Slashdot Mirror
Timeline Set for Intel/AMD Antitrust Trial
Vitaly Friedman writes "The stage is set for the biggest tech battle in years: the antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD against rival Intel. What sort of effect is it likely to have on the industry and the consumer? From the article:
'Last year, the company filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel, claiming that their rival had "unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD" for more than ten years. AMD has already subpoenaed computer manufacturers, retailers, and even Microsoft to provide documentation pertaining to the case. Now, the timeline has been set for the trial of the Megayear to commence.'"
Megayear? Don't you mean Mebiyear?
This guy's the limit!
This lawsuit doesn't take a Megayear as stated in this blurb.. I'll never know the results!
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Just seems strange.... Intel is the one accused of antitrust violations.... meanwhile the lawyers for the two sides get together and agree that it will take them two or three years to figure it all out.
If they continue to do what they're allegedly doing, they might lose the case. If they relent a little, AMD its marketshare. At least the consumers win though.
The trial is set to take place in 2008, don't know why this wansn't mentioned in the summary. It's hard to predict an outcome in this case. Was Intel simply using normal business sense when they tried to retain their power? It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but when you start harming the consumer things change. Did the large discounts Intel offered its customers to stay Intel harm the consumer or help? I'm sure many smaller businesses benefited from buying a certain number of (similarly priced to AMD) Intel chips to gain a discount. Isn't that creating more competition in the end? This case could set a precedent for what constitutes illegal practices by a larger company.
I think Megatrial of the year would make more sense in this context.
Doesn't anybody read over what they write before pressing SBUMIT? Doh!
So, the question is: Do you punish someone for anticompetitive behavior even if they are bad at it? I like to think so, but most of the time the people who are good at it do not get punished (e.g., WalMart or Microsoft).
According to this article, they've only recently hit 20%. That's a long way from 50%. It's certainly a respectable number, but Intel could easily keep them at bay by employing illegal tactics.
This guy's the limit!
The article says AMD has 20% market share, not 50%. Oops. Still, the fact that AMD was able to wrest 20% of the market away from Intel seems to imply that Intel doesn't have monopoly power, and whatever power Intel has is steadily eroding. I don't think an antitrust suit is justified.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
Which is apparently starting to affect Dell's sales.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Come watch at the Court of the Mega-arena as two eternal rivals are pitted against each other in the legal battle of the century!
Will AMD take revenge upon Intel? Will Intel be crushed under years of litigation from AMD? Watch for the exciting conclusion next time on, "The Processors." <soap_opera>
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
A megayear is a million years.
I even linked to Wikipedia so give me my Karma whoring points.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
It's pretty obvious from the current Dell situation that Intel has tried to keep AMD out and that's illegal.
Anti-competitive behavior hurts everyone. It hurts the customers, the economy, competitors and eventually erodes the competitive spirit of the company engaging in it.
Anti-competitive behavior seems to be running rampant these days and its important that Intel get in trouble for it. If they get away with it sends a signal to the business community that it's ok, everyone can do it. If they get meaningfully punished it will send a signal to businesses to clean up their acts and play fair.
The capitalist economic system requires fair competition to work properly. The computers and electronics industries have gone far away from fair competition and everything needs a real shake up.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
That still doesn't prove that Intel didn't have a monopoly, or that they illegally tried to maintain it. Just that if all that is true, they were unsucessful at it, which is entirely possible.
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
The article says AMD has 20% market share, not 50%. Oops. Still, the fact that AMD was able to wrest 20% of the market away from Intel seems to imply that Intel doesn't have monopoly power, and whatever power Intel has is steadily eroding. I don't think an antitrust suit is justified.
Think a little bit man!
What if AMD's chips were better than Intel's in every conceivable aspect (price, preformance, power dissipation, etc) and they can only manage a 20% market share? Doesn't that scream that's there's an artificial constraint placed on the market somehow?
I'm not necessarily saying this is the case, but stating that someone reached a 20% market share therefore their competitors couldn't possibly be doing anything illegal is just silly.
