backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Dactyl.. on Aug 7 at 2:44 AM

An AMD-commissioned report claims Intel's practices hurt the industry on a massive scale

According to a recent AMD-commissioned study by research firm ERS Group, Intel gained approximately $80 billion USD in monopoly profits over the course of 11 years since 1996. ERS Group director Dr. Michael A. Williams, said that while gaining billions in profits is normal for a company of Intel's size, Intel gained an extra $60 billion by using anticompetitive business practices. Essentially, Dr. Williams' report claims that Intel overcharged for microprocessors and other related products.

Intel has been in a legal situation with the European Union for the last several years, being a prime target for antitrust investigations. Just recently, Intel disputed the EU's claims that its business practices negatively impacted the market and consumer spending. Intel claimed that many if not all complaints were directly from AMD and not customers at all. True enough, most of the complaints filed to the EU have been by AMD and companies that received subpoenas from AMD to release information.

"We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers," said Intel senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell in a statement.

According Dr. Williams' report, Intel collected roughly $141.8 billion USD in profits from 1996 to 2006. The report subtracted normal competitive profits as well as economic profits and something called "assumed advantage profits" of 5%, leaving Intel with $60 billion in monopolistic profits. Despite assumptions using what the report called "standard economic methodologies," it is impossible to determine exactly just how much extra profit Intel gained from a monopoly.

"To be conservative, the study next provided Intel with a generous assumption that 5 percentage points ($28 billion) of its economic return were attributable to legitimate advantages. That left the $60 billion monopoly profit figure," indicated the report.

Assumptions aside, Intel has done very well over the last several years. Its price structure however has not changed drastically -- flagship processors always carry a big premium while lower models always give the better value. Intel's halo processors typically carry a price tag of roughly $1,000 at retail; Intel value processors occasionally fill a sub-$60 price point.

An area outside of the legal system where AMD constantly competes with Intel is in prices. Over the last two years, the price war between AMD and Intel has been nothing less than beneficial to the consumer. AMD recently cut prices on its multi-core processors, giving another shot in the arm to Intel. In this back and forth price cutting, AMD essentially reduces its potential profits. Intel traditionally competes by using heavy marketing campaigns that run on a global scale, but AMD's marketing strategy heavily focuses on the U.S. market -- a small percentage of the overall global market.


Comments     Threshold


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

Is it just me...
By Ratwar on 8/5/2007 7:10:42 PM , Rating: 4
Or does reading the actual 'report' make this whole thing sound more like lawyer bullshit than fact? I mean, ERS Group is employed by one of AMD's outside consulting firms. Obviously there's going to be bias there. The whole study is based on theoretical numbers gained from watching companies in other industries. It just seems to be a whole lot of speculation than actual fact.

Now, I'm not saying that Intel isn't a monopoly, and that they haven't been anti-competitive, but this report doesn't really mean anything, especially when one of the ways (the first one mentioned in fact) they 'prove' that Intel didn't get this money through legal means is 'Recent European Commission charges'.




RE: Is it just me...
By swatX on 8/5/2007 7:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
AMD needs to pull its heard out of the sand and start making releasing decent products. Ever since the release of Core duo, AMD has been quiet and their products are suffering to say the least.


RE: Is it just me...
By mdogs444 on 8/5/2007 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
To the enthusiast market, one would think that. And from that perspective I would agree.

However, majority of world-wide computer buyers do not research the performance differences between C2D and X2, Pentium and A64, etc. They buy based on price and what they get for the price - in the basis that more is better. More memory, hard drive space, DVDRW vs DVD/CDRW, larger monitor, etc. Most people that purchase computers from the major manufacturers: Dell, HP, Acer buy retail because its for business or they do not know enough about computers to research, build, and support their own. Its no secret that Intel has a major leg up when it comes to the number of retail computer offerings of Intel vs AMD computers it the market.

There for to us, sure we buy based on performance, price, and overclockability. But the average user buys based upon a packaged price, not performance per megahert.


RE: Is it just me...
By Ringold on 8/5/2007 8:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
If that is all that the standard has to be, "dominant power" in the EU, then every small town resteraunt owner should sue McDonalds for having crushing local dominant pricing power.

My take on the above report:

quote:
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


A fine example of using an economist and statistics (and we all know what statistics are) to make an eye-popping claim, a propaganda tactic to make a huge claim and then hope that a smaller one that previously wouldn't of been accepted will be when compared to the previous massive claim.

And even if Intel has been a naughty boy, we should just be thankful AMD survived because at this point it'd do more harm to the processor market breaking up Intel in to multiple CPU firms (if it would even be possible) or sticking them with a huge fine (which would be passed on to customers in higher prices / lower performance sooner or later). Would those actions satisfy government lackey's that get a thrill out of sticking it to big, evil American companies? Yep. The rest of us though would just suffer.


