FTC Opens Formal Antitrust Investigation of Intel

andy1307 writes to tell us that according to the New York Times, The Federal Trade Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation of Intel. Reversing the decision of former FTC chairperson Deborah P. Majoras, the new chair William E. Kovacic is pushing the investigation to look into Intel's pricing policies. "Since it will almost certainly be many months before the commission decides whether to make a case against Intel, as European and Asian regulators have already done, the investigation could mark an important early test for the next administration on antitrust and competition policy."

Comments

Let the evidence gathering begin...

[mandark1967]

I can definately see the reasoning behind AMDs push to get this investigation underway.

I used Intel when they were fastest and AMD when they were, and now I am using Intel Chips again.

If Intel used its position to force vendor lock-in and exclude AMD, and AMD can prove they lost a healthy chunk of market for the Athlon 64 that, most likely, would have went to resolve the teething problems with Phenom so that it made its original launch date and frequency...then Intel is going to have to break out the checkbook and make sure they got a lotta ink in the pen, cause it's gonna cost them a LOT.

If it's proven that actions resulted in events like this, you can bet Intel will settle all allegations before a final finding of fact is ever released...and pay a healthy sum to AMD to just shut up.

I just hope that, if these allegations are true, they are forced to pay an equitable amount to AMD and not fight it for years because these two companies vying for my business keep prices low enough for us to get some great gear these days...

And we care why?

[nurb432]

Lets say they do get declared a monopoly. What happens to them? From the record of late, nothing. They walk away with a token slap, while they keep their market share.

And we tax payers got to foot the bill.

Re:Intel is a monopoly?

[bsDaemon]

So, Intel does the R&D on a product that everyone needs and wants, then gets rich because of their invention.

Thne along come some other people, who make clones of Intel's chips. No one wants to buy the chips from the competitors, because they have no significant cost savings, no significant performance increase, and lack the feeling of being a "genuine" article.

So, all these companies that are trying to ride the coat-tails of Intel, and failing, get together and complain to the government that its not fair?

Maybe they should have tried coming up with their own ideas and hoping that people would want to buy them instead of just trying to hop on a bandwagon and complaining that they got there too late and there is too little space.

no one is saying you have to buy an x86 cpu. SPARC and PPC work and do a good job. If Intel has solidified a market dominance that's pushed out OTHER architectures, that's more to do with Microsoft than it is to do with Intel.

Re:Not just Anti-trust

[initdeep]

AMD is STRONGEST in the Server market.
Period.
The may not sell the most, but this is where they shine the best.

There is absolutely no denying this.

The Opteron chip is what basically saved AMD from liquidation and pushed Intel to come up with a new architecture to compete.

This like most of the techno anti-trust cases is plain old Bullshit and reeks of nothing more than more bashing on big guys, which our government appears to like to do more and more.

And they wonder why more and more businesses are starting to locate outside of the USA.

Intel has done plenty to go after them for, so has Apple, AT&T, Verizon, every cable company in existence, and most utility companies.

go spend the tax dollars doing something useful and not merely justifying your useless political existences.

asshats.

How the monopoly might be construed

[Stonent1]

It used to be you got the Intel chip, chipset by whoever, a video card and a NIC. Now buy an Intel based computer and you get an Intel processor, Intel chipset, Intel video, and Intel NIC. So with the bundling you save a lot of money but it in effect shuts out a lot of other companies.

But personally I never have any problems with Intel chip + Intel chipset... It always just works. It seems any time I have problems it is when I use some other chipset.

Re:Intel is a monopoly?

[plasmacutter]

If Intel is guilty of keeping other processors out of machines by being anti competitive, they are going to see some sanctions and fines.

back in the good old days, the FTC and courts actually did their jobs and broke up abusive monopolies.

Not anymore

I guess that means we need new laws to compel the executive and judicial brances to actually enforce the law? or maybe establish a saddam-esque paranoid circle jerk of watchers watching watchers?

Re:Never understood....

[timeOday]

I don't believe Intel and Microsoft are at all comparable. I can buy an AMD processor that runs all the same software, heck I wouldn't even know the difference without opening the box. The same cannot be said for the OS.

I still resent Intel for gouging me all through the 90s, but let's face it they are the best and AMD have largely kept Intel in check.

That said, if their pricing strategy is illegal, well I guess they should get sued.

Re:Intel is a monopoly?

[tygt]

I have only a minor technical complaint about your posting:

when a company becomes so large that it can sway the market on its whims, then it becomes abusive

Such large companies may be able to sway the market, but do not necessarily become abusive. Most likely they do, of course - power corrupts....

What about Microsoft?

[mollog]

Intel, shmintel. Who cares about Intel?

But Microsoft has to be watching this very, very closely. If the post-Bush FTC is willing to go after Intel, you have to think they're going to get after Microsoft, too.

Re:Intel is a monopoly?

[cyber-vandal]

And you can run your Windows-only bespoke apps on PPC and SPARC can you? Will libertarians ever stop pretending that one over-powerful company dominating a market is good for consumers and should be left alone until a competitor magically appears and isn't squished by all sorts of very difficult to compete against tactics.

Re:Intel is a monopoly?

[mitgib]

How exactly would you break up Intel in any way that makes sense?

How was AT&T broken up in any way that made sense?

Had AT&T been broken up by service layer instead of service area, we might actually have good telecommunications and true competition in the US

Re:Never understood....

[dbcad7]

I think this is more about practices with vendors that were similar to Microsoft tactics.. How long did Dell refuse to use AMD processors even when performance exceeded Intel's ? .. but there are extenuating circumstances, so I don't think much is going to happen.. mainly that vendors claimed that AMD didn't have the capacity to supply in the volumes they required.. which is why Macs are also Intel... If you can't deliver "production wise" then you can't really complain if you don't get the business.

I'm an AMD guy, from forever.. and I still don't think Intel is wrong in this situation.

This is why I've always used AMD

[Totenglocke]

Ever since my dad got an AMD processor when upgrading our PC in the early 90's, we've always been an AMD family. I know that right now the Core 2 Duo is better than the Athlon64 X2, but I want to keep giving AMD my business so I can do my part to help keep them from getting crushed by Intel due to Intel buying off companies like Dell.

While I know I'd be getting a better product, I'd rather make sure my money goes to a company I support instead of one who tries to force people out of business instead of JUST making better products and letting consumers decide what they like best.