backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by aqwan135.. on Dec 20 at 8:05 PM

FTC accuses Intel of numerous violations, including writing software to sabotage its competitors' hardware

Intel holds a dominant position in the computer industry, with over 79.1 percent market share in the microprocessor market, according to iSuppli reports from the summer (these reports included by x86 architecture microprocessors as well as alternatives like ARM).  In May 2009 the European Union's antitrust regulators fined the chipmaker $1.45B USD -- about a fourth of the company's 2008 net income ($5.292B USD) -- for allegedly using discounts and OEM payoffs to push its smaller competitor Advanced Micro Devices out of the market.  That ruling is currently being appealed.

In the U.S. the Federal Trade Commission has investigated similar claims.  The State of New York has filed suit against the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company for antitrust violations, but thus far no federal litigation had been filed.  That all changed today with the FTC suing Intel, citing numerous antitrust violations.

The landmark case comes on the heels of Intel's $1.25B USD settlement with AMD over similar claims.  Under that agreement AMD agreed to drop all pending and present litigation against its rival.  According to the FTC's lawsuit filing, Intel is depriving customers of free choice and is stifling the progress of the computer industry.  The filing says that Intel employed a carrot-and-stick sort of approach, using both threats and rewards to keep OEMs from using its competitors' products.  Reportedly Intel used such targets on Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and IBM Corp.

One of the more interesting aspects of the case is that the FTC claims to have evidence that Intel wrote compiler software (Intel makes one of the more commonly used commercial C++ code compilers, the Intel C++ Compiler) to sabotage the performance of its competitors' CPUs.  Little is known about this allegation at this point.

Richard Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, says Intel's violations are blatant and alarming.  He states, "Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly.  It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission's action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer."

The FTC case looks to prevent Intel from employing "threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its" CPUs.

Intel was recently fined $25M USD by the South Korean government for antitrust violations.  The FTC's investigation of Intel was first announced officially in June 2008.  Under the more pro-antitrust Obama administration the investigation has pushed ahead aggressively and now looks to place new fines or restrictions on the chipmaker.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Kill the patents...
By eek2121 on 12/16/2009 11:56:29 AM , Rating: 0
F'ing idiot? Hardly. Intel is a monopoly, when you use that monopoly to force others out, the rules change. If they had properly licensed the tech to other vendors at reasonable prices and hadn't tried to lock their competitors out then everything would be fine and they could do whatever they wish.


RE: Kill the patents...
By zsdersw on 12/16/2009 12:03:59 PM , Rating: 4
No, you are an idiot, actually. Having an abusive monopoly doesn't mean their patents are up for revokation.


RE: Kill the patents...
By mcnabney on 12/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 12:54:37 PM , Rating: 3
I keep seeing the word "Monopoly" getting thrown around here, but I have yet to see anyone prove that Intel is, by definition, a Monopoly.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Motoman on 12/16/2009 12:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's because they categorically are not a monopoly.

People here on DT regularly display a total misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Having a majority marketshare, even if it was 99%, does not make you a monopoly...granted that there are other reasonable alternatives for your product that are easily accessible.

Like AMD, Nvidia, Via, blah blah blah. There is nothing that Intel makes that the industry can't do without - someone else is making an equivalent product elsewhere that is immediately accessible and does the same thing.


RE: Kill the patents...
By mcnabney on 12/16/2009 1:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
From the almighty Wiki:

quote:
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / µ???? (alone or single) + polein / p??e?? (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it


Sounds like Intel to me. And the FTC suite is all about controlling access and product control.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 1:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, pretty selective reading you did there.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Just so you understand what I meant when I mentioned selective reading.

quote:
Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.


Seems to me that Intel has competition, there are substitute goods being offered.

So, which is it?


RE: Kill the patents...
By Motoman on 12/16/2009 3:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yours is much more like what you'd get from an economist, or industry regulator. A fundamental lack of a reasonable alternative is needed to create a monopoly.

This is the reason, for example, why iTunes can never be a monopoly. Regardless of what their marketshare grows to, as long as *somebody* else is selling .mp3s on the internet, no monopoly is possible.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Ard on 12/16/2009 8:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Intel isn't a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. They exist in a duopoly with AMD.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Motoman on 12/18/2009 10:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
That is a true statement. I think the only other option at all now is Via, and they are effectively a non-participant these days.


