difficult to manage the stack and keep track of shared registers on Intel's duo core processor. As a result, this code does not/will not work on AMD's processor without fine tuning." But they didn't say that. All we have is a note from a guy from intel that says basically says they're doing it arbitrarily.
{
...
...
if (plaintiff<-filedSuit(other))
{
cout << plaintiff->getName() << " is smart" << endl;
}
return 0;
}
int main(void)
{
company AMD, Intel;
Lawsuit::antiTrust(AMD, Intel);
cout << "Thank you for playing!" << endl;
return 0;
}
eBay owns Skype now and plans to integrate it with its services. So if you want to orchestrate a sizable eBay auction using Skype, you'll be forced to use Intel hardware.
Is eBay run by imbeciles now?
I used to work with a company that made sound synthesis and performance software, Intel provided money because they were constantly looking for apps that required heavy duty processors. You just don't need a 3 GHz processor for Microsoft Office! -- Unless something sneaky like intentional bloating, etc. is going on. Intel knew this probably would't fly, but they undoubtedly gave Skype a pile of money to do it anyway. Intel has in return gotten fabulous PR, that their CPUs are much more powerful than Skypes. Everyone on /. knows it! Intel monopolistic? Not so important to many people, nor so newsworthy. Skype likewise probably thought it had a good chance of being able to get by without a lawsuit against themselves directly, and probably Intel will pay for any legal fees they incur. In the end Intel is feeling the pressure, but good! And this is proof that they have now got to stoop so low as to hire software companies to cripple their software in order to make Intel look good.
Would this be possible to do without having to code up other P4-specific instructions?
It would make for an 'easy' proof if thats the case.
Genetic Engineering?
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
It is when its part of a suit against a company for monopolistic practices, as is this one.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I only buy cards that can have the MAC address changed in CMOS.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Yes, it is required for standard C++.
Forget AMD vs Intel, the real question is who the hell needs 10 way conference calling?
Of course, any reports like this are instanly suspect, because I've had near 60% CPU usage from Skype with no conversations running. Which makes sense, considering Skype is a peer-to-peer node routing encrypted traffic. Skype is built on a hierarchy of peer nodes... peer nodes like you! And you! And look at your connection, definitely you too!
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
It's ridiculous how much of the perceived performance of a system is simply bound to how fast its hard drive is. But if you know nothing about computer architecture, it makes sense. With a decent broadband connection, hard drive delays are pretty much second only to printer delays (the latter of which are obvious in their nature, unlike the spooky insides of a computer). I can't tell you how many times my parents have described something "on the internet" as being really slow, only to find out it was simply disk access time in firing up Java or something.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Sure, you might need a 686 emulator, and not have it quite in real-time. But you could
For the most part anyway. I've been a full time Mac user for 3-4 years now and at no point have I ever given a rats ass that my G4 wasn't an x86 box. I just wanted it to perform well enough to do what I needed it to do. Which for the most part it does.
The Intel move is a good thing for me because I sometimes deal with bits of kit that have specialist Windows/x86 apps for managing them. When I run into this I have to fire up VPC and frankly its dog slow and painful to use. Now that the Qemu Accelerator executes x86 code natively on an Intel Mac, its just a matter of time before I make the switch. Frankly I'm only holding out for Apple to start offering the new 160GB SATA drives for the MacBook Pro ( I really do need the space ) plus a couple of Apps I use to get their Universal binary versions.
Now if I had a choice between getting a MacBook Pro with an Intel chip or an AMD chip, that would be a different kettle of fish. Providing they both offered similar performance per watt I would have the luxury of being able to look at the ethical arguments and factor that into my purchasing decision. Its a moot point though because I don't have that choice. Not if I want to use OSX and enjoy the Apple apps and integration experience anyway, and that's the big issue for me. I love using OSX, end of story!
So why does Skype, on my AMD 64 x2 machine, tell me that I can add 9 people to a current conference call?