RE: Is it just me...
By Targon on 8/6/2007 7:45:48 AM , Rating: 4
The difference is that you don't see McDonalds selling their products to restaurant chains so they are the majority of the supply chain. It's not just about being in a dominant position, it is being in a dominant position and then preventing people from going to the competition. In this example, it would be like McDonalds forcing restaurants to buy their beef from them, and if they dared to buy from somewhere else, supplies "might be delayed" to the point where the restaurants are afraid to buy from a third party.

That is the anti-competitive sorts of behavior Intel has been accused of doing, where there was a threat, or an encouragement not to buy from the competition, at risk of retaliation.

Now, AMD is not claiming that they should have gotten all of the "monopoly money" the report claims that Intel has gotten, but shows a motive for Intel to keep their monopoly position. $60 billion is a LOT of money, and if you figure that $20 billion has been gotten as a result of unfair business practices over the years that should have gone to their competitors, that's grounds for a fair amount of it to go to Intel's largest competitor if AMD wins the lawsuits.

A lot of elements are not intended to show that AMD should get all the money, but instead just add fuel to the fire when it comes to the legal battle. No matter how impartial judges may be, if there is continued news that shows that Intel has been accused of improper business practices around the world, it WILL add to a pattern of what Intel business practices are.

I do remember when Asus released their first K7 Slot A motherboards that the product was sent out in a plain white box with no fancy packaging of any kind(unlike their Intel motherboards). The general feel, based on comments posted from all over, is that Asus was afraid of losing supplies of chipsets if they hyped their AMD based motherboards as much as they hyped their Intel based motherboards. The K7M was an AMD chipset based board as I recall, one of the first from a big name in the industry to support the AMD Athlon. It was NOT common to find a motherboard to support the new AMD chips in those days. Keep in mind that before the Athlon, AMD processors would work in the same motherboards as an Intel processor since the socket type was the same. This meant that motherboard manufacturers did not need to worry about supporting chips from both manufacturers.


RE: Is it just me...
By MonkeyPaw on 8/6/2007 7:58:48 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
If that is all that the standard has to be, "dominant power" in the EU, then every small town resteraunt owner should sue McDonalds for having crushing local dominant pricing power.


This analogy is quite terrible. Unlike Micky-D's, Intel's customers aren't the end user, it's the OEM that sells the machine to the consumer (when was the last time you bought a CPU directly from Intel?). Because Intel supplies critical components to OEMs, they have significant bargaining power. From the claims I've read, Intel has used this leverage to convince OEMs to sell less AMD products, sell no AMD products, or delay the sale of AMD products. Intel can do this because AMD cannot supply enough CPUs for entire OEM orders (Intel can).

This lawsuit happy world that we live in has people questioning the validity of every lawsuit. However, if AMD's, The EU's, Japan's, and Korea's claims (all have filed against Intel) are true, and Intel's anti-trust activities have significantly hurt AMD's opportunity to make revenue, then the consumer loses.

quote:
or sticking them with a huge fine (which would be passed on to customers in higher prices / lower performance sooner or later).


Where have you been? If AMD wasn't pricing aggressively, how much do you think you'd be paying for a Core2? Notice how this time, when AMD's product is not competative, Intel's prices are lower than the last time this happened (P4)? Since the lawsuits, we've seen better prices from Intel. Heck, we've even seen Dell start selling AMD products. Coincidence?


RE: Is it just me...
By Oregonian2 on 8/6/2007 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because Intel supplies critical components to OEMs, they have significant bargaining power. From the claims I've read, Intel has used this leverage to convince OEMs to sell less AMD products, sell no AMD products, or delay the sale of AMD products. Intel can do this because AMD cannot supply enough CPUs for entire OEM orders (Intel can).


Looking from this high-level, isn't a company SUPPOSED to try and get their products purchased rather than that of the competitor? Wasn't AMD trying to get their products used instead of Intel's, and doing so by any legal method they could muster? There may be problems in the methods used, but the goal of selling your company's products to customers rather than having the competition's being bought by those customers seems to be a proper and honorable goal.

quote:
Where have you been? If AMD wasn't pricing aggressively, how much do you think you'd be paying for a Core2? Notice how this time, when AMD's product is not competative, Intel's prices are lower than the last time this happened (P4)? Since the lawsuits, we've seen better prices from Intel. Heck, we've even seen Dell start selling AMD products. Coincidence?


Also note that Intel changed "administrations" a few years ago, that may have had an influence as well.


RE: Is it just me...
By Treckin on 8/5/2007 10:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Just to be clear, AMD charges that Intel intentionally locked AMD out of the pre-fab computer market by offering price specials to companies (Dell, HP, then-Compaq, IBM, all the various laptop manufacturers) who agreed to exclusively sell Intel-Inside. If anyone here has any sort of memory, the only computers that you could order which contained AMD procs were lower-end E-Machines and the like... All of the major OEM's had deals with Intel.