RE: Kill the patents...
By oxymojoe on 12/16/2009 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 3
You defy all logic and reason.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Motoman on 12/16/2009 1:02:38 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a fun little experiment:

Can you describe what a monopoly is?


RE: Kill the patents...
By docawolff on 12/16/2009 12:08:49 PM , Rating: 3
There is no law, nor even a moral argument that says Intel should license its patents. They are an asset of the company just as much as the fab or the CEO's office furniture. They COULD license them, but they chose not to do so. That was their business decision, and it was righteous. What was unrighteous was their bribes and threats to keep the competition out. Nothing to do with their Intellectual Property.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
Intel isn't a monopoly by the definition. Via and AMD also make X86 CPU's. And, if you have the cash you can too! I hate on Intel as much as the next guy, but don't call a company a monopoly when they aren't, you open yourself up when you make false claims.


RE: Kill the patents...
By mcnabney on 12/16/2009 12:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
No you can't. Intel, VIA, and AMD are the only companies on the planet that can legally make X86 chips. This came up recently with Nvidia and how many people suggested they add X86 support to their GPUs. They can't . Not unless they buy VIA.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 12:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sure they can, they just have to license the technology from Intel. Anyone with enough money, whatever Intel asks for the licensing agreement, will be able to make the chips.


RE: Kill the patents...
By mcnabney on 12/16/2009 1:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has never licensed X86. The existing licences (now held by AMD and VIA) were instituted before Intel bought full control of X86. In fact, Intel just dropped their suit against AMD that was attempting to terminate their license. Claiming that a monopolist could take actions to decrease their monopoly does not mitigate the fact that they are a monopolist.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 1:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has never licensed X86.... so? Doesn't mean they wouldn't if you have the right amount of money.... everything has a price.

Explain to me how Intel is a "monopolist", whatever that is.

You really don't understand what I am arguing against do you?


RE: Kill the patents...
By Motoman on 12/16/2009 3:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really don't understand what I am arguing against do you?


...no, he doesn't. So stop feeding the troll. Please.


RE: Kill the patents...
By SPOOFE on 12/16/2009 3:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesn't mean they wouldn't if you have the right amount of money.... everything has a price.

Using price to make access practically impossible is also an abuse of market power.


RE: Kill the patents...
By jconan on 12/16/2009 9:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
that's the same tactic used by Apple, ATT and others to sue manufacturers of LCD and memory for price fixing. Except in this case Intel does this itself


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 12:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
No reason to down rate me here, nothing I said above is false. If you have ENOUGH money, whatever Intel asks for a licensing agreement, or a cross licensing agreement (depending on what cards you are holding), Intel would be willing to sell the licensing to allow you to make X86 CPU's. It might be prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't make what I said false.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Fritzr on 12/16/2009 10:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
If the price is prohibitive then by definition the license is prohibited.

If the cost of R&D+production+license exceeds what the market will pay then their is no product. Standard Oil was declared a monopoly and broken up for similar reasons. Standard HAD viable competition. Standard used their majority supplier status to wipe out their smaller competitors. Due to their size and ability to sell at a loss in selected markets they had a monopoly in spite of the existence of competitors who would have been viable in the absence of anti-competition actions taken by Standard Oil.

Intel today is in a similar position. They own the rights to the IAS (x86 instruction set) and get to decide who can build chips using the Intel designs. Theoretically a startup company can blackbox a new design that reacts in exactly the same manner as Intel's designs to the x86 hexcode, but that is a major expense that has to be financed in addition to designing a chip architecture that executes x86 code as efficiently as the Intel chips that will be on the market at the same time.

Currently as noted in the article AMD is a competitor in the sub $200 market. For the high performance chips Intel is the clear choice and this technical advantage gives them a monopoly in the above $200 market. Add aggressive marketing tactics that are intended, as much as possible, to prevent customers from choosing non-Intel options and you have a monopoly business actively preventing its competitors from entering the market and weakening Intel's ability to decide what will be sold.

Competitors are viable only if they are permitted to enter the market. Make the cost of entry to high to be financially viable and you will have no new companies entering the market. As long as the IAS patents continue to be held by Intel, Intel will be able to say who is or is not allowed to enter the x86 market. Until the effective monopoly OS supports non-x86 instruction sets Intel will continue to dominate the micro-computer CPU market.

Without the income generated by mainstream consumer sales the non-x86 chips will be minor players in the markets where they can compete, such as mainframes & supercomputers based on micro-computer CPUs.

