backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 92 comment(s) - last by Schmide.. on Jul 5 at 6:31 PM
Report suggests that Europe's largest retailer was paid not to sell AMD products

The German website Financial Times Deutschland reports (English) that a well known reseller accepted financial assets from Intel in order to prevent the sale of AMD processors. Media-Saturn-Holding is one of the largest computer retailers in Europe appears to be in a bind with Intel over processor and product sales.

According to the report, a refusal letter surfaced from inside of Media-Saturn-Holding saying that the company would not sell AMD based products because of a "fixed agreement with Intel." In fact, it isn't just AMD processors. The report says that Media-Saturn-Holding does not buy any products that contain AMD processors, period.

AMD has been in an ongoing legal battle with various companies it claims have entered into mutual agreements with Intel to either not sell AMD products or develop applications that perform better of have more features when run on Intel processors. In a filing by AMD, it identifies Media-Saturn-Holding as Media Markt, a subsidiary of Media-Saturn-Holding. According to the filing, Intel gives roughly $15 to $20 million to Media Markt for marketing co-op spending on annual basis, and that the company has not carried an AMD product since 1997.  The general inference seems to be that Intel leveraged its co-op money for MSH to not carry non-Intel products.

One of the more popular computer retailers in the US is Fry's Electronics. According to AMD, Fry's was successful at marketing AMD's Athlon XP based products and consequently those products were removed from store shelves because "[Intel] offered Fry's a large payment to remove it."

Intel has had its offices in various global locations raided by local authorities. This year, Intel had its offices in Korea raided by the Korean Fair Trade Commission on suspicion of monopolistic practices that it claims victimized a large number of companies. Last year, Intel's office in Munich was also raided by local authorities.

Earlier this year, AMD claimed that some government bodies were purchasing Intel-based computers simply because of brand preference when its own processors offered better performance for less. AMD said that this practice was costing tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Will this ever reach an end?
By Xeeros on 7/3/2006 8:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah we know Intel hasn't been saints about business practices . But really how much longer and how much evidence do you need really I mean so far I think its safe to say they caught Intel redhanded holding the weapon at the scene of the crime as it were.




RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By 5150Joker on 7/3/2006 8:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Intel and their retail partners need to be punished for this. Intel should pay AMD a couple billion dollars in damages and the retailers should be forced to stock AMD chips and give them equal advertisement.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By aGreenAgent on 7/3/2006 9:02:28 PM , Rating: 3
Won't happen.

AMD isn't trying to get damages, they're trying to stop Intel from ever doing this again.

They keep bringing it up so Intel keeps looking like the bad guy (which isn't an unfounded claim).

As long as AMD keeps the lawsuits up, Intel won't enter into any more deals like this - and that's the goal.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Snoop on 7/4/2006 7:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
Didnt Intel and Skype just make a deal to make only some features available to intel dual core users? I doubt Intel is going to quit doing these types of things and I also doubt they care much about the anti-trust case. Look at all the money wasted on going after Microsoft, yet it hasnt changed a thing.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 7:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I doubt Intel is going to quit doing these types of things and I also doubt they care much about the anti-trust case

Well, it appears that they are in the middle of leveling their "rebate" program, which is why Dell has finally gone to AMD.
And Intel's expected settlement on the anti-trust case (estimated by Wells Fargo analysts) is ~$4 Billion...


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 9:56:07 AM , Rating: 1
> "AMD isn't trying to get damages..."

Oops. AMD most certainly is trying to "get damages". They're suing for the sum total of all profits lost by AMD since they first began selling CPUs. Tripled.

Yes, tripled. That's the US suit. The Japanese suit seeks a mere $50M in damages.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 11:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're suing for the sum total of all profits lost by AMD since they first began selling CPUs. Tripled

Exactly correct...
US Law mandates triple damages for anti-trust suits.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By dilz on 7/3/2006 9:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
I've only seen a handful of AMD commercials on the television. Before AMD can really take on Intel, people have to know that they exist. Considering that many people consider the "Pentium" brand of CPU their computer as well as their operating system. (I dunno, I've got a Pentium...)

I've only made machines with AMD procs, but you'd be amazed at the number of people out there who think that a CPU branded anything other than Intel is tantamount to witchcraft. Perhaps availablitly of AMD products to market will result in widespread acceptance.

In case that doesn't happen, I suggest they grab themselves some front-page news. Best of luck, AMD.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By dilz on 7/3/2006 9:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Terrible grammar... sorry.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By AlexWade on 7/3/2006 9:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
You are right about AMD's lousy marketing. AMD needs to worry about that and Core 2 right now.


By Scrogneugneu on 7/3/2006 9:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering that many people consider the "Pentium" brand of CPU their computer as well as their operating system. (I dunno, I've got a Pentium...)


Yeah, I remember hearing this dozens of times... and with most of them, it was in fact an AMD inside ;) People just say "It's a Pentium... I think... isn't it?" because it's the only word they know that describes a computer part.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By IamKindaHungry on 7/3/2006 9:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
To be blunt... this will continue until Intel is either forced to admit that it intentionally sought to exclude AMD from many markets by offering OEMS $$$$$ not to sell AMD products, or Intel is found guilty in court.

Contrary to popular belief, the A64 is by no means AMD's first competitive product. IMHO every AMD processor line since the K6-2 has been very competitve with similar Intel offerings in terms of performance. In terms of price/performance AMD has also had the advantage. This suit has been many years in the making, i think the dominance of the A64 over its competition finally forced AMD to act.

<Sigh... enough with my babbling>

Anyway back to the main reason for this post...


quote:
've only seen a handful of AMD commercials on the television. Before AMD can really take on Intel, people have to know that they exist. Considering that many people consider the "Pentium" brand of CPU their computer as well as their operating system. (I dunno, I've got a Pentium...)


I almost want to agree completely with that. However, I truly believe that if your average consumer enters a Best Buy store, and sees two computers, an AMD based one next to an Intel based system. The first thing they notice is price, the first question asked will probably be "which performs better?". Given such a scenario you would assume the customer would leave with the AMD based system. I believe that this is the type of scenario AMD would want (until core duo is released). However, due to Intels tactics what usually happens is your average consumer usually is given a choice between two intel machines.

Hmm... I should probably end this now before this turns into a dissertation on the AMD/Intel case

<disclaimer: the above scenario assumes the salesman is not the average idiot you find working in the computer section at a Best Buy>


By Scrogneugneu on 7/3/2006 10:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
<disclaimer: the above scenario assumes the salesman is not the average idiot you find working in the computer section at a Best Buy>



Would so much like to ear an extremist fanboy at BB...

"Both of them suck, if you want a REAL computer, look for anything powered by a Cyrix."


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By phatboye on 7/3/2006 10:26:39 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry you are wrong. K6-2 and k6-3 were nice CPUs but they were no match for the PII and PIII cpus as far as gaming was concerned. My aunt had a K6-3 500mhz and my PII 350mhz crushed it in any game you threw at it. The K6 lines were nice cpus for simple web browsing/email. But anything multimedia related they failed miserably compared to the Pentiums.

AMD's First competitve CPU was their first Athlon CPUs.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Nelsieus on 7/3/2006 10:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
Stores have a right to sell what they want to, yes, but when one company is paying them to exclude their largest competitor from their product line, you then have an issue, one that *is* illegial, and there are penalties for, as well.

I hope AMD will prosper in this ongoing battle, as they should, and that in the future, Intel will start playing more fairly (or atleast by the rules).


By IamKindaHungry on 7/3/2006 11:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... I dont wont to get into a flame-fest here...

but the PII-350 was not in the same league with a K6-3/500 (though i am amazed your aunt actually had one since they were extremely rare, maybe you mean the K6-2/500)

I will admit as far as games/multimedia content were concerned the K6-3 was an underperformer, but if I remember correctly a K6-3/500 would perform on par with a P3/450 in such apps.

Your P2/350 would have been smashed, hands down... A slightly better comparison would be the k6-3/400 and your p2.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By jtesoro on 7/4/2006 1:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not too sure I agree with your average consumer scenario that in most cases price and performance alone will do it for AMD. In too many instances I've had friends and relatives go for Intel because they know the brand. Just like choosing between a no-name PC and an IBM or Compaq (when they were making PCs anyway), people get it "just to be sure", "to get the real thing" and such, even it costs more and wasn't as fast.

I think AMD would do much better if they borrowed a page from properly-marketed products like, well, Intel itself. I think that long-running Intel Inside campaign (with the audio signature) worked very well.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By dilz on 7/4/2006 2:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. AMD is has become more visible in the mainstream, but are known mostly among recent computer buyers. There are people out there still hanging on to PIII's... Those procs were the glory days for Intel (since perhaps the 486DX50).

It seems that for the mid to long term, AMD will no longer hold the performance crown, so they'll be driven back into discounted price and "perceived quality" obscurity.

Regardless of any of that crap I've written above, we all can agree that AMD needs to the the word out about their products. I may be building my first Intel system with the looks of what they've made available. The 805/820D's especially look tempting, and then there's Conroe...


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Garreye on 7/4/2006 1:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems that for the mid to long term, AMD will no longer hold the performance crown, so they'll be driven back into discounted price and "perceived quality" obscurity.
I'd say it'd be more like short to mid term, when Intel releases Core they'll hold the performance crown, but AMD is supposed to be releasing K8L and ramping to 65nm early next year so AMD easily could gain back the crown, who knows.
I don't see how you think good price/performance is "perceived quality"...Just because a company doesn't have the performance crown doesn't mean its not worth buying any of there products. If you have a certain budget for buying a cpu and you get more performance from an AMD (which may not always be the case) then it seems to me that its more than "perceived quality" IMHO.


Intel's Setback is Temporary!
By dilz on 7/5/2006 12:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say it'd be more like short to mid term, when Intel releases Core they'll hold the performance crown, but AMD is supposed to be releasing K8L and ramping to 65nm early next year so AMD easily could gain back the crown, who knows.


I'll concede defeat here. It has generally been acknowledged that AMD is only threatened for the term you have described. But there's quite a bit of wiggle room.

quote:
I don't see how you think good price/performance is "perceived quality"...Just because a company doesn't have the performance crown doesn't mean its not worth buying any of there products.


Who said anything about the "crown" determining my purchases? I've not once purchased a flagship product from either company. When I'm talking about "perceived quality," we're talking about the large number of users out there who let TV ads dictate their computer purchases. In this case, "perceived quality" is what Intel has been able to tout until K8 rocked the boat. Whatever the case, I think you missed my point.

I've been an all-weather AMD fanboy since I start building in 1997 - minus a Cyrix experiment early on. Availability of AMD products has never been an issue for me because I've always known where to look. The significance of the original post is that AMD might have been restricted from certain channels because of aggressive marketing practices by Intel. That said, even with a ruling favoring AMD, availability alone won't help AMD, they need a public presence as well. For years and years I remember reading about AMD as a "budget alternative," and have come to know as inevitable that Intel will regain its rightful position in the market. Explain how AMD was able to exist for years as a producer of budget CPU's? For the money, AMD processors have been a bargain since the 386DX40. The crown, on the other hand, is an extremely recent and ethereal addition. People have to know about the price/performance ration before they can actively choose to buy it. The chapter on AMD's K8 is nearly over. I'm looking forward to getting my first dual core for less than $200 because of it.

Take a look a China if you need a large-scale example of how a leader can suffer temporary setbacks. With China, think in terms of centuries, not product release cycles.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've only seen a handful of AMD commercials on the television. Before AMD can really take on Intel, people have to know that they exist

What's not widely known is that commercials are a cooperative measure between OEMs and Intel. Until AMD is able to be fully represented with OEMs, advertising is a HUGE waste of money.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Niv KA on 7/4/2006 3:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering that many people consider the "Pentium" brand of CPU their computer as well as their operating system. (I dunno, I've got a Pentium...)