For 110 years, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and action by a buisness which would make it difficult for their competitors to access markets is illegal. What Intel did was against the law. This lawsuit on the other-hand supercedes the post-C2D by at least 6 years, 8 in some territories.
Intel will likely have to pay for their practices in Europe, however the conservative court-packing that the last 20 years has seen leaves their fate in the US unsure.


RE: Is it just me...
By Hakuryu on 8/6/2007 12:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
That doesn't make alot of sense to me. Many deals are made to exclusively sell one type of product over the other, or simply to favor that product.

If I remember correctly, there was an article here about Sony and Blockbuster entering a deal to favor Blue Ray. If Sony went out to every seller around and got this same deal, then they would be anti-competitive? I'd just call that smart managers on Sony's part.


RE: Is it just me...
By emboss on 8/6/2007 5:42:37 AM , Rating: 3
Exclusivity deals per se aren't illegal. The combination of a market dominance/monopoly and exclusivity deals can be.


RE: Is it just me...
By Targon on 8/6/2007 7:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that the laws are the same when it comes to "standards", but also, there is no monopoly in place when it comes to the HD market at this point, since standards are still trying to be set by the different players.

It's not the "type" of product that falls under the laws, it is the branding that does it. If one COMPANY is a dominant force, then that company needs to be careful of the monopoly laws, but there wouldn't be laws about engine types used in cars, just if the engines were supplied by only a handful of companies with one huge dominant player that was using questionable business practices for that player.

From that perspective, the whole Verizon vs. Vonage legal battle ALMOST falls into this category except that there are multiple phone companies around, which means that Verizon is NOT a monopoly in the traditional sense. I have seen that calls between Verizon land line services and VOIP or other cell phone carriers tend to be less reliable than from Verizon cell phone service and Verizon land lines. That could be grounds for a good lawsuit too.


RE: Is it just me...
By 9nails on 8/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Is it just me...
By Samus on 8/6/2007 4:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
Uhh, just for the record 9nails, AMD cpu's traditionally have less errata than Intel CPU's, generation after generation. And when you factor in that most high-end applications and games are optimized for both platforms (SSE and 3DNOW!) there is little...very little room to cry 'compatibility.'

If you're thinking of the 'Compatible with Windows' statements that AMD, Cyrix, and IDT had to use back in the day, that was because people were ignorant of the x86 architecture, much like yourself, that they needed a little reminder that its really 'Apples to Apples' in the end.

It's is, and always has been, a battle of performance, price, flexibility, and owner loyalty. Compatibility has never been a debatable topic.


RE: Is it just me...
By emboss on 8/6/2007 5:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I base my tech purchases on the current situation, not the situation as it was nearly 10 years ago (5 generations in electronics). AMD hasn't had "compatibility" problems since the slot-A days, when VIA's chipsets were causing all sorts of problems.


RE: Is it just me...
By rcc on 8/6/2007 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really big companies also tend to be quite conservative in buying habits. And IT managers likewise. For instance...

An IT manager has to purchase 1000 computers, probably from Dell or HP. If processor even comes up, regardless of his personal preference, he/she will most likely go with Intel. Why? Because they are the major player in the market. And it's an unfortunate fact in the business world that if there is a problem with these computers it goes like this.

If they are Intel, upper management will say "it's an Intel problem, no way to predict it, get IT on the fixes".

If it's an AMD/other processor, they'll say "AMD? Who authorized this second rate stuff, I want some heads". And the IT manager will be pounding the pavement.

Bottom line, in big business, taking risks will get you a big gain, or loss. On procurements, anything but the mainstream largest supplier is a risk, calcuated or otherwise. Most people are very careful about risking their jobs. Unless they are too young to care or know, or rich enough that it doesn't matter.


RE: Is it just me...
By sc3252 on 8/5/2007 8:02:52 PM , Rating: 5
For some reason people are acting like this lawsuit was only brought forward when the core 2 duo came out, and it is against the core 2 dou that people believe amd is suing for, well it isn't. AMD is suing for mostly past things intel did to make their very compeptetive products such as the very competetive k6 and k7 cpu's and where intel made it very hard for them to operate, telling companies that they wont get such low prices if they stock amd cpu's and other activities. This isnt only about how intel treated the market during the core 2 dou years but also how the market was run during the k6, k7, and the k8 years.

It was just a year ago that no one wanted to pick up an intel product, I bet people will be singing a different note if amd had a competeive product to the q6600's. The thing is that AMD's legal fight with Intel encompasses all the way to the beginning not the idiot's that are on this sight who seem to think that amd only is arguing about how the am2 isn't selling as well as the core 2 duo.

Also to those people who think AMD is spending all there money on lawsuits is wrong, if you want an example of that go look at SCO not AMD.

