Slashdot Mirror
AMD Calls on Microsoft for Intel Antitrust Case
Rob writes "As part of its ongoing antitrust case against its chief rival Intel Corp, AMD said it had subpoenaed Microsoft Corp for documents pertaining to
its case." From the article: "AMD filed subpoenas with 32 companies, asking them to retain and forward documentation that may pertain to the lawsuit, including computer companies, microprocessor distributors, and electronics retailers. Most of these companies agreed to comply with AMD's requests, including Acer, Gateway, Lenovo, NEC, Sony, Sun Microsystems, Tech Data Corp., and Circuit City. The only firm that refused to cooperate with AMD in any capacity was Toshiba, although others have been slow to respond."
*looks at green badge around neck*.... I guess this is good.
... [hint hint] and not because it's morally superior but because it's good for the gander.
Personally I'm happy for AMDs courage of conviction not just because of where I work
Intel is not evil but they do have an awful stance of we're the best and there is no reason to consider anyone else. They demonstrate this by the way they package their kits (e.g. you need an Intel northbridge/southbridge) to the way they develop software (IPP is not friendly on AMD nor is ICC). They'll claim it's for superior performance but consider AMD.
AMDs stance is they want as many people developing around AMD as possible. This is why VIA and Nvidia (to name two) are major developers of chipsets. AMD is partnered with development shops (won't say which) where the attitude is "be great on AMD but not at the expense of being great on Intel". Basically we want the best performance we can get so long as we don't create problems for the competition.
I hope other companies can stand up and just admit for a change that competition is great, it's a good idea and furthermore the future of the computing industry demands it.
Vive la choix!
Tom
FTFA"As the Intel-AMD lawsuit drags on, there's no telling what kind of picture the documents it brings to light will eventually paint about the computer industry."
Every time I see these antitrust lawsuits "drag on" in the news, I wonder how much of the cost of these fights gets passed onto us, the consumer? It must cause a ripple effect when Company A sues Company B which impacts Companies C, D, etc. in terms of attorney fees, internal audit, research, and strategic analysis. Are we footing the bill?
The playing field is *far* from even. Intel had such dominance for so long, and cuts deals to specifically hamper AMD that this lawsuite is needed.
I dont see any stagnation in their drive for innovation. What they are doing is making sure their efforts are not wasted on a marketplace in which Intel has created barriers all over the place to stop AMD market penetration. Why would you continue to innovate just to sell chips in a market where you can never hope to compete with an Intel that violates anti-Trust and keeps you from competing in the marketplaces that you need.
While an antitrust suit against intel is rather interesting, I'm more interested in seeing what cool new chips AMD comes up with next. It has since been AMD's style to come up with next big thing a whole quarter or more before intel brings it to the market. They aren't going to win market share with an antitrust suit, but they may (keyword: may) level the playing field with software and hardware manufacturers a bit. Linux users seem to be AMD's most avid fans; are we not always rooting for the underdog? AMD may not be the underdog for long as they continue to gain market share with their main feature: superior power and engineering at a lower pricepoint than their primary competitor.
Take the white suppository, and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes...
AMD has been doing just what you are saying for years. They *have* had the best CPUs for years now. If the playing field were even, AMD would already be in a position where this lawsuite would not even make sense.
"Best" is a blanket statement.
Most industry analysts believe that Intel's costs are far below AMD's, which gives Intel much more negotiating room with major OEMs. That is, Intel can sell CPUs cheaper than AMD and still make money. This makes Intel's CPUs "best" for large OEMs like Dell even when AMD is cheaper in the retail market.
Also, AMD has marketed itself as the "alternative for low-end cheap people", even when they had faster products on the market. This effectively cut them out of high-value segements of the market. It's only recently that AMD has been somewhat successful selling into the server and workstation markets.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I think it is not wether they agree to hand-over the documents is that big of an issue, also matters is what and which documents to submit.
there is always a possibility that they may actually start hading over only documents which might have some beneficial value for them in some or the other ways.
the same also holds true for all other corporations who have agreed. between disclosing and non-disclosure, there is always a chance of willfull partial disclosure for own benefit.
AMD must be extra-carefull.
everyone downmodding this post will be prosecuted for reading my post without first buying a license!!!
Mod me how you will, but something has to be said. After reading these posts, I would have thought this was a fight between Microsoft and Intel. Many of the posts are from people trying to dive into the mind of Microsoft and speculate that this is payback for Intel testifying against them. I have to ask what would happen if Microsoft went along with Toshiba and refused to cooperate? Does the term damned if you do and damned if you don't come to mind?
Do what is right and let the consequence follow
I think that you may be struggling with the essential paradox of antitrust suits. Antitrust law defines a monopoly as one who has market power, where market power is the ability to get away with actions that would cause loss of sales in an ordinary market. Having market power is legal. Anti-competitive behavior is legal, and normally punished by market forces. But anti-competitive acts committed with market power are illegal. The law steps in when normal market conditions fail.
The paradox is that proof of market power depends on showing that anti-competitive acts did not result in the usual harm to the alleged monpolist's sales. The acts are only illegal if the monopolist gets away with them. If the market punishes your anticompetitive acts, then you aren't a monopolist.
It's fairly clear that AMD had a superior product in the Athlon 64. In a normal market, that would mean that AMD could charge a premium price. But AMD not only had to have a better product to take sales from Intel, but they had to charge a lower price, too. That strongly suggests that Intel has market power, and that they used it to suppress competition rather than out-compete.
The suggestion that antitrust suits are motivated by jealousy is silly, and you should be ashamed of trivializing a suit that obviously exposes AMD to considerable work and expense.
I agree that it is unhealthy to use lawsuits as a replacement for sound business development. Lawsuits often indicate the presence of corruption. But that corruption may be on either side - who filed the suit doesn't tell you who is at fault. Intel lost the technology lead for a while, which reflects management problems. Did those management problems also allow illegal, corrupt behavior to cover up the loss of the technical lead?
Did AMD substitute lawsuits for innovation? Or did Intel substitute corrupt practices for innovation? Filing the suit tells us that someone had trouble competing. The sourt will tell us which party it was.