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."
Microsoft has a bunch of reasons to give up any info they have to hurt Intel if possible. With Intel's recent gung-ho approach and partnering with RH and SuSE anything to hurt them would benefit MS in some small way. Don't be surprised if Ballmer hand delivers the documents himself.
gogo amd
Intel testified against Microsoft in their anti-trust trial. AMD testified in support of Microsoft's monopoly. I'm sure that Microsoft will be happy to return these favors.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
From TFA:
"AMD may be requesting documents from Microsoft that show that Intel tried to convince the software company not to support x86 64-bit in Windows. This might be a tricky thing to prove, as Microsoft has offered 64 bit versions of Windows for both Itanium and x86 64-bit for some time now."
And also, that Microsoft is complying with the request.
I wish summaries are more complete. Only if wishes were horses....
*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?
I lose respect for any company that engages in lawsuits like this.
AMD has great products, and they are succeeding in the marketplace. A lawsuit just seems to come from jealousy. Why not spend their efforts competing with better products?
I know everyone is thinking about things like Intel's market control. But AMD is big enough to stand on its own feet and just keep going.
A nice, clear-cut lawsuit that acheives a real remedy can be healthy for a company, and is sometimes very necessary. But this type of litigious behavior can only corrupt. And that will destroy the innovation at AMD.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
AMD filed a lawsuit against rival Intel last July, charging that the chip giant has "unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD."
There's nothing you can do, there was an Intel inside. The revelation of his presence sent some very bad signals which were chipping away your reputation.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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...
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 don't see this as good at all. And I don't say this because of where _I_ work...
Competition is good. That I can see. AMD did show up Intel more than a few times and Intel is responding and changing. That's what business and competition is all about. I have to admit that I lost some respect for AMD once they did this. I have always thought that they provided good processors at good prices and at times I have even bought AMD. But the lawsuit? I don't think so.
Think about this, AMD fanboys. If Intel were to disappear today, do you think AMD will have ANYWHERE near the capacity to supply the market? The answer is a plain and simple "No". Intel has a large amount of fabs that churn out processors for its supplies. AMD doesn't have that strength. The fact is that Intel supplies a majority of the market and keeps it going. AMD is an excellent competitor and keeps Intel on its toes. And that is what we need to see. Not lawsuits. I wonder how much this is actually going to cost consumers.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
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.
Heh, heh heh. That's good stuff. I can hear the shredders, er ... left clicks on the delete buttons, now.
Just ask the Burst attorneys about Microsoft's email retention policy.
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
Yeah, we're all tired of the lawsuits. But sometimes, they are *required*. Only the court (and maybe objective folks with *all* of the facts) can tell if Intel really has been working AMD over unfairly, or if AMD is just SCO wanna-be.
.... err, ok... maybe this is a pointless waste of time & money.
*If* Intel has made anti-competitive contracts (Such as, "Only buy our chips or our prices double!"), I'd liked to see them smacked as hard as Microsoft.
Microsoft holds a grudge indeed. All honesty disappears when you're a giant monopoly corporation. Why can't everyone just play fair? AMD will probably be enemies to Intel now, like how Microsoft is. Ah, the circle of corporations.
Like I said, sometimes a lawsuit is necessary. I'm not really qualified to start breaking down specific medical malpractice lawsuits. I'm sure there are valid and frivilous ones just like everything else. From what I understand now, malpractice insurance is a huge cost for many physicians. Some types of doctors pay $100k/yr for malpractice insurance just because of the type of doctor they are and the state they practice in.
I guess that's fine, but then you can't complain about a $250 bill to talk to the doctor for 10 minutes (that actually happened the last time I saw the doctor, by the way). To me, it seems more economically efficient to talk to 2-4 cheap doctors than one super-expensive one.
The result is that now most people get medical advice from family members and rarely see the doctor. What do you think? I'm not asking rhetorically, I want to know. You probably know more than I do. Perhaps it might be better to limit liability, thus reducing the cost of a doctor's visit, thus allowing patients more frequent visits (or phone consultations or even house calls), and second (or 3rd+) opinions.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
You make some valid legal points. But I'm not sure how many companies really emerge from antitrust lawsuits with any real economic benefit. If I see AMD get some money in the next year or two, and then use it to make amazing products that blow away the market, you (and AMD) will be vindicated. Otherwise, not.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Is it just me or do all these lawsuits remind you of the playground in kindergarten. A lot of Big kids try to convince the small kids to side with them. If only they would just put the two CEO's in a boxing ring and let them go at it to decide the outcome.