A monopoly is defined (economically, not legally) as an entitiy that has greater than 25% market share in its given industry. This is a rather ambiguous definition (contrary to how simple it sounds) as if you take the coca-cola company, they are a definite monopoly (according to the above definition) in the soft drinks industry, but if you expand it to drinks industry that quickly disappears, especially looking at volume as water, beer, etc are factored in.
In the same way intel is a definite monopoly in the PC CPU industry, and almost definitely the PC Motherboard Chipset insudtry but if you expand it to CPUs in general, youre taking into acount the likes of the firms that make Mobile Phone and Calculator CPUs, you can expand still further (chip makers, factoring in ram, GPU, etc...)
So yes, Intel can be 'remotely' considered a monopoly, economically, and given their actions, legally (though, again, ambiguety), but AMD is getting close to the economic definition thereof (as you can probably tell, the economic definition allows for up to 3 monopolies in a given industry... dont ask)
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
Actually, it's a key underlying reason for a "free market" society. In theory, a free market is "better" because it inherently rewards businesses that make "a better mousetrap" or make the same mousetrap for a lower prices. In the former case, we get better products and technology. This is why companies are always pushing the envelope trying to build better, faster, etc. (Just look at AMD vs Intel for a key example.) In the latter case, more people can afford the products so the technology is more integrated into society on average. Either way, this could be considered "advancing society".
But yes, that's not the direct goal of the business. It's the reason the rewards they're after are there in the first place.
This isn't the first time CPUID has been used to AMD's disadvantage. This would not have been a problem if the processors didn't identify themselves based on brand/manufacturer and only provided the important information like what features they supported.
As for the NFL/EA thing, I think that's lame too -- the difference is that the NFL, for some reason, is allowed a monopoly (perhaps people think it's a natural monopoly?) and no one complains about it. Sports franchises may be different. Who knows?
Technically, only baseball is exempt from anti-trust laws because Congress granted it an exemption a long time ago. I think it was in the 1920s, but don't quote me on that. The NFL is not, per se, a monopoly and there is nothing to bar a new league from starting. In fact, here is a brief history of competing leagues in major sports leagues:
Major League Baseball
National League founded 1876
a few competing leagues played in the late 1800s, but none lasted.
American League founded 1901, accepted as part of Major League Baseball after a few years
Federal League - 1914-15 - folded
and that is it.
National Football League:
All American Football Conference played 1946-49 - 3 teams merged into NFL and the rest of the league folded
American Football League played 1960-69. Complete merger with NFL.
World Football League - 1974-75 - folded
United States Football League - 1983-85 - folded
XFL (considered by most to be a minor league) - 2001 - folded
The NBA and NHL both had competing leagues in the 1970s that both leagues partially merged with. I think there may have been another pro basketball league competing with the NBA at one time, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
Outside of baseball which is allowed by law to be a monopoly, the other sports leagues have been open to competition. The problem is that it costs a lot to run a league and the odds of a new league being a success are very low. Several minor leagues have folded in various sports in the past decade, even though their costs are much lower than professional leagues. For example, the International Hockey League folded in 2001, but in the 1990s it became the premier league for minor league hockey. They expanded too quickly and by 2001 they were forced to fold, with a few of their franchises being accepted into the old American Hockey League, which is now the highest league for minor league hockey.
Actually, they do have the right to do it; not that it's a good idea to do it with the chipmaker that is large enough that they come under antitrust scrutiny on regular intervals. It's just not very smart, and they end up taking fire for their partner.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
SHAKE your dwindling marketshare, baby!
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Ok, I get your idea here, but calling antimonopoly policies 'shady'? You really need some help; there are some pretty hard and fast rules. Just because they're based on often incomplete information doesn't make them any 'shadier'.
Most of the policy surrounding horizontal antitrust in the US concerns the HHI calculation. It's essentially the sum of the squares of the market percentage of each company, and is called the markets' saturation.
