Slashdot Mirror
N.Y. AG Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel
CWmike writes "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel, alleging that the company engaged in a 'systematic campaign' of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly. Cuomo's lawsuit alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors. Intel gave computer makers payments totaling billions of dollars in exchange for the exclusive agreements, and the company threatened to cut off payments to computer makers or fund their competitors when they worked with other microprocessor makers, the lawsuit alleged. Cuomo's lawsuit comes less than two weeks after news reports that the FTC is considering filing a formal complaint against Intel. 'Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,' Cuomo said in a statement. 'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'"
I think you misunderstand the purpose of a Board of Directors. Their job is not to oversee the company, that is management's job. Their job is to look out for the interests of the stockholder.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Because Intel (like most other large corps, I think) is incorporated in Delaware.
And the alternatives to government-authorized and strictly-regulated monopolies in a market with natural monopoly tendencies are...
1. No service provider
2. Unregulated monopolies.
Maybe you weren't around when telephone and/or cable infrastructure was being built out. The choice was: license a monopoly, or get no service.
Even now, these markets tend to natural monopolies due to high overhead and infrastructure costs. So if we deregulate, we'll still end up with a monopoly... but it'll be less regulated one. Yay.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I'll agree with you on the shady practices of Intel when the Athlon line was launched - but I don't think a one hit wonder like that should magically position AMD as the top chip maker.
Nobody said they should have been the top chip maker -- that would have been impossible simply based on AMD's manufacturing capacity relative to Intel's. They should have gotten a lot more marketshare than they did, though, and that difference would have been huge for AMD. Companies like Dell and HP wanted to sell (more) AMD processors based on their merits, but the financial punishment that would come from Intel made it not worth it. That's a big deal.
Brand recognition is one reason. Reluctance of professionals trusting AMD processors in server grade machines could be another. The P4 may have sucked but keep in mind that previously AMDs chips sucked as well, and for a long time the only thing AMD was good for was reverse engineering Intel designs
Yes but those days were also long gone. AMD earned recognition as a chip designer in their own right with K6 as a budget processor, earned recognition as a chip maker capable of going toe-to-toe with Intel with the K7, and then knocked it out of the park with K8. The true customers of Intel and AMD, the OEMs, were well aware of AMD's "brand" and had no qualms about using them in server parts... Except for the interference by Intel. Did you see the email from Dell to Intel where they're basically telling intel that they're getting killed in the server market and Intel better do something? And intel's response is that the $billion they'd given Dell should compensate for their competitive disadvantage? Customers wanted to use AMD, but Intel made sure that AMDs marketshare was artificially limited.
The enemies of Democracy are