I don't know about that... most people I've had to help with computer problems who didn't know who made their PC (ie Dell/HP/Gateway/"IBM" and so on) have said Microsoft or Windows( some beliving they have the model XP from company Windows), but I guess thats because alot of my customers are idiots, and seeing as I charge per hour, it gives me big bucks just trying to explain to them that Windows is an OPERATING SYSTEM and that the PC maker of thier PC is a DELL,(No Mrs. Ots, the circle with DELL in it is not just decoration, well it is , but it is also to tell you its a DELL PC)



RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By dilz on 7/4/2006 11:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
That's why I said "many" instead of "all." I can meet you halfway with this one. One of my recent jobs involved working on a "Viewsonic CPU."


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By z3R0C00L on 7/4/2006 9:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
I see nothing wrong with this sort of business practice. Maybe it's just me but offering a deal on Intel CPU's so long as the company only sells the Intel brand seems logical. The only way for Intel to survive while offering such discounts is by selling in large quantities. If these companies also sold AMD machines then Intel wouldn't really be making money as they would not be able to afford the discount. In the end the ones that are guilty are the companies... not Intel.
Afterall it's the companies who took the offer. A reasonable offer at that. The companies enjoyed larger profits (due to lower cost per unit) and Intel enjoyed higher profits as well due to sheer volume.

It's up to AMD to compete. It's called business. There are no nice guys in teh business world. To me it's how they treat the consumer's that counts, not how they treat each other.. they're competitors afterall. This practice has actually brought down the prices of computers (more volumes means cheaper.. supply and demand). I mean you get get a computer for under $400.00 (not a super gaming system but yeah).


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By dilz on 7/5/2006 12:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see nothing wrong with this sort of business practice.


President Harrison and the Congress of 1890 disagree with you.

According to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal"

Intel accused of operating in effort to restrain trade "among the several States" as well as with "foreign nations." Intel is just lucky because we're too busy debating flag burning, gay marriage and stem cell research to look at any real laws that are being broken.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.h...


AMD cant win.
By cciesquare on 7/4/2006 5:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
My opinion:

AMD will always be a second rate name....possibly even a third or forth.

AMD CANNOT WIN. PERIOD.

Intel has one of the best, if not the best, marketing minds in business today. Whatever happens they will work it out and in the end AMD will be back to where it was. AMD still doesnt get it. Its business silly. AMD's inability to compete has nothing to do with Intel, its AMD.

Just like Smokey the Bear always says, "Only YOU, can prevent forest fires." I konw its supper lame qoute, but my point is, whether or not AMD succeeds has nothing to do externally, and everything to do with internally.

I dont feel that AMD is confident enough in anything it does.

Everyone has stated over and over and over, the problem with AMD is how it markets it self. Yet it never listens to its customers, its fans, its allies. Maybe that's the reason why it cant compete with Intel? AMD cant even listen to the very people that are trying to make it better.




RE: AMD cant win.
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 7:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, that's just so...wrong!

AMD has had more success in growing it's business than any other company in the semiconductor industry (with the exception of nVidia), and it has done so while Intel has illegally paid companies to keep AMD's products of the shelves! Now that Intel marketing is FINALLY being forced to stop these payments and practises, AMD will be able to gain what is called "Traction" in marketing terms.

Do you really believe that a jingle is what gave Intel all of that marketshare? OEMs and 3rd party vendors have been economically threatened by Intel for over a decade now, and those are the true "teeth" of Intel's marketing department...


Here's why you're clueless
By DallasTexas on 7/4/2006 8:59:25 AM , Rating: 3
"..AMD has had more success in growing it's business than any other company in the semiconductor..bah blah.."

Wrong. Intel grew revenues FASTRER than AMD in 2005. In fact AMD grew very little. Conclusion - you made this crap up.

"..Intel marketing is FINALLY being forced to stop these payments and practises,.."

Where was Intel FORCED to do anything? The legal proceedings have not even begun. The Japan issue was resolved with Intel volunteering to change confirmed LEGA: marketing practices. Conclusion - you're a idiot and a liar and enjoy promoting lies you in the voices in your head.

"..Do you really believe that a jingle is what gave Intel all of that marketshare? .."

No. I believe Intel reached their position by marketing, having wolrd class manufacturing and by investing in their future over 30 years while AMD went the path of being the milli-vanilli of the semiconductor industry. Did you forget those 'not so minor' reasons for Intel's success? I didn't think so, either.


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 9:26:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wrong. Intel grew revenues FASTRER than AMD in 2005. In fact AMD grew very little. Conclusion - you made this crap up

Wrong again... AMD has gained revenue share on Intel every single quarter except one for the last 3 years .
quote:
Where was Intel FORCED to do anything? The legal proceedings have not even begun

Huh?? While the trial hasn't begun, legal proceedings (which include subpeonas, depositions, and finding of fact) began a year ago !

Now you need to go MUCH easier on the beer and sleep it off, mate!


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 9:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
> "Wrong again... AMD has gained revenue share on Intel every single quarter except one for the last 3 years "

You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension. The original poster's point (a correct one, I might add) was that Intel increased its overall revenues by a larger amount than did AMD.

By "revenue share" I believe you mean "market share". And AMD did indeed gain over Intel here. But not so in gross revenues.


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 11:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension. The original poster's point (a correct one, I might add) was that Intel increased its overall revenues by a larger amount than did AMD

Nope...I read just fine. His point was a reply to my own and he used his example to refute mine.
For your edification, revenue share is not market share.
Market share is the number of units shipped, regardless of value.
Revenue share is the percentage of the total amount spent on computing in terms of money.


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
To clarify a point...growing more revenue does not mean growing faster. Growing RELATIVE revenue (i.e. revenue share) is growing faster...


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 11:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
> "Nope...I read just fine"

When someone makes the statement that Intel grew revenue faster and you respond "wrong", then you're either misreading what was written, or just ignorant of the facts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in this case.

> "For your edification, revenue share is not market share.
Market share is the number of units shipped, regardless of value..."

Oops, this is incorrect. Market share is defined as company revenues in the relevant market, divided by total revenues for the entire market.

It is *not* just a sheer widget count.




RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 11:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When someone makes the statement that Intel grew revenue faster and you respond "wrong", then you're either misreading what was written, or just ignorant of the facts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in this case


OK, let's go back one then...
I said "AMD has had more success in growing it's business than any other company in the semiconductor"
He replied:
"Wrong. Intel grew revenues FASTRER than AMD in 2005. In fact AMD grew very little"
I replied:
"Wrong again... AMD has gained revenue share on Intel every single quarter except one for the last 3 years"

Now...as I have pointed out, growing revenues does NOT necessarily mean growing a company. For instance if sales for Intel increase $1 billion, and only $400 million for AMD, then AMD (who has 21% of the market) will have grown their revenue share ~twice as much as Intel. It is relative valuation that determines growth, not absolute dolar amounts.
quote:
Market share is defined as company revenues in the relevant market, divided by total revenues for the entire market

"Market share refers to a brand's share of the total sales of all products within the product category in which the brand competes. Market share is determined by dividing a brand's sales volume by the total category sales volume"
http://metro.newsmedianet.com.au/home/Glossary.jsp

Revenue share is a termed used by analysts and others who study industry wide occurences.


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really shouldn't have to define such simple terms. Total sales are counted in dollars, not widgets. Your link is correct; you simply misunderstood it

We shall have to agree to disagree...though I see you decided not to include the word "volume" (which is quite indicative that you are incorrect) in your quote.
Anyway, studying businesses to invest in is how I make most of my money (not my profession, just how I make most of my money...and it was one of my degrees), and this is what they taught us when I went to school...
quote:
You can't disguise the fact that the point you labelled incorrect was not so

I think you're looking with Intel-coloured glasses...read it again and this time focus on the second half of the quote ("In fact AMD grew very little"). It appears you are trying to obfuscate the comment by only looking at the first part of the quote.
quote:
Actually, revenue share is simply market share, defined to include nonsales as well as sales revenue

Not at all...but if you prefer the terms unit share and revenue share then I have no problem with that.
For example, this quote from Forbes:
"While AMD’s unit share was flattish in the first quarter at around 21%, its revenue share increased at the expense of Intel."
http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/26/amd-intel-0426mar...


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "We shall have to agree to disagree..."

I'll give you the point on this, though I don't see it advancing your cause. Regardless of semantic quibbling, AMD has gained substantial market share from Intel. By definition, competition is increasing. Therefore AMD's claims that Intel's practices are reducing competition become specious at best. With AMD's entry into Dell, its products are now sold by every major distributor, vendor, and retailer in the nation. Where's the bar to entry?


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless of semantic quibbling, AMD has gained substantial market share from Intel. By definition, competition is increasing. Therefore AMD's claims that Intel's practices are reducing competition become specious at best

I agree that Intel has indeed changed their marketing practices over the last year. Of course this does not indemnify them from damages they've caused prior to this time. I AM quite happy to see that Intel is changing their marketing, and my assumption is that it would never have happened had not AMD filed last year...


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 1:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
> " agree that Intel has indeed changed their marketing practices over the last year"

However, AMD has been gaining market share for considerably longer than a year.If competitors are gaining ground, then, by definition, competition is not being stifled.


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 2:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, AMD has been gaining market share for considerably longer than a year.If competitors are gaining ground, then, by definition, competition is not being stifled

True...they have been accelerating their gains over the last 3 years (since the Opteron launch). But it's a question of degree...
As most everyone here knows (including yourself), AMD has had an overwhelmingly compelling product lineup for years now, but very limited growth relative to their products.

Competition is indeed being stifled if a competitor has been heavily limited as to his ability to compete by non-market controlled means.

Giving "payola" to DJs is illegal...bribing legislators is illegal...and paying or threatening companies to not stock a competitors products is also illegal.

It's illegal because it actually PREVENTS the market from deciding on products.
At the end of the day, it harms consumers...
I don't think Intel should be allowed to get away with their prior marketing practices, if for no other reason than it will serve to help discourage it in the future.


RE: Here's why you're clueless
By mlittl3 on 7/4/2006 3:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
Viditor, I don't think you will get anywhere with Masher2. He/She sounds like one of those people who don't think there is such thing as a monopoly or if there is, the government or anyone else should not get involved. Intel is a classic example of the very reason why we have monopoly laws. The case will go to court, Intel will try to settle and AMD will probably take the settlement. If I were to guess, Intel would lose the case if it went all the way to a decision.

I was on a jury recently for a civil suit. A driver hit a security guard who was on foot in a parking garage. Most of the jurors didn't understand that we were not trying to find the driver guilty or put all responsibility on him. All we needed to do was come up with a perponderonce of evidence for the plaintiff and award some money.

Intel and AMD fanbois keeping thinking about this case as good vs. evil. Intel fanbois say AMD is doing good now so they are obviously going to lose. AMD fanbois think that all the years of buying from the "underdog" will make them saints. All of these statements are wrong.

By the way, I agree with Viditor about the financial definitions. Unless Masher2 states otherwise, I think he is going on "common knowledge" of business reporting rather than the actual, complex yet very boring definitions and practices of modern day business.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 5:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
> Viditor, I don't think you will get anywhere with Masher2...

In this particular case, the DOJ agrees with me. And, having read the AMD complaint, I strongly suspect Judge Farnan will agree with me as well, at least on most of their claims.

> " All we needed to do was come up with a perponderonce of evidence for the plaintiff and award some money..."

Lol, a bit of a Freudian slip there, I'd say. You were not there to "come up with evidence for the plaintiff", nor to "award some money". You were there to judge the existing evidence on its merits. It seems clear that, in that case as well as the AMD suit, you had mind made up, and didn't let little details like evidence stand in your way.



By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 5:13:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "Competition is indeed being stifled if a competitor has been heavily limited..."

You need to understand one basic thing about antitrust law. It exists to protect competition...NOT to protect comptetitors. A subtle, but critical distinction.

Internet forums are full of millions of posters all desperate to point out how well AMD has been competing with Intel. By their and your own words, competition has been thriving, even if a particular competitor may not be.

Intel no longer has the ability to arbitrarily set prices or to stifle competition. AMD products are sold by every vendor and in every channel. This explains why the DOJ hasn't itself filed an antitrust action. AMD is simply on a fishing trip, looking for cash.

> "Giving "payola" to DJs is illegal...bribing legislators is illegal..."

Irrelevant, since neither of these are based on antitrust legislation.

> "It's illegal because it actually PREVENTS the market from deciding on products."

Name one consumer anywhere in the world who has been prevented from buying and AMD-based computer. Or one that has been harmed by the competition between AMD and Intel...competition that has arguably driven the CPU marketplace further and faster than any other market on the planet. This is unhealthy and damaging for the consumer? Not hardly.



By DallasTexas on 7/5/2006 9:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
"...Market share is the number of units shipped, regardless of value..."

No, you stupid ahole, market share is NOT the number of units shipped. It's a percentage.

Also, you are wrong all over. Intel not only grew faster than AMD on a unit basis in 2005, they grew by a LARGER percentage too. That is an incredible feat, given intel is 10times AMD's size. Take a remedial class in marketing. In fact, a 6th grade text book should be fine.


So what?
By Viper007Bond on 7/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: So what?
By Chapbass on 7/3/2006 9:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
rofl. thatd be like me taking your only source of income away and telling you to "Deal with it"...

you think theyre out there to just make chips to make people happy? id be pissed too if the market was stacked against me. Free Market != vegas.


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: So what?
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 10:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the complaint here was about the existence of market inertia, but rather about Intel leveraging their dominant position to prevent the market from allowing in other companies. If Fry's decides it's not worth the shelf space to carry AMD products then I have no problem with that, but if Intel pays Fry's (via rebate, special discount or direct payment) to keep AMD products off the shelves then it is no longer simply market inertia.


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: So what?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 12:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exclusivity contracts are a standard part of business, and certainly aren't illegal

It is when entered into by a monopoly like Intel. It's called a "barrier to entry" in legal parlence.
quote:
On retail shelves, AMD has the monopoly position, not Intel

2 problems with this...
1. "Retail shelves" is only a small segment of the total market that AMD and Intel compete in (x86). A monopoly cannot exist in only a segment of a market
2. AMD has never entered into an exclusivity agreement.

quote:
As I said-- market forces are strong enough to solve any real problems

They would be if all things were equal...
HP is a good example of Intel's abuse in this area as well.
During the launch of the Opteron, HP was already announced as a launch partner with AMD. AMD gave them $25 million in chips to launch with them...
One week prior to the launch, Intel informed HP that they would find it difficult to get parts for their Intel systems if they were to go ahead with the Opteron launch. The CEO of HP pulled out at the last minute, and publicly stated that the reason was that "Intel had a gun to my head".
As you can see, market forces are fine...as long as nobody cheats.
I hope very much that AMD wins the suit...I don't think Intel's tactics should EVER be rewarded!


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 12:48:29 PM , Rating: 1
> "It is when entered into by a monopoly like Intel. It's called a "barrier to entry" in legal parlence."

It's "parlance". And you are incorrect. The Clayton Act only bars exclusive sales and dealership agreements only when they have the effect of lessening competition.

AMD is attempting to make just that case. However, given that CPU competition has flourished as of late, I think its going to be a tough road to hoe. AMD processors are sold by nearly every computer vendor and retail store which exists. They're going to have a hard time proving any Intel agreement lessened market competition.

> "The CEO of HP pulled out at the last minute, and publicly stated that the reason was that "Intel had a gun to my head".

Oops, you've confused a couple different events. I believe you're referring to an alleged quote by Mike Capellas back in 2000, who was CEO of Compaq, not HP. And as of now, the alleging is being done by AMD, in the suit itself, so I think taking that at face value is risky business.



RE: So what?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's "parlance". And you are incorrect. The Clayton Act only bars exclusive sales and dealership agreements only when they have the effect of lessening competition

Thanks for the correction (it's 3 AM here and I'm a bit fuzzy...).
And you need to read section 2 of The Sherman Act...
quote:
And as of now, the alleging is being done by AMD, in the suit itself, so I think taking that at face value is risky business

Capellas confirmed it on CNBC as well...he made the staement to a room of people at the time.


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 1
> ""Retail shelves" is only a small segment of the total market that AMD and Intel compete in (x86). A monopoly cannot exist in only a segment of a market "

Why of course it can. Case in point-- Microsoft. Do they have a monopoly on software? No. Do they have a monopoly on OS software? No again. Their monopoly is in "X86-compatible PC operating systems". Define the market small enough, and you'll always find a monopoly.

The market doesn't have to be defined in terms of product; it can easily be segmented geographically or by sales channel. Antitrust suits are commonly brought against companies which have monopoly status only in certain areas or within certain sales channels.


RE: So what?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do they have a monopoly on OS software? No again

In fact, they do...
"Monopolies in the United States have existed in many forms. When a business dominates a market, its market power makes it a monopoly"
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson...

A business is considered a monopoly when it has undisputed leadership in an industry, or when it dominates it. In fact, the US Dept of Commerce considers any company with 51% or more of the market to be a monopoly.


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 1
> "In fact, they do... "

No. Not in OS software, which includes realtime and embedded OSes, Mainframe OSes, NOSes, and others.

> "In fact, the US Dept of Commerce considers any company with 51% or more of the market to be a monopoly"

No again. A company is a monopoly candidate when it acrues 51% or more of a market.

In any case, as I point out, market segments can easily be redefined and segmented to create artificial monopolies where none exist. For instance, are automobiles a market? What about SUVs? What about Compact SUVs?

If an automaker has one succesful product, does it suddenly gain a monopoly on "Four-wheel drive, Hatchback Subcompact SUVs", even though its market share on the auto industry as a whole is negligible?

Like it or not, there is a substantial political aspect to the definition of a "market" and the subsequent enforcement of antitrust legislation.



RE: So what?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 2:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. Not in OS software, which includes realtime and embedded OSes, Mainframe OSes, NOSes, and others

Yup, they do...Microsft currently has 68% of the total OS market.
quote:
A company is a monopoly candidate when it acrues 51% or more of a market

I have never heard of a monopoly candidate before...what is the distinction?


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 4:48:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "Yup, they do...Microsft currently has 68% of the total OS market..."

I'd like to see the statistics on that; the last figures I saw placed MS below 50%.

> "I have never heard of a monopoly candidate before...what is the distinction?"

Just that they can potentially be adjudged as having monopoly status. A 51% market share doesn't automatically force monopoly status. In fact, such status is less dependent on market share than on the ability to (in the DOJ's eyes, at least) control prices and/or prevent competition.


RE: So what?
By Kuroyama on 7/3/2006 9:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
what if Intel simply gave the stores that sold only Intel a better deal on their products?

What if Microsoft simply gave computer manufacturers that sold only Microsoft computers a better deal on their products? In fact, that's basically what they used to do and is said to be the reason OS2 never caught on (I never tried it so I can't know for sure).

What if Pepsi & Coke tell supermarkets that they will have to pay a higher price if they stock any other soft drinks (including generics)? I'd guess that even Walmart would hesitate to stock anything else then. After all, what's wrong with price collusion; shouldn't the regulators keep their noses out of business?

The "free market" is based on the principle that everyone can enter, and then competition will drive prices down. However, Intel or VISA/Mastercard or Microsoft type business practices are specifically intended to prevent competition from entering the market. If they did this by being the cheapest guy around (like Walmart), or selling superior products (maybe Whole Foods) then that wouldn't be a problem because they'd be allowing competition. However, in this case Intel's sole goal is to prevent a free market from functioning properly.


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 10:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
> "In fact, that's basically what they used to do and is said to be the reason OS2 never caught on (I never tried it so I can't know for sure)..."

Just to correct the history, OS/2 never "caught on" because of poor business practices by IBM. It was the superior product...but there was little to no software for it. Why? Because IBM treated developers as just another revenue stream, to be milked even harder than the consumer teat.

Microsoft, on the other hand, made developing software for Windows cheap and easy. Tools were cheap or even free. Microsoft even went so far as to write code for developers in many cases. The result was predictable. Windows software soon abounded.

Another issue easily forgotten was that, while OS/2 was always an OS, early Windows was simply a shell. The migration path was therefore far easier, and meant full backwards compatibility with all DOS programs.


RE: So what?
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 10:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like an early version of the Itanium story. Better product, but no software support = few consumers.


RE: So what?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "Sounds like an early version of the Itanium story..."

It's a good analogy. And, to extend it further, I might point out that OS/2 eventually "won" in the end...given that Microsoft's half of the project formed the basis of Windows NT, which itself begat all current Microsoft OSes.

Similarly, I believe Itanium-- or rather the EPIC architecture-- is eventually going to win out. The ideas are sound; the implementation was premature. Around the 32nm node, I think we'll see a rebirth of the architecture.


A Word called Caution.
By crystal clear on 7/4/2006 12:50:55 AM , Rating: 1
Newspaper/magazines/journals/radio/tv stations are very
frequently dragged to court for such type of reporting.
They end paying huge sums as compensations plus an apology
for reports they published with insufficient evidence.
FT could get into serious trouble for such reporting,so also
others who quote FT as their source for the news items.
Its like "Just because he told me you are crook/thief-that
means you are one"

Its so easy to accuse somebody of some wrong doing & expect
others to believe you or accept it.
I wish you all could have an opportunity to attend such
court hearings-the lawyers are ruthless/merciless in their
handling of such cases.In short (in business jargon) They
EAT YOU ALIVE.
Just because you are a suspect doesnt automatically make you
Guilty of any wrong doings.
YOU ARE NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN ONE.




RE: A Word called Caution.
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FT could get into serious trouble for such reporting

It's actually not only common knowledge, but widely reported...
Even Anand has made this claim (in his blog when the suit was first announced) based on conversations directly with mobo makers. I don't think FT has anything to worry about.


RE: A Word called Caution.
By crystal clear on 7/4/2006 1:19:35 AM , Rating: 1
I do not wish to divert from the issue,but just a comment-
" It was widely reported Iraq had WMD in the press & every
where-BUT NONE WERE FOUND"
So widely reported doesnt make a fiction a reality-FACTS/
EVIDENCE in COURT make reality.
Private conversations with industry members/personalities
ARE OFFRECORD-Does not hold in court, as none would be willing to get involved in such cases/court hearings.
The common thinking is "ITS YOUR WAR DONT INVOLVE ME-KEEP
ME OUT OF THIS"


RE: A Word called Caution.
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Private conversations with industry members/personalities ARE OFFRECORD-Does not hold in court, as none would be willing to get involved in such cases/court hearings

Actually, they hold up very well in court, and when you receive a subpeona to appear you really don't have a choice. The only option you have is to lie about it (commit perjury).

Some other things to remember about the law...

1. A newspaper can print whatever it wants...if it's "absent malice" (meaning that they aren't doing it to harm a person or entity) then they aren't liable.

2. This is not a legal finding of fact, it's a claim in public (meaning non-actionable). So while Intel is legally innocent until proven guilty, this has no meaning in the court of world opinion...


RE: A Word called Caution.
By crystal clear on 7/4/2006 2:19:26 AM , Rating: 1
" Actually, they hold up very well in court, and when you receive a subpeona to appear you really don't have a choice. The only option you have is to lie about it (commit perjury)."

A good lawyer can guide you ,how to respond to intense
scrutiny in court sessions, to get you out of such situations.

"In the court of world opion..,"-The PR firms know how
to spin it....& Intel has the cash to get the Big Guns
booming away.
Nice talking to You(bloging)-got an important meeting NOW


RE: A Word called Caution.
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 2:44:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A good lawyer can guide you ,how to respond to intense scrutiny in court sessions, to get you out of such situations

Unless the opposing lawyer is good as well...:)


RE: A Word called Caution.
By crystal clear on 7/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: A Word called Caution.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/06, Rating: 0
RE: A Word called Caution.
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 11:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it any more true. This applies equally to left and right wing politics, or Intel's repeated pleas of not being bad boys.

quote:

COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.

SANTORUM: I’d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says.


RE: A Word called Caution.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 11:24:09 AM , Rating: 1
> " these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded..."

Your point isn't as clear-cut as you wish to believe. WMDs not only existed, they were clearly being cached for future use, withheld from UN inspectors, and that Iraq was clearly in violation of multiple UN accords. Furthermore, it underscores that the original armistice which ended the Gulf War was null and void, and therefore that the invasion of Iraq was legal under international law.

The report goes further to state, "...that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq."



RE: A Word called Caution.
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 12:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
One last comment, and then I'll cut the political commentary for a while, since this is a tech site and not a political site. (feel free to mod me down)

Suppose an alcoholic drives drunk and the court puts them on probation with an order to throw out the liquor and not drink again (i.e. Saddam can't have chemical weapons). Now, if we find out the alcoholic has occasionally bought a beer, or he's hiding some whiskey in the cabinet, then he's clearly violated parole (i.e. Saddam with some useful warheads, or dabbling with chemical weapons). If we find that he threw out the liquor, but we dig around the piles of crap in the garage and find a few 20 year old bottles of beer (yuck) then has he still violated parole? Technically he probably has, but it is stupid to lock him up for it. The alcoholic had no need to save the old crap, and whether it was an oversite or not, if he wanted to get a drink he still knew how to go buy one, and almost certainly could buy a few beers with no one the wiser. Likewise, Saddam had no need to keep a few piles of old disfunctional crap, after all he still had the scientists who knew how to make WMD and anytime he felt like it he almost surely could have make some tasty chemical weapons without getting caught. The important thing is that so far we have no evidence he was doing that.

The old useless junk (beer or chemicals) are technical violations, but don't indicate a wanton attempt to violate parole (or keep WMD), and that was clearly the stated objective locking up a parole violator (or in the Iraq war).

I don't remember Bush (or Hannity) saying "Saddam kept some old useless junk and so we've got to go beat him up", instead they said "he's making nukes, he's making chemical and biological weapons, and we've got to go stop him".

To make this a tiny tiny bit on-topic. AMD does not say Intel accidentally broke the law, but that they wantonly went out and effectively bribed / threatened people to keep them out (no old bottles of beer, but some tasty new whiskey). This is bad, and if it's not illegal already then it definitely should have been (likewise, even without the UN resolutions Saddam, or anyone else for that matter, has no business making chemical or biological weapons).


RE: A Word called Caution.
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 12:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I responded to only part of masher2's comment, but in keeping with my promise I won't write any more.


RE: A Word called Caution.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 1:26:12 PM , Rating: 1
> "The alcoholic had no need to save the old crap, and whether it was an oversite or not, if he wanted to get a drink he still knew how to go buy one"

So you're claiming that hundreds of chemical weapons shells hidden in active weapons caches were "an oversight"? Hossein claimed those shells specifically as being destroyed, and even listed the date of their destruction...an event which never occurred.

As for the highly useful anonymous "defense official" who claims these were degraded, I'd like to point out a few simple facts. In 1998, the UN found a dozen Iraqi shells filled with mustard gas from the early 1980s. Their tests confirmed the gas was still up to 97% pure, and highly potent.

Mustard gas is quite stable. Even today, the occasional French farmer runs into trouble from hitting a gas shell from World War One. Some experience severe health complications as a result...from shells that are approaching 100 years old.


RE: A Word called Caution.
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Read "The Economist". As a British magazine they don't have to play the "kiss up to Democrats or Republicans game". They are one of the most credible and balanced news sources I know of, and even when I don't agree with their conclusions they still present a good case for what they say. Even endorsed Bush in his first presidential campaign (although this was contingent on certain conditions, which weren't carried out, so they later said they were wrong). Anyways, point being (oops, breaking my promise) that as far as I can tell they don't seem to feel any of these WMD stories are credible enough to reference in their articles. Although I believe they still say that based on what was known before the war that they think it was necessary (I think, but I'm not certain of this at the moment).


RE: A Word called Caution.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 5:05:43 PM , Rating: 1
> "Read "The Economist". As a British magazine they don't have to play the "kiss up to Democrats or Republicans game"...."

Lol, you're calling the newspaper that, two years ago, dedicated its entire cover to the words "RUMSFIELD, RESIGN!" as a bastion of unbiased journalism? I'm surprised you didn't sprain a finger typing that one.

I used to read The Economist on a regular basis; I agree with most of its views. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is an *extremely* slanted publication. They take a clear stance on any and all issues; they don't even attempt to claim an objective viewpoint.

Worse is your logic that their failure to run any particular story implies something about its credibility. In the minds of their editors, the question of WMDs is, today, irrelevant. The invasion has already taken place. Running such a story would simply simply be quibbling over spilt milk.

Furthermore, you've already admitted the story is true, when you attacked the found WMDs as "degraded, and thus useless".

Finally, your revisionist attempts to claim the US was, prior to the invasion, claiming Iraq was actively manufacturing WMDs are off base. The claims were that:

a) Iraq was refusing to cooperate with international inspectors
b) Iraq was attempting to retain previously-manufactured banned munitions and retain elements of banned programs.
c) Iraq had active programs in place to further development of banned munitions (primarily long-range missile technology)

All three of these have been exhaustively, conclusively verified.


RE: A Word called Caution.
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 6:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
calling the newspaper that .. a bastion of unbiased journalism... They take a clear stance on any and all issues; they don't even attempt to claim an objective viewpoint.

I guess I should have said "a well reasoned viewpoint", which is not what I said but is what I meant. I don't think there are too many news sources which do as good a job as them at the "well reasoned" part of things.

Sometimes the Time/Newsweek type magazine try to be "balanced", and I come away learning nothing other than Pundit Left says ... and Pundit Right says ..., and I think they're both probably full of it. "Foreign Affairs" does a good job at having intelligent well reasoned sources on both sides of issues, but I fall asleep whenever I try reading that because it takes too much effort. I look for a news source in which I think all facts were weighed fairly first, and an attempt made to reasonably find some sort of truth when possible.

Anyways, I'm tired of this. Not because I have nothing to say, but because this is the wrong forum to say it (yeah, I started it sort of). I am glad to see that you reached your opinions by staying well informed. Your comments in the Japan/CO2 article were particularly interesting. There are few people on either sides of these issues who know what they are talking about (perhaps you include me in the clueless group).

As an example of the ill-informed but passionate. A few years ago I was in Vienna and everyone was raving about Michael Moore's latest book ("Angry white men" I think), and repeating all the drivel in it as authoritative fact. As a leftish person I find him entertaining to watch, but only for the entertainment value. I only believe 5% of what he says, because it is clearly not much more meaningful than anything Ann Coulter says.

Good night.


RE: A Word called Caution.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By MonkeyPaw on 7/3/2006 10:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Intel HAS given OEMs substantial discounts on thier CPUs. However, Intel will suddenly stop doing this, even for Dell. I can't remember exactly the details, but basically, all OEMs will now be treated equally by Intel. Honestly, I don't AMD expects much money, but rather, they just want a chance to sell thier products. Intel has apparently been preventing this in various ways, some of them honest, some not so much. Just from what I've seen recently, Intel indeed looks like they're following the rules a bit better.

It shouldn't matter if AMD's product isn't as good as Core2, it should still sell if the price is right. It's not like AM2 CPUs will be horrible, especially in the basic IGP machines that sell in stores anyway. Granted, AMD will not be making the profits it used to, but they shouldn't get shut out so badly now that Intel has the DOJ watching, and other nations are speaking up. It's hardly slander if Intel's own business practices are what is making them look bad right now. It's a good thing Core2 looks so good, isn't it?




RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By akugami on 7/4/2006 9:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
The irony is that rebate programs are legal. So long as all your resellers are privy to the same rebates and volume discounts. The thing that made it illegal is Intel made it "secret" discount to certain large volume sellers only.

And judging by IBM vs SCUM...sorry SCO...AMD vs Intel should end about the end of the century.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 10:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know anything about the law, but is it legal that the rebate be contingent on only buying Intel CPUs? I thought that was the problem, because if 90% of your processors are Intel then you'd be stupid to give up the rebate for the chance to sell 10% AMD.

> AMD vs Intel should end about the end of the century.

By the time the courts catch up to reality I think that business has usually moved beyond the point where it matters. I'm not sure the breakup of AT&T made much of a difference, and certainly nowadays it would hardly matter if the old AT&T were put back together again. If Google does a better job with the online word processor & spreadsheet then I imagine Microsoft would also become a much weaker company, and no longer need the (US) courts to give them more than the customary slap on the wrist.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2006 11:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "and certainly nowadays it would hardly matter if the old AT&T were put back together again..."

It's coming to that. SBC + AT&T + Bellsouth is a substantial portion of the original corporate juggernaut.
But you're indeed right...market forces solved the problem for us; the breakup really had little effect.


RE: Will this ever reach an end?
By Viditor on 7/4/2006 1:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing that made it illegal is Intel made it "secret" discount to certain large volume sellers only

Even that's not illegal. The illegal part was tailoring individual rebate programs to each company. In effect, this allowed Intel to calculate how many units each company was selling, and then back-date their rebates in order to insure exclusivity.


What is all the fuss about?
By lemonadesoda on 7/4/2006 3:33:37 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly what is wrong with exclusive agreements? If you go to a Ford dealer, what do they sell? Hondas? Nope.

What's wrong with, in a free market, one company making a business deal with another company?

Its the American way. If you don't like it. Shop somewhere else. All this complaining, complete nonesense.




RE: What is all the fuss about?
By Schmide on 7/4/2006 7:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
Kind of a bad analogy...

What if Ford started forcing Honda dealerships out of auto-malls by bribing or buying dealerships, thus cornering local market leading to a global market share, is that also the American way???


RE: What is all the fuss about?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 9:22:58 AM , Rating: 1
> "Kind of a bad analogy... "

No, its an excellent analogy, as exclusive vertical arrangements (such as a Ford-only dealership) are the heart of the AMD suit.

> "What if Ford started forcing Honda dealerships out of auto-malls by bribing or buying dealerships..."

Then Ford would spend enormous sums of cash to purchase a lot of unneccesary dealerships, and new Honda dealerships would automatically spring up to replace the ones being bought out. If Ford persisted, it would likely bankrupt itself. Market forces at work.

Similarly, we see market forces at work in the Intel-AMD situation. Consumers are not being denied a choice-- on the contrary, AMD products are available from every major manufacturer, vendor and retailer which exists.



RE: What is all the fuss about?
By Schmide on 7/5/2006 6:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
>Honda dealerships would automatically spring up to replace the ones being bought out

For one combining Auto matic and business is about as valid as investing in Turn Key investments. It take a lot to enter a market and a few months can make or break a business. Strong Arm pressure can easily unlevel a market in a short period of time.

History has proven, cough cough Standard Oil, shady deals, large amounts of capital, lack of oversight, can corner a market fairly quickly leaving the consumer to foot the bill.

Uncheck capitalism equals oligocracy in the making.


By SixDixonCider on 7/4/2006 10:24:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hi, I was a salesman in Electronic Components during the transition of the XP line to Sempron line for Socket A. There is no indicator that Fry's removed the XP line. They just went discontiuned, and was replaced soon afterwards. AMD is still our Vendor of Choice for most of our products. We carry nothing but AMD products in our Fry's PC line. I question of integerity of the sources for this article.




By Viditor on 7/4/2006 11:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was a salesman in Electronic Components during the transition of the XP line to Sempron line for Socket A. There is no indicator that Fry's removed the XP line

This was during the beginning of the XP notebooks at Fry's. I do remember that they removed them (because I was looking to buy one at the time), but you're right that they brought them back after about a year or so...


its all about jobs
By patrick darcy on 7/4/2006 7:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
intel will destroy jobs to get their way in the market place. so many people
are not aware of this and will continue to purchase from them.

american companies destroying other american companies is becoming normal behavior now.





RE: its all about jobs
By Kuroyama on 7/4/2006 8:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
american companies destroying other american companies is becoming normal behavior now.


First, I don't know what you're talking about. Second, you may as well say that anytime two American companies compete they are destroying American jobs. Third, AMD processors are made in Germany and assembled in Malaysia, while I believe that most Intel CPUs are made in the US, so if you want to argue about destroying jobs then I think AMD might be the bigger culprit here.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki