backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by BZDTemp.. on May 13 at 9:21 AM

Intel still maintains its innocence

Intel and Microsoft are two of the largest and most dominant companies in the technology industry. Both of the companies have also been accused of antitrust violations over the years and have at times been found guilty of the accusations.

Intel has been battling EU regulators over antitrust allegations claiming it abused it dominant market position to prevent its main rival, AMD, from gaining traction in the marketplace. The allegations claim that Intel was illegally paying computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of products using AMD processors according to insiders close to the case.

Reuters reports that EU regulators are set to decide on Wednesday to fine Intel and order it to change its business practices. One EU executive claimed that Intel has practiced "naked restrictions" to competition in the market.

There is no indication at this time on how large the fine assessed against Intel might be; the largest fine ever assessed by the commission for abuse of a dominant position in the marketplace was the $655 million fine levied against Microsoft in March of 2004.

According to sources cited by Reuters, the EU commission is expected to rule that Intel committed two violations. One of the violations alleges that Intel paid computer makers to delay or outright scrap products using AMD processors. Intel is also said to offer other inducements to computer makers to get them to sell Intel only machines.

Intel allegedly set the percentages of its chips that PC makers had to use. NEC was told that 20% of its notebooks could use AMD CPUs according to sources. The source claimed that all Lenovo notebooks had to use Intel chips and many Dell products had to as well. HP is claimed to have been required to offer 95% of its notebooks with Intel processors. Intel had no comment on the claims and still maintains it did nothing wrong.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but as my post above explains, you are wrong, nothing else to say here.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 12:38:35 PM , Rating: 3
So I guess that 200-300 dollar minimum that I saved on every AMD based computer I bought from 2001-2006 was a figment of my imagination.

I also gave you a way to prove what you are saying. I really don't need too, I can pull up any site which will prove my findings (try newegg for starters, although US pricing, it shows how much cheaper the chips are)

P.S I'm not being bias either, I currently own two intel machines as they currently outperform anything AMD has to offer, but I have been building computers for many years. So please do not tell me that prices have always been equal, as that is just not the case.


RE: not sure why
By SandmanWN on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: not sure why
By inighthawki on 5/11/2009 5:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
AMD has for the past few years been selling their chips at much cheaper prices than Intel, and it's not until AMD's $200 chips meet or exceed the performance of Intel's $500 chips that Intel finally manages to "magically" reduce the price of that chip to be equal to or just under the cost of that equivalent AMD chip. Something smells very fishy to me with that. (Q6600/6700 are prime examples)


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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