FTC, Intel Reach Settlement; Intel Banned From Anticompetitive Practices
August 4, 2010 1:45 PM
comment(s) - last by
The FTC has banned Intel from paying off OEMs to exclusively carry its products or to NOT carry AMD products.
(Source: The New York Times)
Settlement also establishes $10M USD fund that could help OEMs switch to AMD or NVIDIA
Intel, like Microsoft, built a seemingly ironclad lead through a combination of great products and aggressive business maneuvering. Those maneuvers could be viewed as clever moves or destructive anticompetitive behavior -- it all depends on who you ask. However, in recent years Intel, like Microsoft, has come under increasing pressure to stop its more "creative" business tactics. Fined
$1.45B USD by the European Union
last year, Intel has just arrived at
with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over numerous antitrust issues.
While the settlement is less painful fiscally than the EU ruling, it will have a major impact on the way Intel conducts its business. Intel is no longer allowed to pay off (either directly, or through unit discounts) OEMs to exclusively carry Intel CPUs or to not carry competitor Advanced Micro Devices' CPUs. Likewise, it can no longer retaliate against OEMs who opt to offer competitive products.
Intel is also banned from specifically redesigning its chips to harm its competitors. Specifically it will be forced to not limit the performance of rivals' GPU chips for at least the next six years. Also, it must publish clearly that its compiler discriminates against non-Intel processors (such as AMD's designs), not fully utilizing their features and producing inferior code.
The settlement concludes a suit
launched by the FTC
in December following an investigation. While it brings no major fines against Intel, it does require Intel to pay $10M USD to establish a fund to help business customers retool their software if they were misled by Intel to think the poor performance of Intel-compiled code on AMD chips was normal.
Intel’s general counsel, A. Douglas Melamed
, "[This settlement will] put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation. This agreement provides a framework that will allow us to continue to compete and to provide our customers the best possible products at the best prices."
The settlement removes a critical piece of the remaining U.S. litigation on Intel's plate. Previously, Intel had agreed to a
$1.25B USD payout
to settle a civil case with AMD last November. The only major remaining legal action against it now is a lawsuit from the state of New York, alleging illegal anticompetitive behavior.
While the antitrust litigation of the turn of the millenia did not derail Microsoft or significantly alter its PC operating system market share, the latest round -- this time against Intel -- could have a more serious impact. Unlike Microsoft, Intel has a very aggressive rival in its core business -- AMD. Last year AMD's CPU shipments
grew 17.7 percent
on a year-to-year basis, giving it a 19.4 percent market share. Intel, meanwhile, saw its lead shrink, posting an 80.5 percent market share.
From 2003 to 2006 AMD produced CPUs that were widely considered to outperform similarly priced Intel designs. While other issues also hampered AMD, it alleges that it largely failed to gain market share during this era thanks to Intel's questionable business practices -- and legal settlements seem to back up this claim.
revitalized once more
taken the discrete graphics sales crown
from NVIDIA, thanks to its head start with DirectX 11 GPUs. If it can duplicate this success on the CPU market, this time it may finally be able to see its hard work pay off with increased OEM adoption -- now that Intel can no longer pay off OEMs not to use its products. The ball is in AMD's court, as they say.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Interesting decision...
8/4/2010 3:59:41 PM
I'm not concerned about AMD, but nVidia is in a pretty bad shape and this "resolution" did nothing to allow nVidia to produce chipsets for newest Intel CPUs. Hence it's not a resolution at all, Intel will suffocate nVidia further because US Government just doesn't care. So sad :(
RE: Interesting decision...
8/4/2010 11:10:07 PM
THIS IS BAD FOR THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
Why? Because the money they get from huge profits they spend on making Better Better products for cheap. Putting a cap and limitation on their gain is bad for computing power. Say a processor that would take 10 years to be funded for would only be released in 2 if it wasn't for this cap. Dumbass congress for doing this. You can never have enough CPU power. Even with on of the fastest PC's in the world to simulate protein folding for the cure for cancer people use with their fast machines takes time. A faster PC of tomorrow would take 1/3 of the time it would take and multiply that by millions of PC's in the world.
If the competition cannot keep up then do not limit based on the 2nd competator.
RE: Interesting decision...
8/4/2010 11:17:39 PM
Though this can be actually good for the video card industry because ATI would have more money to make better video cards. Nvidia's flagship video card was released months after ATI's flagship and ATI's flagship still reigned supreme by a significant performance difference in real world apps. The more money they have to invest in their superior technology the good it is for the gaming world.
Intel already has a fast processor named the i7. It's i7 920 is as fast as 2 980X's clock for clock in games. In some games the 2 980X's showed slower frame rate in the same system configuration. Though overclocking with new i7 steppings with the same voltage turns out more mhz. A couple hundred more mhz for the i7 than couple more hundred mhz with a newer ATI video card in gaming is a huge difference. Say you overclock 200 more mhz on the i7 you get around 10 more FPS. You overclock 200mhz more on the ATI card you get 100 more FPS.
Kind of a good balance for product improvement funding. :)
"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
AMD Takes Discrete Graphics Market Lead from NVIDIA
July 30, 2010, 9:17 AM
AMD Almost Out of the Money Hole, Beats Estimates by $110M USD
July 16, 2010, 8:45 AM
U.S. FTC Slams Intel With Antitrust Suit
December 16, 2009, 11:40 AM
Intel, AMD Settle Antitrust Disputes, Intel to Pay AMD $1.25 Billion
November 12, 2009, 9:34 AM
European Commission Fines Intel $1.45B
May 13, 2009, 9:04 AM
How to Recover Most Apps After Your NVIDIA Driver Crashes in Windows 10
March 30, 2015, 12:54 PM
Tinkerer Gets Old School Mac Plus Running on the Modern Web
March 24, 2015, 6:41 PM
Facebook-Backed Oculus Rift's Release Date Slips to 2016; Valve and HTC Salivate
March 16, 2015, 5:58 PM
Hackers Steal Roughly $1 Billion From Banks Using Malware RAT
February 17, 2015, 9:30 AM
NVIDIA Kills Mobile GPU Overclocking, Robs Customers Who Paid For It
February 16, 2015, 8:59 AM
Apple Offers Refurbished 5K Retina iMacs for $2,119 Online
January 16, 2015, 12:37 PM
Most Popular Articles
HBO to VPN HBO Now Users: Prove You Live in U.S. or We Will Terminate You
April 21, 2015, 12:17 PM
Quick Note: Lady Macbath -- One Japanese Woman's Apple Themed Revenge
April 23, 2015, 11:47 AM
Even Hillary Clinton Was Addicted to Nintendo Gameboy
April 21, 2015, 10:30 PM
Colorado Man Cited for "Killing His Computer" With a Handgun
April 22, 2015, 1:06 PM
AMD CEO: Windows 10 Will Launch at "The End of July"
April 20, 2015, 7:24 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information