@swatx Intel had nothing on amd for years and you make it sound like amd can come out with the worlds best product in 6 months, while it took Intel something like 3 years to come out with a competitive product to AMD's k8.


RE: Is it just me...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2007 8:57:42 PM , Rating: 3
> "AMD is suing for mostly past things intel did ...such as the very competetive k6 and k7 cpu's and where intel made it very hard for them to operate..."

The problem is that, during that period, AMD was gaining market share hand-over-fist, culminating in their actually outselling Intel at the retail level. AMD wasn't being squeezed out of the market-- for every reseller who refused to stock AMD chips, dozens of others gladly did so. There were even a few AMD-only VARs in existence


RE: Is it just me...
By Dactyl on 8/6/2007 12:24:24 AM , Rating: 3
AMD is suing because of monopolist tactics in OEM channels, not retail channels.

OEMs were encouraged to buy 90-100% Intel chips, so they didn't have any capacity left over to buy AMD chips.

Intel did this by offering them special prices. Let's say Intel was going to sell CPUs to Dell, and Dell expected to fill 1 million orders in the next time period.

Intel would offer Dell: The first 500,000 CPUs you buy are $200 each. The second 500,000 CPUs you buy are $100 each.

Dell would then logically choose to buy 1 million Intel CPUs, for an average price of $150 each, because they could make a lot more money that way than if they went 50/50 Intel/AMD.

Because of those kinds of deals, Dell was 100% Intel for a very long time, and other OEMs were 90%+ Intel.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you if that's a monopolistic pricing scheme. I can't tell you if Intel will be found guilty and have to fork over billions of dollars. But that's what the case is about, it's not about the retail channel.


RE: Is it just me...
By sc3252 on 8/6/2007 1:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
Don't try and mix in facts or you might confuse him. He is obviously one sided, and thinks just because for a small period of time that Intel got out sold in a small sector of the market that it proves Intel didn't commit any anti competitive actions through out the whole history of Amd and Intel.


RE: Is it just me...
By James Holden on 8/6/2007 1:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'll preface this by stating you have the pricing structure incorrect. It was more like:

quote:
Intel would offer Dell: The first 500,000 CPUs you buy are $200 each. The second 500,000 CPUs you buy are $200 each, plus $50 worth of free cobrand advertising dollars

Intel was crafty enough to include "something" that could be monetized for the same price.

In any case, "discounts," as it were, are not monopolistic. Predatory pricing is. What you describe is clearly not predatory pricing.


RE: Is it just me...
By Ringold on 8/6/2007 2:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
A quantity discount, as he described it, is a monopolist tactic; perfectly competitive firms never price discriminate, as their products are homogenous commodities and face a single market-determined price.

Not that it's a bad thing -- there is no perfectly competitive market, and all firms are either bordering on failure or act as monopolists. Just saying; it's a monopolist profit maximizing tool. A competitive farmer in a competitive grain market would never offer or accept a quantity discount.

It's also not necessarily predatory pricing. But then the question becomes at what point is a firm being competitive and the next, with that extra penny off, they become "evil" and "predatory" -- too capitalist for their own good. The real debate is what do "evil" monopolists do and to what degree do they do it that all the other "good" monopolists don't do, and how bad does the "evil" monopolists have to be before getting punishment, and if they are that evil, do we punish them even if it hurts the consumer and the economy.


RE: Is it just me...
By rcc on 8/6/2007 5:24:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A quantity discount, as he described it, is a monopolist tactic; perfectly competitive firms never price discriminate,


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Graduated pricing schemes based on quantity are common practice worldwide. Unless, of course, you price at or below cost for the sole purpose of driving someone out of business, which clearly wasn't an issue here


RE: Is it just me...
By Dactyl on 8/7/2007 2:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's been a while since I read the Complaint; my memory was hazy. Actually, it's worse than either one of us described. Intel was giving a retroactive discount so the OEMs would have to buy 90% Intel to get any discount at all.

The result was that AMD had to sell their processors at a much lower price to get any business at all.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl...

It's described on pages 22-26


RE: Is it just me...
By crystal clear on 8/6/2007 5:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
The class action that was filed back in January that claimed that Intel paid Dell over a billion dollars a year in kickbacks not to buy chips from AMD?

Well, you should because AMD has been beating that particular drum this week as evidence that the European Commission is on the right track in charging Intel with antitrust.

The only problem is that suit was withdrawn back in May, a fact AMD neglected to mention.

Seems the court refused to let Bill Lerach, the guy who filed it, be the lead lawyer for all the class actions filed against Dell after it was discovered that the SEC was investigating Dell.

Lerach of course was a partner in the old Milberg Weiss Lerach mob that took American companies for billions in dubious class actions over the years and is now under indictment itself for paying plaintiffs kickbacks.


