backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Aug 10 at 1:37 PM


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 a settlement 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 comments, "[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.

AMD seems revitalized once more, having 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.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Interesting decision...
By AntDX316 on 8/4/2010 11:10:07 PM , Rating: 0
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...
By AntDX316 on 8/4/2010 11:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
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. :)


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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