Life is too short to proofread.
Speaking of Dell (Dintel) and them aquiring AlienWare (AMDware), and rumored they will still be using AMD cpus this begs the question. Will Intel pressure them to convert AlienWare purchases to Intel chips in due time? On the other hand, about market share, consider that Intel puts out so many, and so catchy ads on TV that no wonder they have such a huge market share. Unless I am blind I have not seen an AMD commercial. Just goes to show so many commercials for Intel, even if I did see an AMD commercial at some point, obviously it did stick into memory!
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
AMD has had about 20% of the CPU market for 10 years now, so nothing is eroding. Their problem is that it has been the worst 20% (least profitable consumer segmenet for the most part, alhtough that's changing).
Intel's argument is:
(1) AMD sells every CPU it can possibly make
(2) AMD only has capacity for ~20% of the market
(3) The fact that AMD can't make profits on these CPUs is AMD's problem, not Intel's.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Just seems strange.... Intel is the one accused of antitrust violations.... meanwhile the lawyers for the two sides get together and agree that it will take them two or three years to figure it all out.
It's called civil procedure and it is in place to ensure that each side gets an opportunity to bring in all relevant parties, conduct thorough discovery, and reach a decision that isn't arrived at in an arbitrary fashion. It's certainly not perfect, but if you were charged with a violation that could seriously affect your business, you'd want all the facts to be laid out on the table before a judge just arbitrarily swooped in and made a decision based on idle whim.
Sure, lawyers make money when companies have disputes. Perhaps that's just the sad side effect of the rule of law in a complex society. The discovery process in particular takes a very long time because finding all of the pertient information in a suit involving two massive organizations, spanning a period of many years is not easy.
Nobody wants the alternative, a society without laws, where the party that can dish out the most physical violence wins the dispute. Then again, lawyers are convenient scapegoats for all the wrongs of our society. It makes sense. After all, nobody really cares all that much for plumbers until their drain gets backed up.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
By the time you have 50% marketshare you have such an sway over the market that it's effectively monopolisation. TRUE, you don't have all of the share, but you can start to employ tactics that are anti-competitive (for example drop your prices massively in the short term, boot your competitors out of the market entirely, then raise prices again.. look at Microsoft. They cut prices massively with the XBox, but because they have POWERFUL opposition, their tactics are a lot less effective).
I'm not joking, no UK business can actually have more than 25% share in any one market. In practice mergers that go over this are illegal, and continued aggressive growth in a market despite warnings is also illegal (to my understanding). This is why we have no Wal-marts and so forth in our country, there's always healthy competition.
Our equivilent, Tesco (wikipedia it for a bit of info, it's a major supermarket chain) is the nearest we have to a gigantic monopolising corporation. Because of the afformentioned legislation, they've had to spread into other markets, now they sell car insurance, internet access, loans, etc etc.. and they can't wrestle their way into those markets as effectively as they'd be able to wrestle further into the supermarket.. market.
A little bit offtopic, but it should give insights into how you can be a monopoly, without even owning all of the market.
I've got the spirit, lose the feeling.
And this discourages monopolistic behaviors how?
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Is there really that much of a difference between using an Intel chip and an AMD chip? I know you need different motherboards and chipsets, but isn't that about it? As far as I understand, there is no difference in the applications, other hardware, etc. So the only thing you would have to maintain (as a boxmaker) is another set of motherboard specs and the BIOSes for them, and in exchange you get (today) better performing chips for the wattage. The fact that a massive organization like Dell has not done so leads me to think that Intel has been doing some arm-twisting.
OTOH, with Apple, which likes working with as small a set of hardware combinations as possible, I can see why they would only want to maintain one microprocessor family, motherboard chipset, etc.
So hard would it really be (financially, organizationally) for a Dell, Gateway or Apple to add the AMD chip to its lineup? Anyone have any concrete knowledge about this?