RE: Is it just me...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 9:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
> "OEMs were encouraged to buy 90-100% Intel chips"

Of course. A company's primary function is to encourage others to buy its products in favor of its competitors. When does such behaviour constitute an abuse of monopoly power? By standard antitrust law, you judge by the effects on the marketplace. Not the effect on individual competitors...but the end result to the consumer.

In the period in question, competition flourished. Prices dropped dramatically, new products were introduced at a dizzying pace, and consumers were treated to more choice in the marketplace than ever before. The CPU market was, in fact, one of the healthiest, most vibrant examples of competition to ever exist. The consumer benefitted, and by this touchstone, there was no abuse of monopoly power.

> "Because of those kinds of deals, Dell was 100% Intel for a very long time"

But dozens of other OEMS were *not* 100% Intel, and AMD was in fact gaining market share quickly. Consumers always had a choice as to which product to buy, and competition was not only preserved, it flourished.

> "Intel would offer Dell: The first 500,000 CPUs you buy are $200 each. The second 500,000 CPUs you buy are $100 each"

As others have pointed out, this isn't true. Intel allowed certain OEMs cobranding dollars to be used to advertise the OEMs products, on the assumption that, if the company was selling only Intel chips, advertising its products was essentially advertising Intel's.

As long as competition is preserved, such vertical-market arrangements benefit consumers.


RE: Is it just me...
By sc3252 on 8/6/2007 12:56:17 AM , Rating: 3
I had no clue AMD was out selling Intel in the retail space with the k6's and k7's. Enlighten me with some actual numbers, then just some blanket statements.

Even if AMD was outselling Intel in the retail space during the so called glory days of the k8 it only encompasses retail! Intel was still out selling them, even when they(AMD) had a much better and effiecent chip. I wouldnt call 17% during the *glory days* a great number.
http://news.com.com/AMD+surpasses+Intel+in+U.S.+re...


RE: Is it just me...
By Viditor on 8/6/2007 2:43:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I had no clue AMD was out selling Intel in the retail space with the k6's and k7's

That's actually the retail market only in the US (which also doesn't include the largest segments...).


RE: Is it just me...
By zsdersw on 8/6/2007 6:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
AMD sold every chip it could make. You can't grow marketshare if you're just meeting demand.


RE: Is it just me...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 10:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "Even if AMD was outselling Intel in the retail space during the so called glory days of the k8 it only encompasses retail! ...I wouldnt call 17% during the *glory days* a great number"

AMD's market share hit 21.4% at the end of 2005, dipped after that, and now today, stands even higher, at 22.9%.

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12966

That is an excellent number, given AMD's extremely poor numbers in the 2002-2004 period. The fact is, the company gained market share extremely fast with the K8.


RE: Is it just me...
By Viditor on 8/6/2007 2:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that, during that period, AMD was gaining market share hand-over-fist, culminating in their actually outselling Intel at the retail level


This only happened AFTER Intel stopped their "rebate program" due to pressure from the lawsuit...


RE: Is it just me...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 10:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "This only happened AFTER Intel stopped their "rebate program" due to pressure from the lawsuit... "

Dell was Intel-only till the very end of 2005, long after AMD began its rapid market-share rise. That leaves only two possibilities. Either the rebate program was still in existence, or Dell had reason enough to be exclusively Intel without the program. Either way, its bad news for the AMD lawsuit.

Still worse is the fact that most other OEMs began selling AMD chips well before this date, in fact as soon as AMD had a competitive product...plus the usual lag time due to normal big-business latency. Dell is a big company, but its still well under 20% of the total computer marketplace. If AMD had been barred 80% of the total market, the suit would likely have merit. But 20% is a far cry from monopoly share.


RE: Is it just me...
By Samus on 8/6/2007 4:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with masher on this one, too. The lawsuit is justified, but AMD couldn't have brought it to light at a worse time.

We've all known this was going on for years. They should have held off launching this antitrust campaign until now, where they need it, and it looks good because they're lossing marketshare again.


RE: Is it just me...
By rcc on 8/6/2007 5:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was just a year ago that no one wanted to pick up an intel product,


If you ever thought this was the case, you are delusional. The majority of computers users never knew that AMD had a faster chip, and wouldn't have cared. Intel had/has the name and the rep. Perception is everything in business.


RE: Is it just me...
By Dactyl on 8/5/2007 7:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the lawsuit is, AMD has to claim how much money they lost because of Intel's alleged behavior. If AMD doesn't give the judge a number (based on an actual expert report, not just a number pulled out of thin air), AMD can't recover money. At best, they would be able to get injunctions barring Intel from carrying out certain kinds of uncompetitive behavior in the future.

But AMD could really use a few billion dollars right now.

Intel has its own experts who will go over this report line by line to criticize it. Then the two sides will meet up in court. That's how our system works. If this expert is making wild exaggerations in his report, he's going to look like an idiot when he testifies.


