backtop


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

Who cares about AMD?
By corduroygt on 11/4/2009 12:44:38 PM , Rating: -1
I wish this suit concerned Intel vs. Nvidia, so we could get some decent graphics with the new core i5/i7 chips.
Also one doesn't need to be a genious to see that AMD and Intel chips are priced accordingly for most of the time. If you want performance at $150 level, there's chips from both companies that perform about the same. It's the above $200 level that AMD doesn't have any competitive products.




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." - http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

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
quote:
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
quote:
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...?

quote:
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).


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













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