This form of effective monopoly is one of the consequences of the Capitalist system. You can either accept the existence of monopolies along with the problems they can bring or you allow the government to be a little bit anti-Capitalist and have it force the monopoly to allow the competition to be viable competition, thereby forcing innovation by the monopolist to regain monopoly status.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/17/2009 12:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
My only point is, Intel is NOT a monopoly. I am sure they have violated some of the Anti trust laws, but that doesn't mean they are a monopoly. People keep calling Intel a monopoly, my point is, they are not.

On the other hand, they have likely violated anti trust laws, they have probably been behaving in an anti competitive manner, and they deserve to suffer the consequences. That is my point.

Also, I want to point out, Intel might hold a monopoly in the higher end desktop chips, but not in the enterprise space.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Fritzr on 12/17/2009 9:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you are talking to a lawyer then the word is "trust". That refers to a company or consortium that has the power to dictate pricing, availability and permission to market.

In practical terms a trust has monopoly power and uses that power to prevent others from joining the market. In common street parlance a trust under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and similar legislation is referred to as a monopoly.

True, Webster's dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary define a monopoly as the complete absence of competition, however the government does regulate effective monopolies through the Anti-Trust legislation and when not reading the text of the legislation commonly refers to these companies as monopolies or wielding monopoly power.

I am surprised that you ended your last comment by stating your position in the terms that I have just stated by saying that in high end chips...
quote:
Also, I want to point out, Intel might hold a monopoly in the higher end desktop chips, but not in the enterprise space.
Intel has competition in the high end desktop, though the percentage is low. By your stated definition Intel does not have a monopoly in that category, they only have most of the market not all of it. The price points do allow some sales to go to the slightly less efficient high end offerings of AMD.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/17/2009 10:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, probably shouldn't have used the word monopoly, it wasn't appropriate, I was just typing away and busy working and trying to respond.

I am referring to a monopoly in the terms of economics. And, according to economics, Intel DOES have monopoly power, but it doesn't make them a monopoly.

Regardless of who I am talking to, Intel isn't a monopoly by definition, it just isn't.

It doesn't mean they cannot harm competitors or make market entrance difficult, because they likely have been doing both, but there is not an absence of competition.

Intel does not have a monopoly in high end desktop chips, I was thinking more in the terms of performance when I wrote that, and thinking of performance only, they have no competition. No other company makes a CPU that is as fast as Intel in the high end desktop arena. But, it doesn't mean they have a monopoly, I simple mispoke, used the wrong terminology, what have you.


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/17/2009 10:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, probably shouldn't have used the word monopoly, it wasn't appropriate, I was just typing away and busy working and trying to respond.

I am referring to a monopoly in the terms of economics. And, according to economics, Intel DOES have monopoly power, but it doesn't make them a monopoly.

Regardless of who I am talking to, Intel isn't a monopoly by definition, it just isn't.

It doesn't mean they cannot harm competitors or make market entrance difficult, because they likely have been doing both, but there is not an absence of competition.

Intel does not have a monopoly in high end desktop chips, I was thinking more in the terms of performance when I wrote that, and thinking of performance only, they have no competition. No other company makes a CPU that is as fast as Intel in the high end desktop arena. But, it doesn't mean they have a monopoly, I simple mispoke, used the wrong terminology, what have you.


RE: Kill the patents...
By killerroach on 12/16/2009 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 3
In terms of antitrust litigation you do not have to have a de facto monopoly, but rather enough market share to be able to negatively influence the normal business operations of your competitors. Depending on the industry, an antitrust lawsuit could be successfully argued against a company who didn't even have a majority of market share in their industry, but were able to, thanks to either collusion or advantageous vertical positioning, exert a stranglehold over competitive activity...


RE: Kill the patents...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/16/2009 12:59:43 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, that is absolutely true, I am just arguing against people who are using the terms incorrectly.

Intel is not a monopoly. They do have monopolistic power, but they are not a true monopoly. That's all I am saying.

The company though, is powerful enough to affect smaller players in the market in a negative way, which the company apparently did, but that doesn't make them a monopoly. They probably did violate antitrust law (Sherman/Clayton), but that doesn't require you to be a monopoly in the true sense of the word.


RE: Kill the patents...
By Motoman on 12/16/2009 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to have a majority marketshare, or even a significant marketshare, to engage in antitrust activities.

If you have 1% of the market, and offer a customer cash on the side to NOT use a product from one of your competitors, you have just committed an antitrust offense.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














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