Print 110 comment(s) - last by uibo.. on Nov 7 at 5:35 AM

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo  (Source: Groll/AP)
“We intend to stop them" -- New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo

Intel is no stranger to lawsuits. The company was slapped with a $1.45B USD fine by the EU in May of this year for anticompetitive practices. The charges leveled against Intel mainly focused on illegal methods Intel used to keep AMD from gaining in traction in the marketplace.

At the time, EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes noted that, "[Intel used] used illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude its only competitor and reduce consumers’ choice — and the whole story is about consumers."

The Santa Clara, CA-based company later appealed the ruling with Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy saying, "Our position is that the decision was wrong and we said that from the day it was announced. It was wrong on many levels."

Now it appears that Intel is facing another lawsuit -- this time on its own home soil according to the New York Times. New York attorney general Andrew M. Cuomo is going after Intel this time with a federal antitrust lawsuit. Like the aforementioned EU case, Cuomo asserts that Intel used illegal tactics to stifle AMD.

“Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” said Cuomo. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

The NYT adds that the state of NY's action against Intel could mean that the FTC could step in as well with charges of its own. "These are separate investigations, but it would be very surprising for New York State to go off on its own without being fairly confident the FTC would pursue Intel as well," a person familiar with the situation told the NYT.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The First Real Evidence for Anti-trust Violations
By Sahrin on 11/4/2009 4:05:42 PM , Rating: 5
The article on ( lists the first "smoking gun" evidence of anti-trust violations I have seen. An e-mail from a Dell Exec says blatantly and flat-out "If we use AMD, we can expect financial retaliation from Intel to the tune of $500 million" (para).

This is *exactly* what AMD has been alleging all along. Couple that with an internal Intel e-mail that advises a co-worker to "call him because he doesn't want to talk about this over the phone due to anti-trust concerns" (para) means Intel will *NOT* want this to go to trial.

As far as AMD is concerned, Intel's not going to be shut down - and every conviction/fine Intel gets from a governmental agency simply makes AMD's case for anti-trust violation stronger. Remember, because AMD's is a civil suit they only have to convince a jury Intel was even partially cuplable for AMD's struggles (just 10% responsible could add up to tens of billions in damages)...and based on the e-mails (and the recent implication in insider trading), it shouldn't be that hard to paint Intel with the 'greasy monopolist' brush in a courtroom.

This is a banner day for AMD, make no mistake about it.

RE: The First Real Evidence for Anti-trust Violations
By RjBass on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
By monomer on 11/4/2009 7:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
These are completely different cases. The charges against Intel are for monopolistic practices, and have nothing to do with the recent insider trading fiasco.

By weskurtz0081 on 11/4/2009 9:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I missed something, but could you show me where the OP said anything about insider trading?

By Shadrack2 on 11/5/2009 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
In original post and quoted in his response:

...and based on the e-mails (and the recent implication in insider trading)

By RjBass on 11/5/2009 7:47:09 PM , Rating: 1
You really can't read, can you?

By Sahrin on 11/4/2009 10:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct that Mr. Ruiz was implicated, but you are not correct to imply that the two will 'cancel eachother out.' If AMD goes in front of a jury, reads those e-mails and then says "AND they have corrupt execs" - the fact that AMD also had corrupt execs doesn't do anything to help Intel. AMD didn't break any anti-trust laws; and they won't be on trial in the civil suit. Intel will.

By ZmaxDP on 11/5/2009 4:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
You are clearly not a trial lawyer. EVERYONE involved in a trial is on trial in Civil suits. I don't care if you bring hector ruiz's 95 year old mother to the stand, she'll be on trial.

By RjBass on 11/5/2009 7:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
And I guess you have never been in court during a large cival lawsuite. If AMD pulls that card, Intels defense will pull it as well. It will then be null and void, and I am willing to bet that AMD won't even bring that aspect up.

By chunkymonster on 11/6/2009 1:12:06 PM , Rating: 1
You are comparing apples and oranges...apples and oranges...

By monomer on 11/4/2009 7:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Hector did not "bleed the company for millions." He allegedly let an analyst know about the ATI acquisition before the details became public and is now facing the consequences.

How are these two cases even related?

RE: The First Real Evidence for Anti-trust Violations
By Regs on 11/4/2009 10:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was the spin-off of their fabs into the new Global Foundries?

By monomer on 11/5/2009 12:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
Ooops, you're right, Ruiz was implicated for tipping off the analyst about the GloFo spin-off.

What year is it again?

By aj28 on 11/5/2009 8:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ruiz predicted that AMD's stock price would soar after news of the spin-off reached the public. In case you missed that period of history, it didn't happen, and nobody bled anybody for any money.

That said, where is your citation of these manufacturing demands they were supposedly experiencing? If you read the article, a lot of this is about planned products being canceled, particularly in the server realm. AMD likely already had the chips lined up, and as evidenced by current stocks of old Opteron chips, I'd be willing to bet they did.

Rule number one isn't getting the product to the customer. First off, the rule is convincing people to invest in your ideas. Money comes before product or even development. You can't build up a microprocessor design and manufacturing company without meaningful investments, and who is going to invest in a company which is clearly the victim of underhanded market tactics on the part of a huge and influential competitor like Intel?

