Last month we wrote a small piece about the upcoming Skype 2.0 features that are only enabled for Intel processors. AMD is hoping to add another spear to its ranks by demanding Skype documents that prove or disprove Intel provided incentives to Skype for this favor. Intel denies the allegations. A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips.This is not the first time this year for an AMD-Intel legal battle. AMD has been building anti-trust cases against Intel in Japan, the US and Korea for over a year, claiming that Intel leverages its buyers and distributors to not carry AMD products. Of course, AMD's 21.4% marketshare is looking pretty good to the company right now, monopoly or not.
quote: does this mean ati and nvidia can bully game developers/publisher to do the same thing. kinda getting annoy with only nvidia or ati "optimization" that both brand of hardware can easily supports.
quote: I can see amd intentions, but I always thought it was up to the software developer decision to do what they like with their own software, I mean isnt it "their rights" to do so? even though it can be pretty lame.
quote: paying for certain features to be DISABLED for AMD hardware
quote: That's why it's not illegal.
quote: Apparently it is illegal or else AMD wouldn't be going thought the trouble of a lawsuit.
quote: seeing as intel doesn't actualy have a monopoly
quote: Creating barriers to entry has nothing do to with being a monopoly. In that case I should sue both AMD and Intel becuase they have made the barriers for me to enter the x86 cpu market too high
quote: Intel never paid Skype - all they offered was engineering support to enhance the software for multithreading. In turn, they get exclusivity for a period. This is not much different from a patent. That's why it's not illegal
quote: Legally, they've never been shown to be a monopolist
quote: Intel can get away with saying that Skye is optimized to run on intel processors, it can't pay Skye to make them not run on AMD processors
quote: However, if one company has definite monopoly in a certain field, it isn't allowed to use dirty tricks to keep its self that way.
quote: But Intel hasn't done this, and not even AMD's lead counsel is claiming incentives were definitely offered
quote: AMD does have the option of going to others such as Vonage and have exclusive contracts also
quote: Is Intel's 80% enough of a monopolistic percentage to effectly create harm to AMD
quote: You gotta give the crappy (oops, I meant scrappy) semiconductor company credit. They certainly will seize every opportunity to plaster their name and litigation with Intel on the press.
quote: Its as if AMD is crying foul because Intel and Skype have an exclusive contract
quote: Not according to either Intel or Skype. Only AMD is making the claim