Practically every business engages in anti-competitive behavior. That's how the game works - you beat your competition by doing things that hurt them. There are different ways of doing this: better products, better prices, better advertising, pressure on your suppliers for more favorable conditions, favors to your customers in exchange for exclusive business - the list goes on forever.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Yeah, getting one of those new Core Duo macs will certainly show Intel who's boss.
where do the ther 75% of your OS's come from?
does Wal-Mart really have 25% of the US retail market? No, it has 8.9%
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
"What if AMD's chips were better than Intel's in every conceivable aspect (price, preformance, power dissipation, etc) and they can only manage a 20% market share? Doesn't that scream that's there's an artificial constraint placed on the market somehow?"
No. Inferior products win all the time. Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, Intel markets their brand. There are Intel commercials on TV. From a mass-market (i.e. not well informed) perspective, how can AMD be seen as anything other than a cheap knock-off?
So, no, it doesn't scream "artificial constraint". That doesn't mean it isn't there, but that rationale alone doesn't float the boat.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I thought that at first and then I remebered something... When is the last time you saw an AMD add on TV?
I remeber the add with the fab workers in diffrent color suits and how they were selling dolls of them at comp USA.
I remeber the multiple adds with the Blueman group.
I remeber hundreds of adds for laptops which had the phrase "with a genuine intel inside..."
however... I never seen a AMD add on TV. I never seen a oh look we made this computer with an AMD add.
So having 20% of the market with no addvertizing of your product is pretty good imho.
Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
So, no, it doesn't scream "artificial constraint". That doesn't mean it isn't there, but that rationale alone doesn't float the boat.
You're missing the point.
My argument is that having a 20% is not anything even close to proof that your competitors aren't doing anything illegal.
Brand marketing, color schemes and whatever else you want to throw at me fall under the portion of my previous post etc.
What it comes down to is that 20% marketshare does not prove that the other guy isn't forcing people into illegal agreements, period. That was the comment and it's dead wrong.
Life is too short to proofread.
There are infinite levels of complexity in the legal system that can be simplified or eliminated, but since lawyers are currently the ones running everything, that won't happen.
I agree that lawyers aren't likely to be the ones to make the legal system less complex. However, I think it's a natural consequence of living in a more complex society that laws and legal procedure becomes more complicated as well. This is particularly true given that we don't live in a homogeneous society, and we value individual autonomy above all else.
Everyone wants to have the ability to sue for whatever they want, whenever they want, and the legal system gives the people what they want, particularly with regard to torts actions. We can force legislative controls on the legal process, and sometimes that happens. For example, in California the cap on malpractice damages seems meet with approval by most of the voters.
The current complexity in the legal system is in many ways an outgrowth of the liberalization of pleadings and the opening up of the legal system to plaintiffs who otherwise would never have used the courts. One of the side effects of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was the rise of legal aid. With the courts no longer the realm only of the wealthy, caseloads rose across the board. So there's been a tradeoff of added complexity for added access.
I take your point that a wide range of possibilities exists between the poles of anarchy and current American system of jurisprudence. However, I'm not sure many people think of it that way. The knee-jerk reaction to lawyers has existed ever since there have been lawyers. This is not a new phenomenon. The recent rise of corporate legal firms has worsened people's view of the profession. I think many of those concerns are legitimate, but at the same time I don't believe that simply because litigation takes a long time and lawyers make money at it is cause to believe that somehow the rest of us are getting screwed.
As for me, I'm a nontraditional law student. I've been out in the world for many years, and am coming into the legal field with a different perspective than most of the youngins in my class. They're ready to be molded and indoctrinated into the legal profession, but I'm much more inclined to be sceptical. In particular, I have noticed that my classmates tend to ignore the obvious conflicts of interest in a system where giant corporate law firms have their hands in every cookie jar. At the same time, the American legal system really is an amazing achievement. It is far from perfect, but it is in some respects an amazing construct. This enormous, complex, diverse country sticks together in large part because of that system.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
law companies collude to increase the billable hours yet don't get slapped with an antitrust investigation.