So, usually when the 'Restraint of trade' question comes up, the pessimism with which it is looked at is directly relative to how close the HHI calculation comes to 10,000.
"A person's legal status should not change based on market dynamics."
We're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about companies. Purely economic entities. Their status is based almost entirely on market dynamics.
Anyways, the "company a and company b" stuff only happens to be illegal if it causes company a or b's market share to boost past an anticompetitive HHI calculation (currently, there is a line arbitrarily drawn at 8,500 for official 'monopoly' status, as well at an 'under scruitiny' line at 5,500) at the expense of other companies in that market (antitrust laws don't apply towards new and untested markets, so prospecting is always fair game).
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
is when something may support a side in court.
"He's a real midnight golfer"
antitrust in the US concerns the HHI calculation
Who gets to decide what products are "alternative goods". You can either do a calculation on a pentium 4, a TI-85, or pencil and paper. Are all of those included in the calculation, or only companies like AMD? If you define a market narrowly enough, there's always a monopoly. And Intel can't know in advance how the market will be defined.
And still, the whole thing depends on what someone else does. If AMD has some bad luck, then all of a sudden Intel is a monopoly and breaking the law, even though their behavior is exactly the same.
We're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about companies.
But when we start talking about remedies, we start talking about confiscation. So someone's money or property is confiscated. Then you're talking about taking away someone's property based on what someone else does. Confiscation of property is not supposed to happen without due process of law, not the whims of a jury listening to a fancy lawyer's speech.
antitrust laws don't apply towards new and untested markets, so prospecting is always fair game
Who decides what's new? Intel is fairly new, as far as companies go. What about the multi-core industry? Even newer, so Intel can't be held responsible for what happens there. The outcome depends mostly on the judge or jury. If they define markets narrowly, Intel is a lone innovator that is in an emerging market. If they define the market as a little broader, and define new/untested a little more strictly, Intel is in trouble. That's why I say it is no longer the Rule of Law, it's the Rule of Man.
Lawyers love this stuff. A million here or there spent on a law firm can angle a company to look slightly more like an abusive monopoly, or slightly less.
Now, compare all this to real laws. If you take someone else's wallet, you go to jail. The gray area on that law is about one micron wide ("but I tripped and fell and happened to grab his wallet, it was all a misunderstanding!"), the black area is if you actually stole the wallet, and the white area is if you never touched his wallet. The gray area for anti-trust law is about 50 miles wide, with no black or white in sight. And they gray area is where lawyers make money, and politicians exercise power, and regular people get screwed.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Then again it would spawn thousands of new user ids by people who had to either rank up their own posts or mark opposing viewpoints as troll or flamebait. In the end I think the solution would be to simply hide the score on a post and only list the moderation. No ranking = no gaming.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
Their costs are too high? Always cheaper than Intel as far as bang for the buck, though. How are they too high?
There is a Universal Life Value Check it
Someone made a patch to allow skype to run 10 way calls on AMD cpus.
http://maxxuss.com/home/skype.html
Stanelie
But grey areas are what legal systems are for. And if you're going into business, you ALWAYS take the risk of falling into one.
As for 'Who gets to decide what products are "alternative goods".', I'd guess the judge, but moreover, I think the 'Drop-in replacement' product that is normally AMD's stuff would be appropriate.
'And Intel can't know in advance how the market will be defined.'
I'm pretty certain that it's the job of managers to figure out how the market will be defined and respond accordingly to it.
'Confiscation of property is not supposed to happen without due process of law, not the whims of a jury listening to a fancy lawyer's speech.'
What country do you live in? In the US, 'due process of law' and 'whims of a jury listening to a fancy lawyer's speech' are more or less the same thing. There are steps after that in due process, but that's the first one.
Here's the thing: Intel has in one way or another paid Skype to bundle their product with theirs, providing extra functionality and locking that functionality from competing products without technical reason.
Show me how this is good for consumers (the only true test of valid market action), and I will agree that it's not abuse of monopoly to lock out competition.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1