RE: Is it just me...
By emboss on 8/6/2007 5:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Part of the lawsuit is, AMD has to claim how much money they lost because of Intel's alleged behavior. If AMD doesn't give the judge a number (based on an actual expert report, not just a number pulled out of thin air), AMD can't recover money.


Bingo. The $60bn figure is obtained in the same way the hundred-million injury lawsuit figures are obtained. In both cases, the suing party would be more than happy to settle for a tiny fraction of the claimed amount.


RE: Is it just me...
By AsicsNow on 8/6/2007 4:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Look up some information on how the Intel Inside campaign, etc. abused computer makers for years. If they sold anything but Intel products the company would be forced to pay like 25% more for intel products, and intel also forced them use a certain % of any advertisements they did to advertise intel or they would loose the discounts from intel.

Basically, if you tried to sell another company's processor on even one model of your computers, intel would make you unable to compete economically with companies who sold purely intel processors.


RE: Is it just me...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2007 4:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Basically, if you tried to sell another company's processor ...intel would make you unable to compete economically with companies who sold purely intel processors"

Except those companies which DID sell AMD products not only did manage to compete, they often did better than those which sold Intel only. For just one small example look at HP, which gained server market share on Dell after it began selling Opterons.


AMD IS crying in Vain
By greylica on 8/5/2007 8:09:40 PM , Rating: 1
How a person said in the past, AMD is losing market because people in certain countries simply don´t know their platforms very well. Yes, AMD is secure and reliable, but, in fact, The television in My country
(Brazil) continues poping Intel Inside processor marketing.
AMD -your problem is failed marketing and now, slow processors...
More:
- When Agena get better than Core Duo, will you supply sufficient amounts of processors if your marketing departure get's successfull ?

Ivan Paulos Tomé. - Grey Silica.




RE: AMD IS crying in Vain
By v1001 on 8/5/2007 8:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but to be fair had AMD had all that extra revenue that Intel kept them from attaining then who is to say AMD wouldn't have paid for more advertising. Who's to say they wouldn't have been able to dump more into R&D and had a better prodct out that bested Intels core products. We dont know where AMD would be right now had Intel not been so underhanded.

I own an Intel Prescott if it matters. I'll probably pick up a core quad some day. But it doesn't mean I'm not worried about the future and future prices is AMD keeps sinking (and the state AMD is in now could very well be directly related to how Intel conducted itself prior).


RE: AMD IS crying in Vain
By wordsworm on 8/6/2007 12:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
AMD's ability to grow is/was hampered by lack of manufacturing ability. I'm in S. Korea atm, and I can tell you AMD is well represented in this market. The people who build computers and sell them are the most important audience in reality. That's not to say that they're not affected by the ads. AMDs processors are not slow. They are quite good in fact.

I read recently that AMDs market share has actually increased last month. I wish I'd kept the link to the article. In any case, I do believe that AMD will win 5-10B in their lawsuit. With that money, surely they'll be able to continue with their practice of creating great processors.

AMD can't focus on every country, because they don't have the ad resources, and they're still working on increasing production.

Anyways, as everyone knows, AMD is needed, and that's why I buy their products. I don't need the fastest CPU to play the best games. I just need a good Athlon processor and an 8800GTS, and I seem to do quite fine.


RE: AMD IS crying in Vain
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/6/2007 9:49:46 AM , Rating: 3
Clearly you don't represent the majority of the consumer market. Consumers will purchase the most they can get for their dollar. Intel currently holds this title in most of the pricing brackets and is the reason they are beating AMD senseless. AMD global marketshare is on a sharp decline and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

AMD has several major problems and I will list them for you.
#1- AMD's marketing team has sucked since Day 1. Remember the Intel jungle? The Blue Man group commercials? Exactly. What was AMD's trademark jingle? Or what marketing tactic did they hang their hat on? Exactly. None. Nadda. AMD's marketing never was to the consumer, it was always to OEM's. Maybe someday AMD will fire their marketing department and get a real marketing team, until then they are in for a tough climb.

#2- AMD was and still is at the peak of their production. Want to know why DELL just started going with AMD? Because most of the other OEM's cut back, and because DELL knows AMD is trying to move a surplus stock of processors. AMD was in a bad position and DELL was able to strike a deal with AMD on favorable terms for a substantial amount of AMD processors. Now DELL was able to get a sweet price deal, and a guarantee that AMD must deliver Dell with a specific quantity of processors or face consequences. AMD is happy because these are guaranteed processors sold each quarter to Dell, and Dell is happy because they have a line of cheap processors to make some very very cheap line of desktops for the joe blow users of the world.

#3- AMD lucked out with the athlon line. The Athlon processor was actually the first AMD processor designed in house, all others were just Intel knockoff's with a few tweaks.

#4- AMD is currently unable to expand any further than it already has. Contrary to what AMD might want you to believe, it is not capable of absorbing more market share. It simply can not make more chips faster than it already is.