Also, remember that it's British based companies only that can be prosecuted under the law, meaning that international companies are pretty much exempt (which is a kick in the arse really isn't it).
You can find more info here, it's not much but it's the best info there is online, it appears.
I've got the spirit, lose the feeling.
And the two hardest professions to file a tort against is the legal profession and the mental health profession.
This is more of a question than an assumption, but do Intel not force hardware manufacturers to run their 3 second intel ad (logo and Intel sound) within their TV ad slot?
I've always found that really strange, it's not as though someone would willingly want to advertise another company during their 30 second commercial. Or is it the fact that because the manufacturer is using Intels name, i.e. using Intel to sell their product, that they are obliged by contract to do this...
I don't know if it's the same siutation in the States but it's like that here in the UK.
Thanks, that had always puzzled me.
This may be true, but that doesn't make it right. There is a difference between being competitive and being anti-competitive. It may be sort of a gray line, but that doesn't make all actions ethical or legal.
Some things are competitive: better products, better prices, better advertising
Some things are anti-competitive: pressure on your suppliers for more favorable conditions, favors to your customers in exchange for exclusive business
There are cases when things in either category can be switched. For instance lowering your prices until you put someone out of business because you have deeper pockets and then raising prices after the business has shut down. Or there are cases where a business promises to be sole source and provide you a discount because of volume sales.
I expect anti-competitive behaviour because businesses exist to make money, but if you do not draw a line anywhere, the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker.
I personally don't think we have done enough to keep businesses in check, but I don't care enought to do anything about, besides writing this post.
From the limited pieces of info I've seen, the case seems to focus on pricing.
Basically Intel had capacity to supply over 90% of the market. They would price the first 80% of the chips high and then use "volume discounts" for the last 10% of chips sold, taking them from 80% to 90% market share. Normally this is legal.
However, the end result was that the "volume discounts" priced the chips between 80% and 90% market share at below the cost to produce them.
In order for AMD to get more than 10% market share, they had to compete with Intel on this 80% to 90% market share area. But since Intel priced these below cost to manufacture, AMD could not compete.
From what I've seen Intel could be in serious trouble if this holds up because AMD could claim damages on the revenues of 10% market share over 10 years.
What if AMD's chips were better than Intel's in every conceivable aspect (price, preformance, power dissipation, etc) and they can only manage a 20% market share? Doesn't that scream that's there's an artificial constraint placed on the market somehow?
Sure- there is an artificial constraint at play here, but that constraint is AMD's lack of foresight to invest in manufacturing technology and capacity like Intel has. Quite simple, AMD lacks the ability to fill the kind of volume and low defect rates that the large OEM suppliers like Dell and HP require from their suppliers.
You might recall 5 or 6 years ago when AMD proudly announced that they had partnered with UMC to manufacture their chips, and AMD's CEO declared that now "AMD will not need to expend billions and billions of dollars on incremental production facilities to achieve our market share objectives." Of course that partnership ended up falling through, and now AMD CEO Hector Ruiz has publicly stated that AMD is capacity constrained- they are selling every chip that they can make. Manufacturing capacity doesn't just magically appear- it takes a lot of time and a huge amount of money- neither of which AMD is spent enough of.
AMD's position in the market today is a direct result of the poor decisions they have been making for years now. You cannot blame Intel for that.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
The outcome of this trial would either encourage or discourage a future White House occupant to undertaking antitrust actions. Depending on the occupant the justice department could treat this as a precedent with which to construct more cases or as a fluke.
I think this case just came a few years too late.. had this come before AMD64 hit it big, and I might think differently..
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
This is the wrong forum for this sort of hyperbole. In just three kiloeyears we've had more interesting trials, including the trials of Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, the Gang of Four, O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow, Hauptmann, Hinkley, Clinton, SCO, blah blah blah. I also rather think the Nuremburg Trials have this one beat cold.
This is not my sandwich.