Furthermore, AMD's products were indeed getting to their customers, but mostly in the retail channel where Intel's bribery wasn't as rampant. The vast majority of revenue comes through the OEM channels, and if the manufacturers advertising and delivering the end product to consumers are being bribed to use a competitor's product, how can you fight that? Only in court, but as we've seen the past few years now, that isn't likely to work, much less in a timely enough fashion to save your company.

By JarredWalton on 11/6/2009 5:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Manufacturing capacity is fixed by building more fabs, which you build because you are utilizing all of your current capacity and selling all of the product. Intel blocked AMD from selling more product, thereby preventing them from gaining the resources to build new fabs that cost BILLIONS each. It's a cycle either way: Intel builds more fabs because they sell more processors. Of course AMD couldn't have supplied all of the CPUs needed by the whole industry with two fabs, but they would have been building additional fabs (and contracting to other companies on parts that didn't need as much precision -- i.e. Sempron) until they had the capacity.

By superPC on 11/4/2009 5:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
correct me if i'm wrong but didn't X86 license (which is own by intel by the way) stipulate that holder of that license should not exceed a set percentage of CPU sales (20% if i remember correctly). i can't give any reference offhand, still trying to find it. if it's true, then no lawsuit can help AMD because the stipulation of X86 license guarantied that AMD will not make more than 20% CPU in the market.

By knutjb on 11/4/2009 6:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think what you're referring to was when AMD manufactured Intel's processors. AMD owns the 64 bit license that Intel needs. I don't think they're in too much long term trouble. One can't live without the other, unless you put one out of business...

By Calin on 11/5/2009 1:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
The license terms are not public... AMD considered a victory even the limited part of the licensing agreement they were able to make public so far.

By ajfink on 11/5/2009 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
Even if that is true, that section of the agreement would just be ruled anti-competitive and shens in light of the current marketplace.

By knutjb on 11/4/2009 6:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Glad to see someone has this story in proper context.

No matter how much Intel ends up paying out it can never compensate AMD for the losses it has incurred on development. To connect the dots for those who get it, if you can't fund your R&D you can't get patents for that technology. You might be working on it but your much wealthier competitor will have a significant advantage and still try to put you under with those newly developed patents.

Remember when AMD was working hard on 64 bit processors and commentators wondered why they worked so hard when 64 bit software was years off. Intel must use AMD's patent to be able to run 64 bit OSes. Intel does not like having to be beholden to anyone.

By xRyanCat on 11/4/2009 7:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
But the two are incompatible. AMD and Intel have cross-licensing agreements. AMD licenses the x86 instruction set from Intel and Intel in turn licenses the expandexd x86-64 set from AMD. Both need each other and neither would ever think about openly breaking the agreement just to spite the other.

True though. AMD could not survive without its current licensing agreements with Intel.

By omnicronx on 11/5/2009 12:22:59 AM , Rating: 1
The problem I see is that Intel can still make x86 chips regardless, AMD can't even make use of x64 without an x86 license. The cross licensing agreement you speak of ends in at the end of 2010, so I find the timing of this news to be very weird..

By chunkymonster on 11/6/2009 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I see is that Intel can still make x86 chips regardless, AMD can't even make use of x64 without an x86 license. The cross licensing agreement you speak of ends in at the end of 2010, so I find the timing of this news to be very weird..

At one time Intel sued to have AMD's x86 license revoked but, at the time of the suit if AMD's license had been revoked, it would have made Intel a sole source provider of x86 processors to the U.S. government, as a result it was (more or less) determined that AMD has carte-blanche on the x86 license.

Also, AMD broke away from making Intel clones with the K5 series processors; because of this, AMD effectively developed their own x86 uArch. And, while AMD still licenses x86 from Intel, there has been enough cross-licensing between the two companies to negate any threats of revoking licensing. For example, the x86-64 extensions built into all Intel processors is licensed from AMD. So, if Intel forced revocation of AMD's x86 license then AMD could force revocation of Intel's X86-64 license, and then where would either company be? The existing license ending in 2010 will end up being a license renewal, at the most.

By knutjb on 11/5/2009 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 2

An Intel executive is caught up in the same insider trading scandal. This has to do with stock trading not a FAB facility and Intel committing anti-trust violations. You don't have evidence linking the FAB to this case, they are not connected.

By hyvonen on 11/5/2009 5:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry - my bad. That insider trading comment was a response to someone else who was barking about how unethical intel due to that low-level employee insider trading thingy, conveniently forgetting that a very high level employee (=AMDs CEO) was involved in insider trading.

My other points are valid responses, though. NY is the place for AMDs FAB, and that's a likely reason why NY AG would file a bogus suit against intel.

By HrilL on 11/5/2009 6:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
They've already been proven guilty in the European Union and in South Korea. How many other countries need to join the bandwagon?

Got to love the fanbois that think Intel can do no evil.

AMD's exec has nothing to do with this case. What he did has nothing to do with the decades of illegal business Intel has taken part in.