#5- AMD need some nre management, and frankly the best thing they could do is declare bankruptcy and let someone either purchase them and fire the top level management, or let a private investment firm buy them out and fire the top level management. Either way, Hector and pal's need to go. They suck and they don't know how to market their company effectively.

Anyways, enough ranting.


RE: AMD IS crying in Vain
By emboss on 8/6/2007 8:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
Just one correction ...

quote:
The Athlon processor was actually the first AMD processor designed in house, all others were just Intel knockoff's with a few tweaks.


AMD's last direct Intel clone was the 386, though the 486 was more or less a derivation from the 386, and the 5x86 was an enhanced 486. After this, there was the K5, which was a ground-up AMD in-house design. Admittedly, it sucked, but it was entirely AMD's design. Although the K6's weren't entirely AMD's design (they bought NexGen and used their core as a base) they could hardly be described as Intel knockoffs.


By Conroe on 8/5/2007 11:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
This is not in criminal court.


By Ringold on 8/6/2007 2:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
Translation to the rest of the world: Don't be too good at whatever you do, because maximizing success gets your ass in jail. Mediocrity FTW.


By Moishe on 8/6/2007 9:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
crimes against society... LOL... give me a break.


By Misty Dingos on 8/6/2007 10:25:26 AM , Rating: 1
What is really tragic here, is that some people really think that Intel is some evil maniacal regime that is trying to spread chaos terror and substandard computing products. I mean really to think that there is some evil cabal at the head of Intel and they spend every waking moment trying to screw the consumer and get more money than god is just crazy. In the Intel corporate offices they spend their time just like most corporations. Trying to produce a product that the public will buy. Get and maintain a industry lead so that they can at least have some idea as to where the market is going and keep the company profitable and marketable. No evil group of old dried out old men seeking to line their coffins in platinum, no Mr. Evil running the show. Has there been gross examples of corporate mismanagement and greed? Oh sure. Enron is a good one. But that isn’t Intel.


AMDs way to say thankyou ???
By crystal clear on 8/6/2007 5:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
This from the unofficial spokesmen of AMD-

Summer of AMD it is the celebration older brother! It is Phenom! It is 3.0Ghz! - Bulletin -
With for generality worldwide beginning! With we show the demonstration which becomes.
On July 26th you go away, at the AMD American head office coming after the demonstration which is released to for the analyst, the United States, it is quicker than the country of everywhere, releases in Japan. AMD Phenom of 3.0GHz TM FX, soon RD790 of announcement schedule (the code name) demonstration of the luxurious specifications which load chip set, and up-to-date graphic card and HD 2900 XT it does not flee!
* Details are future release schedule.
Day and time 2007 August 12th (day) 12: 00~18: 00
Place CAFFE SOLARE Linux coffee Akihabara store
Kanda outside the Tokyo Chiyoda Ku 3-13-2 Linux building 1F
Tel: 03-5209-6760
(http://www.pronto.co.jp/solare/shop.shtml)
Event good point (1) AMD Phenom TM FX demonstration
Point that 1, native [kuatsudokoa] 3.0GHz
Point the 2, RD790 (code name) chip set
Point the 3, ATI Radeon TM HD2900 XT x3

(2) up-to-date road map of older brother!!
The japanese not yet released information full load. It cannot overlook.

(3) the exhibition corner classified by thing which we would like to do
- ATI Radeon TM HD series/gaming corner
- UVD playback demonstration corner
- Economical electrical PC corner

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F...

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41...




Overcharged?
By redbone75 on 8/5/2007 9:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Essentially, Dr. Williams' report claims that Intel overcharged for microprocessors and other related products.

Of course they overcharged for their products! Their products were in high demand because people wanted Intel products for whatever reasons (marketing, performance, monopolistic practices... whatever) and Intel was going to seize the moment. Look at AMD's prices for the X2 lineup until the release of the Core 2; $300USD only got you the "lowly" 3800 because Intel did not have a competitive product. One could argue that of course AMD had to charge as much as they could while they could because they didn't have the deep coffers that Intel has. One could also argue that AMD could charge that much because they simply made a better product, not because they strong armed their partners. Either way, that only reinforces, imo, the point that companies are looking out for themselves, not the consumers. Their sole reason for existing is to make a profit for their shareholders, and if that means charging $1000 for a processor that they could otherwise comfortably sell for $300, then so be it.

What's going to be AMD's next complaint? "Intel is unfairly undercutting our prices to drive us out of business. We demand that they raise their prices so we can actually make money from the products we sell." I'm not saying at all that AMD has no basis for legal complaint. The problem is they have to prove it in court with facts, and until they have proof then their accusations will remain just accusations.




Read the first sentence
By Polynikes on 8/5/2007 11:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
"According to a recent AMD-commissioned study..."

That means AMD paid that company to do the study. I'm sure it's totally unbiased.

I'm not saying Intel isn't guilty, but you can't trust potentially biased work like this.