So can you tell me who's producing PowerPC Macs these days?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
You're assuming that someone "pro-business" will favor an Intel monopoly, while someone who isn't "pro-business" will favor a level playing field on which AMD (and others) can fairly compete with Intel. So here we are, in a time and place where business is supposed to be capitalist and capitalism is supposed to both thrive on and require free competition, yet it seems like a reasonable thing (to at least some of us) to say that the "pro-business" course is actually the one where competition is stifled and monopoly imposed - even though every business person who does not currently enjoy a monopoly (that is, most of us) will tell you that monopolies are very bad things indeed.
Pro-monopoly, when pushed far enough, is indifferentiable from communism. You thought we'd gotten rid of that, right?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Those are very good points, but they are not a defense against monopoly behavior.
AMD doesn't have to prove that Intel's tactics caused damages, merely that Intel has "unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD".
Proving damages and proving illegal behavior are two separate things. Even behavior that wasn't successful in thwarting AMD could still be ruled illegal under anti-trust laws.
If AMD wins, they may get damages as one of the remedies, depending on what the Judge thinks is appropriate.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I don't think it's "forced," per se, but probably part of a co-branding agreement. I've heard that the whole "Intel Inside" thing gets PC manufacturers some sort of discount on their chips, and has specific requirements -- not just the stickers, but Intel's logo on the box, in promotional material, and probably in TV ads as well.
I remember this because there was some discussion a while back about whether Apple would buy into the Intel Inside campaign in order to get the discounts on chips for it's Mactel lineup. Obviously, they chose not to participate (thank god; the thought of having one of those stickers on the front of a pristine white Mac is pretty bad), and don't get whatever sweetheart deal Dell and Co. get in return for participating.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you can't innovate, litigate! Worked for SCO!
Not to be a spelling nazi, but the abbreviation of "advertisement" is ad, not add. Although I guess you were consistent at the end there, with "addvertizing" :)
To get on-topic though, you're right. I can think of a number of Intel adverts, and of course any advert for a PC with an Intel CPU has that (fucking annoying) jingle at least once, but I don't recall any AMD ads at all. The closest I've come is when I was at JavaUK06 recently, when Sun's VP of marketing banged on about how great their new AMD-based boxes are, and how much better they are than equivalent Xeon-based ones. Even that wasn't really an advert - well, it was, only in that context it's pronounced "keynote speech".
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Lawyers will proclaim and defend any claim ever made, any act ever committed, any atrocity ever foisted upon mankind -- just as long as they get paid to do so.
True. It's a travesty. Until you are the amoral bastard being accused of something evil, something in opposition to the state, or something against public morality. Then an adversarial system of justice makes a lot more sense.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Surprise, Surprise, where ever did Intel learn these tactics. Don't these tactics sound a lot like the behaviour of another company whose software runs on Intel products.
And I have not used either one's products in years. Right after Intel first changed the CPU socket to edge connect on the pretense of technical innovation (cooler, faster CPUs) when in fact it was all about hanging AMD with proprietary technology. AMD then developed their own CPU sockets, and of course their own motherboard designs, that are now arguably superior to Intel's.
My views, no flames please, lol
.NET than AMD based ones do. You may cry that the compiler is optimised for Intel, but am I, as a developer bothered? No.
:-)
So, Dell threaten to use AMD chips. Intel get a bit upset, and tries to arm twist Dell. What can Dell do here? The popular belief would be that Dell gets scared and stays with Intel.
Really? So they can get their chips cheaper from AMD, and supposedly the consumer wants AMD chips. So Dell says *fsck the consumer* and stays with Intel. Doesn't ring true to me...
Fact is that Dell sells a lot of PC's & Laptops, with Intel chips.... Kinda says that the consumer (at large) is happy to buy Intel based PC products, in my opinion.
As a software engineer, not as a gamer (I don't have the spare time), I notice that Intel chip based PC's perform faster at building software under
I count myself as a member of the consuming public, and I make my choice of PC based upon price & performance at what I want it to do. It is a tool after all. Therefor I buy Intel based PC products. Now if I was a brand enthusiast (as I am with my cars, I love Landrovers) then I would by whatever I was loyal too, regardless of the shortcomings, whatever they may be!
Just my views, take them or ignore them as you see fit
Merlin --- We're an autonomous collective... Help, Help, I'm being oppressed!!
Call me crazy, but that doesn't really sound like Intel has monopoly power.
Then what explains the following:
The Intel monopoly is not much unlike Microsoft, this is why the term WinTel. But fortunately the WinTel monopoly is decaying and it will be fun to watch as they get their lawyers to suck out cash while the Chinese produce a x86-64bit for $20. The business will self destruct.
So maintaining exclusivity by making deals isn't illegal. What would be illegal would be manipulating the market so all top tier manufacturers don't use AMD. While Dell is by far the most well known largest direct seller of PCs they are not alone in the market and never will be.
AMD could have countered by making similar deals with any reseller they chose. The big problem AMD had was up until the Athlon and the most importantly the AMD64 chips they did not have a marketable advantage other than price. Their other issue has always been one of being able to supply the market. They simply did not have the FABs to do so.
Now if Intel were leveraging their microprocessors to also lock AMD out of flash memory sales or another related product you might have an angle you follow.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Which kinda makes AMD look like they're not /really/ trying, other than suing, huh.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"I don't think an antitrust suit is justified"
:-p
It does seem a a bit of a cop-out from AMD... perhaps at the most there should be a charge of "attempted abuse of monopoly power"
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"Dell not using AMD X2 processors in their servers? Want economy with speed it is faster and just as reliable"
I think there's a bit more to it than that really. It appears that AMD couldn't supply Dell with enough processors to make it worth while for Dell to push AMD. I don't know whether the same's true of Apple too, but I'd say that "probably" would be a good guess.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Interestingly, 20% seems to be the cusp of where a business underdog can start to seriously content with a superior. I can't point to any causality, but there seems to be a strong correlation between 20% market share and realistic market contention.
Standard Oil was down to 80% by the time they had to halt their monopolistic practices, and DeBeers has had less of a stranglehold on the diamond market since they slipped down below 80%.
I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but I've seen them. This is just an unscientific personal observation, but it's easy to imagine that 20% might be some point where the market finally has to start acknowledging you. After all, 20% of any first-world market is a pretty handsome chunk.
Any economists care to chime in?
-Glee
Many a true word hath been spoken in jest -- mod funny posts "Informative".
The UK has a WalMart, just not called WalMart:
Asda, http://www.asda.co.uk/ is the name they use in in the UK. True they bought out an existing company.
Tessco and others were around in the UK with their super centers offering more than just groceries long before Walmart even opened one of the their super centers. And I wouldn't put it past WM for "swiping" the concept from Tessco and others.
1311393600 - Back to Black
Or perhaps they are saying, people know we are good, we don't have to have some low IQ bimbo hopping around nakkid to sell our stuff?
I have been with AMD since they were known for being very hot running cpus, and never had any problems with them that wasn't directly related to me abusing the CPU (ie. dropping a heatsink on the core because I had greasy hands), probably never gonna buy me an Intel *jingle* because AMD shows they are good.
IBM has just dropped Itanium and will be using Opteron in the replacement for that server line.
So AMD have a lot of good supporters. If Dell get in there I would imagine that the volumes and marketshare could increase.
"people know we are good, we don't have to have some low IQ bimbo hopping around nakkid to sell our stuff"
So they're depriving us of nekkid girls now too? Ooo, they're just asking for it!
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
is when a device keeps interrupting you to turn of its interrupts and check for packets on your terms.
i'm pretty sure linux now does this for network cards.
also i bet flusing the 34 stage pipeline (i'm assuming that roughly maps to 34 instructions worth of time lost) is fairly small compared to the time taken to deal with the interrupt.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I was, of course, being sarcastic.