RE: The First Real Evidence for Anti-trust Violations
By B3an on 11/5/2009 7:37:40 AM , Rating: 1
If this was the EU fining Intel. To you yanks it would be because the EU is corrupt, which i always see posted on here with articles regarding that. But if it's in the US, which is far more corrupt anyway, then something like this is perfectly fine and Intel suddenly deserves it.

By LRonaldHubbs on 11/5/2009 9:54:09 AM , Rating: 1
Even ignoring your demonstrated anti-'yanks' bias for a moment, your assumptions are incorrect. The EU ruling was fishy because of the conflict of interest in the EC. This new case in NY is fishy as well for the same reason -- NY state has a vested interest in AMD/GF. It's no more fine now than it was in the EU case.

By BZDTemp on 11/5/2009 10:05:56 AM , Rating: 3
What conflict of interest in the EU?

If you are referring to the AMD factory in Germany then I think you should remember that Ireland has the biggest Intel factory outside of the US. Plus while both Intel and AMD are big companies they are not really that big considering the EU is union of almost 500 million people. Neither of the two companies has a size which compares much to the really big companies.

By HrilL on 11/5/2009 6:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not forget the South Korean ruling as well. Intel simply acted illegally and now they need to pay up.

I hope AMD eventually takes them to Civil court and gets the money they deserve. Intel probably robbed more then 20 billion of potential profit from AMD.

This activity went on for years and finally came out of the closet when people actually realized that AMD had the best CPU on the market and almost none of the major OMEs were selling them.

Fines fines fines
By Masterrer on 11/4/2009 12:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
I only hope all that money made from fines will be put to good use...

RE: Fines fines fines
By silverblue on 11/4/2009 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
So far, none of it has gone to AMD's coffers. Only time will tell how much Intel will get fined, and what proportion of this is paid to AMD.

RE: Fines fines fines
By Motoman on 11/4/2009 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
IANAL, but in these cases I don't think any of it does.

I think the only way AMD could actually get money out of this would be to file a civil suit after the criminal suit for their own damages.

RE: Fines fines fines
By othercents on 11/4/2009 4:01:29 PM , Rating: 3
AMD was building a plant in New York and I bet it was subsidized by New York. They spun off the plant to GlobalFoundaries, but I would bet that any money New York gets will help offset the cost of building that plant.


RE: Fines fines fines
By RW on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Fines fines fines
By RW on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Fines fines fines
By exploderator on 11/4/2009 6:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
No, honestly working fairly within the rules of law and sound ethics is what makes us something other than monkeys.

We doubtless enjoy the fruits of our giant companies, but it is not sustainable if there is nothing to FORCE them to behave ethically, which they will not do themselves . Look what happened when Wall Street got exactly what it wanted: they went way too far, right off a cliff.

Intel is far from the worst, but we cannot allow a lord of the flies mentality to rule the mega-corporate environment. All the little peons DO get squashed when they swagger around, out of control, drunk on unrestrained profit and power.

RE: Fines fines fines
By RW on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Fines fines fines
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/4/2009 7:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but there is a line, Intel was using bribery, illegal kickbacks and other cohesion's to get OEM's to use Intel chips, and threatening them if they used AMD chips.

That is clearly illegal, and I wouldn't categorize it as the free market.

RE: Fines fines fines
By RW on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Fines fines fines
By caqde on 11/5/2009 1:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
True you can't force the customers to buy your product, but your argument about not buying one is purely ignorant. I will never understand this line of thinking. Not to mention most of your consumers are not going to know anything about these issues or for that matter care so your choice argument is an illusion. It is like an election with one party, someone has to be voted in and someone is going to vote for him whether you choose to vote for him or not he is still getting voted in.

RE: Fines fines fines
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/5/2009 8:45:23 PM , Rating: 1
What the heck would they do if they owned a business, and needed to upgrade their computers? nothing? It hasn't been proven, but if it is proven that intel used illegal means to stop OEM's from buying AMD chips, than they deserve to be fined.

RE: Fines fines fines
By hyvonen on 11/5/2009 3:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
And you can prove this how?

Let's just wait for the court to decide if this really happened or not.

RE: Fines fines fines
By nuarbnellaffej on 11/5/2009 8:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well of course I cannot prove anything on that matter, but that's not what I'm arguing, what I'm saying is that if they are using illegal tactics to stop OEM's from using AMD chips than they deserve to be fined for it.

RE: Fines fines fines
By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2009 3:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but there is a line, Intel was using bribery, illegal kickbacks and other cohesion's to get OEM's to use Intel chips, and threatening them if they used AMD chips.

You know, it's amazing that none, NONE, of those "threatened" OEM companies filed a suit or even complained against Intel. But I guess in Fantasy World, multi-billion dollar corporations just sit back and let other corparations bully, threaten, and tell them how to run things...

RE: Fines fines fines
By Khato on 11/5/2009 3:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, probably because an actual Intel 'threat' wouldn't be to reduce rebates in proportion to the lesser number of units sold, it would be along the lines of "If you go AMD, then we're going to cap the number of processors that we'll sell to you at X% of your current." Why? Because back during the days that AMD had a competitive advantage, they were capacity constrained and wouldn't be able to fill demand if Intel cut back drastically.