The Intel talk back
By crystal clear on 8/6/2007 4:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
some interesting portions to quote-

After AMD's latest Intel-targeted broadside Thursday morning, Intel's corporate spokesman, the supremely tactful Chuck Mulloy, took off his pearl-gray diplomat's gloves and accused AMD of defamation.

Some of the tinder AMD is using to burn Intel, Mulloy said, are "allusions to an SO it hasn't seen because it's confidential" and others are simple misrepresentation.

For instance, do you remember that class action that was filed back in January that claimed that Intel paid Dell over a billion dollars a year in kickbacks not to buy chips from AMD?

Well, you should because AMD has been beating that particular drum this week as evidence that the European Commission is on the right track in charging Intel with antitrust.

The only problem is that suit was withdrawn back in May, a fact AMD neglected to mention.

Seems the court refused to let Bill Lerach, the guy who filed it, be the lead lawyer for all the class actions filed against Dell after it was discovered that the SEC was investigating Dell.

Lerach of course was a partner in the old Milberg Weiss Lerach mob that took American companies for billions in dubious class actions over the years and is now under indictment itself for paying plaintiffs kickbacks.



Intel Accuses AMD of Defamation
Intel's spokesman, the supremely tactful Chuck Mulloy, took off his pearl-gray diplomat's gloves and accused AMD of defamation

http://virtualization.sys-con.com/read/411804.htm




By jeromekwok on 8/6/2007 6:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is so funny. If Intel did not "overcharge" its Pentiums, AMD should have lowered the price of its CPUs even lower; which AMD can hardly survive with the "monopoly" price level. AMD should thank Intel for the life support.

I think Intel was too good at marketing, which customers are willing to spend 4x more money on Pentiums for performance only slightly faster than Celerons.

On the other hand, AMD was unable to make enough fast CPUs, and also making too many slow CPUs.

Another important point is that Intel is selling a complete platform - chipsets, graphics, network and etc.

Not surprised Dell was sticking with Intel for some time.




uhh!
By sprockkets on 8/6/2007 9:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm so pissed off at all at both of them I'll buy VIA C7 processor based boards from now on!!!




By db2460 on 8/6/2007 1:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
So a report is commissioned by the plaintiff to investigate the potential economic consequences of the defendant's actions. It's wise to view it with a grain of salt for conflict of interest and bias. It is also wise to not simply dismiss it completely for lack of merit simply because of the funding source. I don't know why anyone is seriously arguing or debating about Intel's marketing practices or it's actions. No one here is really privvy to the details of all the transactions. Think for a moment. If Intel's actions are clearly out of line and it is so clear that they were systematically doing things to stifle competition, don't you think that the EU commission in the past investigation, the investigations in the United States, and whatever else investigations would have acted already? It is probably because the actions are dancing around the edges of what is allowed and what is not allowed and that it isn't clear cut that this has dragged on for so long over so many inquiries. To some extent, the outcomes of these investigations are probably writing new case laws to clarify what constitute monopolistic practices for furture lawyers. So don't think that anyone out in the public, without access to the confidential information that these investogators did, can assert that he or she knows so clearly that Intel's actions were legal or illegal.

What you have to wonder is why AMD is fighting this in the court of public opinion? AMD knows that taking out a full page ad in the WSJ or throwing this sound bite "$60 billion dollars" out to the public will not really affect investigators. They will, however, build a perception of the "evil-doer" public opinion. These aren't steps to influence the official investigation. These are steps to turn their ligitation efforts into a marketing campaign. By labeling Intel as the "monopoly" and quantifying the impact to the public without due process, they've already tried and convicted their competition in the eyes of the public. They don't have to go through due process in order to carry out a marketing campaign. When going to Circuit City to buy their next PC, mom and pop may recall in their mind hearing someone speak of or reading about Intel being a monopoly. Doesn't matter that they don't know the details or whether Intel was found guilty or not guilty in past investigations. Instead of stupidly buying Intel because of the "Intel-inside" marketing campaign, they may now buy AMD because of the appeal to their all-American anti-monopoly sentiment. Voila! AMD has accomplish what they set out to achieve! Affect public opinion enough to influence purchasing decisions. Doesn't matter whether Intel is convicted at the end. If it is, it's icing on the cake.

So the question for all those making purchasing decisions with news of the lawsuit in mind, whether it is to sow seeds of doubt about Intel's future and the longevity of the product line or to appeal to your sense of anti-monopoly as the American consumer, ask yourself whether you are the target of a marketing campaign and whether you are keeping a clear head separating the legal investigation from the marketing. Do you really think you know enough about the details of this investigation and about monopoly law to be so sure that Intel is a monopoly or has acted against the law? Are you or someone you know being influenced in their purchasing decision by the constant barrage of news about Intel's monopolistic practices and how it has caused harm?

Food for thought.




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki