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: 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