But, oh yeah, Intel didn't do anything of the sort. If you actually take the time to read the complaint (it's only 83 pages, with double line-spacing no less!) you'll see what I mean. And taken in that context, the majority of the so-called 'evidence' from system manufacturers doesn't do anything to implicate Intel in any wrongdoing. Rather, it's a bunch of "Intel could completely screw us if they wanted to, so we're going to do what we can to make them happy."

The other point that I always enjoy bringing up - no judicial body has found Intel guilty as of yet.

RE: Fines fines fines
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because Intel destroyed thousands of emails and documents of evidence. Clearly this was brought up during the investigations. The European Union found this to be the case and as did the South Korean government.

From what I've read before it was intel's control of their chipsets that scared the OEMs. Intel would sell you X amount of CPU's but if you also sold AMD then they wouldn't sell you the chipsets you needed to make those Intel CPU's function.

RE: Fines fines fines
By theapparition on 11/4/2009 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
We have a winner.

RE: Fines fines fines
By knutjb on 11/4/2009 6:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to go back and check your time lines. This started before AMD planned to move to NY. Your conspiracy theory needs more work.

RE: Fines fines fines
By Khato on 11/5/2009 2:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you might want to go do that...

January 10th, 2008 -

May 3rd, 2007 -

RE: Fines fines fines
By knutjb on 11/5/2009 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
Intel started this illegal activity during the P4-XP days and that was when?

RE: Fines fines fines
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
Before that. They were doing this during the P2 days and before that even. When AMD's K6-2 was still the better CPU on the market... I think it started as soon as AMD started to design their own CPUs based on x86 and were mixing in some aspects of the RISC processors of the company they had purchased.

RE: Fines fines fines
By smilingcrow on 11/4/2009 4:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the EU has upgraded all their servers to the new Xeons with the money that Intel coughed up. Funnily enough Intel didn’t offer them any discount for such a large bulk order.

RE: Fines fines fines
By rcc on 11/4/2009 6:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, it'll go to paying off the politicians.

Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By goz314 on 11/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By Sahrin on 11/4/2009 4:08:48 PM , Rating: 4
One doesn't break the law in a vaccuum. Because a situation is heading in one direction doesn't mean that it can't be impacted by outside factors. CPU Prices fell, that doesn't mean that Intel didn't violate anti-trust laws (regardless of the ultimate market results) - anti-trust laws aren't contingent upon harming the consumer, they're contingent upon harming the marketplace.

RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By dark matter on 11/4/2009 4:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
Are you claiming that in your eyes it doesn't matter what laws or legislation are broken as long as the price of a product is coming down?

Interesting theory of yours, you should pass it on.

RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By Oregonian2 on 11/4/2009 6:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
He appears only to be commenting about Cuomo's statement (that he quoted), and possibly correctly so. Cuomo's statement appears to be a standardized one rather than one about CPU prices.

If anything has driven AMD into the ground, it's Intel's mega-super manufacturing facilities that Intel invested heavily in that can produce massive quantity of chips using industry leading technology processes.

This both allows them to produce mass quantities to be sold as well as doing so at increasingly lower prices. It's the global foundary portion of AMD that Intel had really destroyed in the earlier days, even during that window where for a while AMD had better product. IMO anyway.

RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By hyvonen on 11/5/2009 3:12:53 AM , Rating: 1
True. But that sort of ruins the exciting tabloid story about behind-the-scene deals, threats, bribery, all-around criminal behavior etc.

To me this is AMD whining because they lost the fair fight, and want to tie competitor's arms behind its back to stand a chance.

The link between NY and AMD is so painfully obvious. In exchange for a large investment in New York's ecomony (the fab), they got the state's AG to file a bogus suit against their main competitor. How is this not considered a bribe?

RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By UNCjigga on 11/5/2009 5:09:43 AM , Rating: 3
"lost the fair fight"? Are you serious?

Anyone with a memory of the past 10 years understands that AMD built a superior product (Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4) and from the article it seems that Dell wanted options, but chose not to adopt the Athlon because Intel kept paying them to be exclusive. This action created a huge opportunity cost for AMD--when you can't sell to the number 1 PC maker (based in your hometown no less) you're losing hundreds of millions in revenue.

It'd be one thing if it was a couple million here or there (i.e. legitimate co-marketing and advertising fees) but we're talking BILLIONS in payments. That is monopolistic or collusive behavior and a violation of antitrust law if I ever saw one (granted I'm no expert.) I also don't think Intel deserves all the blame though--Dell is partly at fault for following through with the scheme.

Then you point fingers at NY and AMD for being all buddy-buddy with the new plant--yet you don't think Intel and Dell are at fault? Fanboy much?

RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By hyvonen on 11/5/2009 5:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
AMD had the superior product, but the fight I referred to is the long term fight. Intel invested more into R&D and manufacturing all those, and finally got their collective heads out of their a**es and developed a great product. The end result is that Intel has better performing products that are cheaper to make. AMD cannot compete anymore profitably. THAT's the game AMD lost.

Regarding the alleged crimes, let's just wait for the court to figure it out. You seem to be announcing Intel guilty without giving them a fair chance to defend themselves. I want to give them a fair chance. If the court says Intel was at fault (and Intel's appeal is rejected), that's it. AMD deserves some compensation.

But make no mistake - AMD is in trouble basically because they can't compete with Intel in R&D. Claiming that all this is because Intel was abusing the market doesn't seem entirely fair - that would be like saying all AMD products are flawless, and it's not their fault that they can't make any money.

RE: Selective Memory or Ignorance?
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad AMD's been able to make a better CPU For 10 years before the last 2 years. They were blocked out of the market from selling their better CPUs. Had they had access to the market from the start they would have been able to spend lot more on R&D and on Fabs to make more CPUs. You have to see this from long term negative impact not just from 2005 when AMD had hands down the best CPU on the market for 2+ years and could hardly gain traction because they were locked out of a major part of the market for far too long.

Even when Dell finally started to sell AMD they only sold very low end parts like semprons that competed with the celeron. Yeah that's fair when Dell should have been selling Athlon 64 that were the best CPUs on the market.

By Oregonian2 on 11/6/2009 5:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Although AMD had "better" parts at the low-performance end of the market for a very long time (they earlier couldn't compete at the upper performance end) there's more to competition than just the kind of chip they can design. A lot of the competition also is manufacturing.

If Dell wanted a huge number of chips during those couple years where AMD did indeed have better high end chips in their catalog, could AMD have delivered them without just moving production away from other customers? All were made at their one Dresden fab I think, and it was production limited afaik most of the time. AMD also had larger die sizes even during their better chip days (the few years before Conroe came out). Intel's ability to deliver chips in mass quantity from manufacturing is something that AMD has never been anywhere close to matching.

Mind you, I'm speaking as someone who bought AMD between the 8086 days and Conroe, and tried to stay pro-AMD. But despite my pro-amd stand, Intel deserved the success it had -- particularly when they would expand production fab investments even during downturns so they'd be ready for the uptick. Something others did not do.

What good will all these fines do?
By kroker on 11/5/2009 12:50:29 AM , Rating: 1
What good will all the fines that Intel received do for any of us? Will these money go to AMD at least? No. It will just hurt Intel, and that means in the end it will hurt the consumer. So the consumer is hurt both by lack of good competition from AMD (some of which may be Intel's fault - that is the whole point of these lawsuits after all), and by the fact that Intel will have to reflect their budget loses in their product prices.

No, what Intel really deserves is to finally loose the damn x86 license. What we really need is more competition. Without AMD for example we would have single-core 10GHz Pentium 4s with Hyper Threading with 300W TDP by now. But AMD had a much better product and this forced Intel to change its plans. Intel's x86 instruction set is not revolutionary in any way. The reasons for it's success is because we, the consumers, chose it over other architectures available. We are the reason Intel made all of its billions, and then Intel screwed us because they wanted even for more money.

What we need is more competition, not fines. I'm tired of Intel's bullying, waving their licenses in front of everyone (like Nvidia for example)

RE: What good will all these fines do?
By hyvonen on 11/5/09, Rating: 0
By just4U on 11/5/2009 12:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
YES ... and NO. Amd did raise prices overall for much of their lineup but they were still selling the majority of them at a substantially lower cost then Intel was selling their cpu's. I can only remember one cpu being priced very similiar to Intel's and that was their highest end Opteron. It was pretty short lived though and seemed more like introductory pricing since it came down to a reasonable level 3-4 months later.

By UNCjigga on 11/5/2009 4:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
In addition to fines, antitrust judges also have the power to force Intel into a more competitive situation. Creating an open license for x86 is one option (that nobody sees happening); I think it'd be more fun to force Intel to "unbundle" CPUs from chipsets and allow more competition in that space.

RE: What good will all these fines do?
By uibo on 11/5/2009 10:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
Intel will have to reflect their budget loses in their product prices.

If this happens AMD will have an advantage (Their prices will not have to increase for this reason).

RE: What good will all these fines do?
By hyvonen on 11/5/2009 5:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
And you don't think that if Intel raises prices, AMD wouldn't do the same thing?

Price/performance ratio tends to be the same for both companies' products. AMD would love to finally make a profit, and they would most certainly hike the prices.

You know, Intel wouldn't have to raise prices - in fact, they could still drop the prices a ton, and still be profitable. But if they did, AMD would be out of business, and the regulators would split Intel into pieces. I think Intel is much happier to just keep making huge profits and keep AMD around to make it sound like there is an actual competitive market in place.

RE: What good will all these fines do?
By uibo on 11/7/2009 5:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
I doesn't really matter if AMD raised it's prices or not. If Intel would raise it's prices because of the fine (that's a big and unlikely if- I know) and AMD would increase theirs in response - AMD would still have an advantage. The additional income will not go into "covering" the fine.
Anyway I believe this case will not have any noticeable impact on how they run the companies.

By BZDTemp on 11/4/2009 4:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
Either that or start bashing the NY for trying to steal money from CA (since that is where Intel HQ is located).

But i guess neither will happen :-)

On a different note I think it is great for all of us something is being done stateside. While this case is all about Intel (and therefore AMD) it is also gonna make other companies take note and think again before they abuse their size.

By therealnickdanger on 11/5/2009 8:13:50 AM , Rating: 1
Nope, this is just more of the same. New York State is facing multi-billion dollar budget deficits and NYC itself is experiencing a mass exodus of big earners, the very people that pay the majority of taxes in the city. This has everything to do with money and power - New York is losing both and will claw at any large bank accounts that they can. It's no different (in practice) than small town cops increasing revenues by issuing more minor citations during hard times. The EU does it ALL the time, American lawyers only do it when times get tough.

By BZDTemp on 11/5/2009 5:28:28 PM , Rating: 2

Not so simple
By crystal clear on 11/5/2009 8:26:36 AM , Rating: 1
An e-mail from a Dell Exec says blatantly and flat-out "If we use AMD, we can expect financial retaliation from Intel to the tune of $500 million" (para).

This Dell executive is simply speculating or simply using it as an excuse for choosing Intel chips.

Not enough evidence to fine Intel,wait a few years till the legal proceedings come to an end.

Bribes & coercion are istruments/tools actively used all over the world including the USA to get protection from politicians in Govt.

Investigate politicians in the USA !

RE: Not so simple
By crystal clear on 11/5/2009 10:20:41 AM , Rating: 2

Cuomo is expected to run for the state's governorship in 2010.

RE: Not so simple
By knutjb on 11/5/2009 11:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
If they didn't have convincing information bringing a suit like this would end Cuomo's political future.

It looks like Intel broke the anti-trust laws, a trial will tell us. It doesn't look good for Intel after the EU caught them doing the very same thing.

So Cuomo shouldn't investigate a crime because he plans to run for Governor?

You guys need to crawl out of your caves more often. Too much internet is bad for your brain.

Devil's Advocate
By oserus99 on 11/5/2009 12:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
I have several problems with this situation:
1) AMD had a small lead for one generation in SOME applications. It never had anywhere near an across the board lead over Intel. Easiest way to prove this is go back and look at the multitasking and multi-threaded performance of their chips. They were horrible. They won the crown in gaming here on the Internet because they had the best single application scores, but never by much. This single generation lead does not make converts quickly, either in the manufacturing field, nor the buyers field for businesses. The only ones quickly converted were the bloggers and the enthusiasts who built their own systems. There is no evidence that would sugest they SHOULD have had more of a bump in sales than they did for that one generation. There is a reason you have heard the phrase "No one ever got fired for buying Intel."

2) AMD never put in the money for advertisement that Intel did. Without that advertising investment the average buyer would probably not know AMD even had a competing chip. So, again, other than the enthusiast and bloggers there was no demand for AMD's processors. Without that demand, where was the incentive for any system builders to gamble on lesser known processors for their systems?

3) You are very quick to blame Intel but where is the backlash towards the OEM's? They are the ones who made the decisions to buy Intel chips. Regardless of the incentive, do you really think they would have stayed with Intel if they thought the AMD's would sell better at a cheaper price? They were not under threat of not being able to buy Intel chips. However, they were under threat of maybe not getting such great deals on the chips as compared to the price you or I would have to pay. Which would be the same on AMD's side when they offer the discounts they inevitably would to such OEM's.

Looking at the above problems with the suit by the cash strapped state of New York, this appears to be nothing more than a political maneuver (hey look we're doing this for you, the consumer so that you can get revenge for buying stuff cheaply) combined with a blatant money grab at someone with deep pockets.

RE: Devil's Advocate
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Over the years AMD's CPUs were better than Intels at many stages. k6-2 was better than the P2. Athlon was better than the P3. Remember AMD was the first to break 1ghz. And Intel finally release a 1ghz P3. Look back at the old benchmarks. AMD has had on par if not better CPUs than Intel until Pyran was released.

You and the many other Fanboys overlook this because well AMD wasn't as well known and you saw thousands of Intel commercials on TV.

Simple fact is the Average consumer may have known about Intel but I doubt that would effect their choice when buying a computer. You buy what your price range is and what the OMEs are selling for that range. No AMD option means you can only get Intel. Go figure AMD could not gain any traction when the only people who could get their CPUs were the enthusiasts who were building their own machines.

Killer Defense
By marvdmartian on 11/4/2009 4:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Our position is that the decision was wrong and we said that from the day it was announced.

Ah yes, the, "Heck no, you're wrong!!" approach, the last defense of those who know they're guilty as hell. ;)

Smoking guns
By Wierdo on 11/5/2009 8:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
(original post:

(info source:

135. On November 4, 2005 Otellini reported internally in a “Confidential — DO NOT FORWARD” email about “one of the most emotional calls I have ever, ever had with [Michael Dell].” In this email, Otellini wrote:

- [Michael Dell] opened by saying “I am tired of losing business” … he repeated it 3-4 times. I said nothing and waited.
- He has been traveling around the USA. He feels they are losing all the high margin business to AMD-based sku’s …
- He is ‘tired of being behind for 4 years (when I protested that it was 2, he said, no the last 2 years, this year, and next year).
- As a result, “Dell is no longer seen as a thought leader”

136. On Nov. 10, 2005, Michael Dell followed up with an email to Otellini: “We have lost the performance leadership and it’s seriously impacting our business in several areas.” Otellini’s reply: “There is nothing new here. Our product roadmap is what it is. It is improving rapidly daily. It will deliver increasingly leadership products … Additionally, we are transferring over $1B per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues.”

137. Michael Dell, however, continued to press home to Intel its performance deficit and its effects on Dell. On November 24, 2005 he capped an email exchange with Otellini by writing: “None of the current benchmarks and reviews say that Intel based systems are better than AMD. We are losing the hearts, minds and wallets of our best customers.”

139. On February 16, 2006, Intel took note of a service report in which Dell’s CEO Kevin Rollins had said that Dell had “made no plans to begin using” AMD chips. “Finally something positive” commented one Intel executive. Otellini commented: “The best friend money can buy.”

140. By April 2006, Dell’s relationship with Intel reached a breaking point. As Michael Dell wrote: “Intel – we overestimated both their ability to execute and our true competitive position with them and we underestimated AMD. And we relied too much on rebates from Intel.”

141. Dell was finally ready to act, despite the pressure and incentives from Intel. In an April 29 email to other top Dell executives, Michael Dell wrote: “We have been looking at the situation for a long time, and have decided to introduce a broad range of AMD based systems into our product line to provide the choice our customers are asking for.”

142. The reaction of Craig Barrett, Intel’s Board Chairman, was unequivocal: Dell should immediately be deprived of the payments it had long enjoyed in return for its willingness not to offer AMD products, and should start paying “list prices.” Barrett told Ottelini: “[T]hey have just signaled they are only interested in being a transaction based customer. I think you
should reply in kind. Not a time for weakness on our part. Stop writing checks immediately and put them back on list prices asap.” (Emphasis added).

143. The direction Otellini gave his subordinates the next day was consistent with Barrett’s advice. Intel should make clear to Dell that if Dell offered any AMD products all of the “mcp” payments Dell received from Intel would be at risk – just as Dell had always feared: “[W]e should be [pre]pared to remove all mcp and related programs. Post haste… then we ought to enter negotiations.”

By chunkymonster on 11/6/2009 1:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon this really a big surprise? Intel has been investigated for monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior dating back to 1990.

Three separate Trade Commissions have found Intel guilty; Japan, Korea, and The European Union. The fact that this is now happening in the U.S. should not be a great surprise to anyone.

Bottom line is, Intel is guilty of being anti-competitive . Anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or stupid.

Intel is indefensible and the State of NY will find them guilty just as Japan, Korea, and the EU have.

The question is not, "Is Intel guilty"? The question is how much of a fine and what concessions will Intel have to make as a result.

By Beenthere on 11/5/2009 12:53:58 AM , Rating: 1
You'd think that Intel would be forced to pay AMD at least $500 Billion in damages for their crimes but I'm not holding my breath. It would be good to also sentence Intel's executive staff to ten years in the slammer so that they are personally held accountable for their crimes.

By Baov on 11/4/09, Rating: 0
Who cares about AMD?
By corduroygt on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares about AMD?
By Motoman on 11/4/2009 12:51:35 PM , Rating: 5
You have completely missed the point. Which has not the slightest thing to do with pricing.

It has to do with Intel bribing OEM manufacturers to use their chips instead of AMD. Or providing illegal kickbacks. Or threatening to shortfall their CPU orders if they used AMD too. Or any number of clearly illegal tactics to prevent OEM manufacturers from pursuing relationships with AMD.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares about AMD?
By rudolphna on 11/4/2009 4:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer your an idiot. I live in New York, and I can tell you that really has nothing to do with it. Is the state hurting for money? 'Course, they all are. I do believe money from this will go to the Federal government.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares about AMD?
By invidious on 11/4/2009 12:59:58 PM , Rating: 5
So bribery and kickbacks are illegal now? Oh thats right Intel doesnt work for the government...

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By dark matter on 11/4/2009 4:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
Intel didn't "bribe" or "kickback" anyone. They "threatened". Still Bribery and Kickbacks would be illegal yes if they were for personal gain and/or at the expense of the shareholders. Hence the need for protection and legislation against that kind of behavior.

If if you disregard all this and refuse to accept it, you have to remember that in business there are a set of rules just like there are in sport. Now Intel is an old time player so it can't use the excuse that it wasn't aware of the rules. So maybe Intel may not like those rules that much but if it doesn't play by them it is more than welcome to take its ball elsewhere, but it has to get off the pitch.

Of course in your world my team bribing the referee and giving him a nice kickback to swing the game in our favor by penalizing the opposing team is perfectly acceptable.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares about AMD?
By lightfoot on 11/4/2009 5:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
They may not have been convicted yet, but that doesn't mean that they didn't do anything. It simply hasn't been proven in a court of law.

You can presume their innocence, but clearly the state of New York and the Federal Trade Commission believe that they can prove that the law was broken.

However the action in question must have already occured. You can't put someone on trial for something they have not yet done. So yes, they did do something. It is just a matter of proving that that something was illegal.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By neuromandw on 11/4/2009 6:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be too niggling, but it's alleged that something was done, it is not certain. That is what the case is about. It is both to affirm that something was done, and that that action was, in fact, illegal. Both are required. For example, it could be demonstrated that the actions did in fact occur, but the defense could in theory prove that the email was a joke or revenge, etc.

Also (to the posting earlier), insider trading has nothing to do with this at all, and does not necessarily bleed a company. In fact, there are situations where it can significantly benefit. The point of making insider trading illegal is that it's unfair, which is harmful to the markets in general. "Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities." -

An example of where a company would benefit is if the market suddenly sees a a bull run on a stock (insiders illegally buying based on non-public knowledge) and everyone jumps in, pushing up the value. As this was (unbeknownst to the public) based on actual good news, the stock stays high. This means the company profits from the delta between where the stock was and where it is now for the period of time of the increase until the 'insider information' becomes public knowledge.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
It was certain enough for the European Union and the South Korean Government. I doubt both these bodies ruled against Intel without being certain to some degree...

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By Motoman on 11/4/2009 6:29:32 PM , Rating: 3
Intel didn't "bribe" or "kickback" anyone.

The NY AG says they did, and obviously he thinks he can prove it in court. The EU case obviously decided that they did, since Intel lost that case spectacularly.

Anyway, it will come out in court - not that I have a lot of faith in our justice system.

I for one have not the slightest doubt that Intel is as guilty as guilty can be.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By corduroygt on 11/4/2009 5:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that issue was already taken care of with a past lawsuit...

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By Motoman on 11/4/2009 6:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
There's lots of lawsuits on this topic. AFAIK the only one that's been concluded is the Euro one where Intel got fined for a bajillion dollars.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By cmdrdredd on 11/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Who cares about AMD?
By cmdrdredd on 11/4/2009 6:58:23 PM , Rating: 1
forgot to say...

It probably wouldn't matter much if threatening someone didn't matter. Why does it matter? Simply because AMD does not compete well enough in certain areas that would leave a hole in the OEM's system offerings.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By themaster08 on 11/5/2009 3:07:12 AM , Rating: 4
Perhaps now, but you're quick to forget the past.

AMD were extremely competitive in the Athlon/Pentium 4 days. AMD took the performance crown as far as gamers were concerned. I'm sure OEM's useage of AMD processors would have soared if not for the fact that Intel were so corrupt.

Instead of using their time to make something better and actually compete with AMD on a fair playing field, they preferred to use that time to act like the school bully and pick on those it felt it had power over.

If you weren't so small minded, you would realise that it was Intel's anti-competitveness that caused AMD to stop being as competitive as they once were.

Who knows how AMD would have faired if none of this never happened?

P.S. I am a huge fan of Intel processors, and I'm not sayng AMD is a godsend, but my money goes straight to AMD. This corruption is something my hard earned money will not support.

Perhaps Intel need to get off their fat ass, go back to school and realise how to really compete...... innovate.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By hyvonen on 11/5/2009 3:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure OEM's useage of AMD processors would have soared if not for the fact that Intel were so corrupt.

And you don't think the fact that AMD couldn't make enough processors to satisfy the demand had anything to do with it...?

If you weren't so small minded, you would realise that it was Intel's anti-competitveness that caused AMD to stop being as competitive as they once were.

More likely it was an Intel internal political battle, caused by strong competition from AMD, that ended in a renewed focus on a better product approach. This allowed Intel to employ its vastly superior process technology.

It's pretty simple: Intel has superior R&D resources, both in design and manufacturing, and the current state of things is the natural result of that superiority. The reason why AMD had the best product for a period of time was partly caused by a great engineering idea from AMD, but mostly caused by mistakes and power plays inside Intel.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By silverblue on 11/5/2009 6:25:31 AM , Rating: 3
If AMD had received far more orders, how difficult would it have been for them to set up more production facilities or make a deal with someone to use theirs? Or expand their own?

It's all moot, anyway. I can only hope the budget Athlon X3s and X4s sell enough for us to find this out :)

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By silverblue on 11/5/2009 6:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
By the way, by stating "expand their own" I meant their current fabs and not building new ones. I haven't a clue how fabs are managed though.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By just4U on 11/5/2009 12:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say most of us who are interested in such things think it's common knowledge that Intel used underhanded tactics to hold Amd back a little. It's really hard to say how much that effected them overall as it's speculation at best. STILL, it's probably safe to say that AMD would have been in a better position to weather the storm that followed after the core2 launch if Intel had been doing things fairly.

RE: Who cares about AMD?
By BZDTemp on 11/5/2009 6:09:57 AM , Rating: 3
Intel dominates now because AMD have not had the money to keep up. If Intel had played fair AMD would have been stronger and competition would have meant even faster CPU's and lower prices.

You may not care about AMD but you ought to. Not for the sake of AMD but because it would mean better stuff for you (and I am sure this concept will be easy for you to grasp).

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki