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

Devil's Advocate
By oserus99 on 11/5/2009 12:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
I have several problems with this situation:
1) AMD had a small lead for one generation in SOME applications. It never had anywhere near an across the board lead over Intel. Easiest way to prove this is go back and look at the multitasking and multi-threaded performance of their chips. They were horrible. They won the crown in gaming here on the Internet because they had the best single application scores, but never by much. This single generation lead does not make converts quickly, either in the manufacturing field, nor the buyers field for businesses. The only ones quickly converted were the bloggers and the enthusiasts who built their own systems. There is no evidence that would sugest they SHOULD have had more of a bump in sales than they did for that one generation. There is a reason you have heard the phrase "No one ever got fired for buying Intel."

2) AMD never put in the money for advertisement that Intel did. Without that advertising investment the average buyer would probably not know AMD even had a competing chip. So, again, other than the enthusiast and bloggers there was no demand for AMD's processors. Without that demand, where was the incentive for any system builders to gamble on lesser known processors for their systems?

3) You are very quick to blame Intel but where is the backlash towards the OEM's? They are the ones who made the decisions to buy Intel chips. Regardless of the incentive, do you really think they would have stayed with Intel if they thought the AMD's would sell better at a cheaper price? They were not under threat of not being able to buy Intel chips. However, they were under threat of maybe not getting such great deals on the chips as compared to the price you or I would have to pay. Which would be the same on AMD's side when they offer the discounts they inevitably would to such OEM's.

Looking at the above problems with the suit by the cash strapped state of New York, this appears to be nothing more than a political maneuver (hey look we're doing this for you, the consumer so that you can get revenge for buying stuff cheaply) combined with a blatant money grab at someone with deep pockets.




RE: Devil's Advocate
By HrilL on 11/5/2009 7:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Over the years AMD's CPUs were better than Intels at many stages. k6-2 was better than the P2. Athlon was better than the P3. Remember AMD was the first to break 1ghz. And Intel finally release a 1ghz P3. Look back at the old benchmarks. AMD has had on par if not better CPUs than Intel until Pyran was released.

You and the many other Fanboys overlook this because well AMD wasn't as well known and you saw thousands of Intel commercials on TV.

Simple fact is the Average consumer may have known about Intel but I doubt that would effect their choice when buying a computer. You buy what your price range is and what the OMEs are selling for that range. No AMD option means you can only get Intel. Go figure AMD could not gain any traction when the only people who could get their CPUs were the enthusiasts who were building their own machines.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles













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