backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by zsdersw.. on Jul 31 at 2:24 PM

Says complaints are from AMD, not customers, and the market is doing perfectly fine.

In response to a statement of objections (SO) served by the European Commission yesterday regarding anti-competitive practices, Intel senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell issued the following statement:

"We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers. While we would certainly have preferred to avoid the cost and inconvenience of establishing that our competitive conduct in Europe has been lawful, the Commission's decision to issue a Statement of Objections means that at last Intel will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations made by our primary competitor.

“The case is based on complaints from a direct competitor rather than customers or consumers. The Commission has an obligation to investigate those complaints. However, a Statement of Objections contains only preliminary allegations and does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of European Union law. Intel will now be given the chance to respond directly to the Commission's concerns as part of the administrative process. The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling. When competitors perform and execute the market rewards them. When they falter and under-perform the market responds accordingly."

According to a 2004 article in BusinessWeek, the European Commission began investigating Intel as early as 2001, although the initial probe was dropped. Things picked up again in 2004, which culminated in a raid of Intel’s European offices in 2005.

AMD hopes the charges filed will benefit consumers. "We are confident that this statement of objections will be a catalyst in opening the global microprocessor markets for the benefit of consumers and PC companies alike,” says AMD EMEA president Giuliano Meroni.

AMD has filed complaints in numerous countries accusing Intel of behavior that has hurt AMD’s ability to compete on a level playing field. A series of documents (PDF) filed in US courts detail numerous accusations, including Intel’s supposed attempts to conditionally offer volume discounts for near-exclusivity, and delaying OEM product launches that contained competing hardware.



Comments     Threshold


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

Srew Intel to the wall
By leidegre on 7/28/2007 1:46:04 AM , Rating: 1
I've always been a bit afraid of how large companies seem to run the US. To begin with, the patent office is no longer run by the government, it was according to my sources, sold to the highest bidder. With that, a series of pending patents, so called novel and sound. Just got approved. And today, there are so many idiotic patents in the US, it forces me to think twice, before even considering relocating, to work there.

With Intel running what seem to be a ~70-80% market share, I really don't care if they supposedly play a fair game. Something close to a monopoly, never benefits customers. It's true that Intel is one gigantic manufacturer, and that they have performed very well since the launch of Core2. However, I cannot stress this enough: what would Intel have done, If AMD had not gained market share with the K8.

A single manufacture with no real enemies is playing a game without rules. Dictating its own set of rules, is something which never ends up being challenging. And maybe in an ideal world you wouldn't need to be challenged, but the fact is, only under pressure, and with high stakes at the table, can you really expect to excel.

I really hope that the EU now, won’t let this go unpunished, and as I said before, when a company gets as much power as Intel. They should be stopped, to allow other companies to co-exist. And it's not like Intel would feel the difference, if they continue to perform, the market would remain in their pocket. While many might think dominating the market is the goal of any company, I disagree entirely. Kick large companies in the head, because it will force them to rethink their business strategies, and in many cases, provide the customer with even better products.




RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By leidegre on 7/28/2007 4:04:16 AM , Rating: 5
Well, Firefox gained popularity, Microsoft released IE7. Blizzard has a reputation, and players expect only the best because of that. Blizzard is also not unchallenged, and probably one of the better companies out there, and they strive under great pressure. Obviously, Intel is one hell of a microprocessor manufacturer, and they deliver great products and I never argued against that. But when things look more like a monopoly, than competitive play, I can help to think that something needs to balance that out.
I think the best way to put it is like this. Too much of something no matter what it is, is never a good thing.

And even if AMDs gain in market share, really isn’t the reason why Intel succeeded. It sure affected them, and made many people wonder.

Things are more fragile than they appear to be, and I want a mixture of things, so that I may choose between different things for my own personal and sometimes very different reasons.

As far as Intel goes, I want them to be reminded how things doesn’t always turn out the way you want, and how the world isn’t always fair. Any single corporation with vast resources has great power, and has to be reminded every now and then, about the life outside of their world.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By dgingeri on 7/28/2007 9:13:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, never benefits the customers...how so? Ever since 99, I have had great processors from Intel. Great motherboard chipsets. Nothing AMD has done has changed anything for me. I'm still paying around $300+ dollars for a processor. I'm still paying around $150 - $300 for a motherboard.


If AMD had not brought out the Athlon 64, you would be working on a 2.4ghz P4 right now. Intel was particularly slow in releasing new chips while we waited for AMD's 2 production engineers to work out the production bugs in the Sledgehammer design. It was over a year late because they didn't have enough people to work on it, Yet it was clearly a superior design.

If Intel had not used these underhanded tactics, We'd have had Barcelona last year and we'd be working on the next generation right now. AMD lost out on a lot of money because of Intel's tactics. If AMD gets out of the CPU business, we're all completely screwed. Intel would bring out a clock speed ramp every 5 years or so.

AMD has been making superior designs to Intel for a long time. Sure, the Core2 performs better for right now, but it is a half generation ahead. I would be willing to bet Barcelona at 2.3Ghz would match a Conroe at 3Ghz.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By hr824 on 7/28/2007 12:39:21 PM , Rating: 5
And you can't ingore that AMD, Nvidia, Via, SIS are the reason intel can't afford to be slackers. Competition works, and if intel is found guilty they deserve to be slapped and slapped hard.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Screwballl on 7/28/2007 12:27:33 PM , Rating: 4
We would be using super hot space heater 3.6GHz Intel P4s on the BTX spec right now if it weren't for AMD's success.

Simply look at the publicized stories about how Dell was threatened by Intel when they wanted to go with AMD. Also why is there no motherboards with AMD chipsets for Intel procs? Or how about Crossfire ATi compatible chipsets (which is very few as nvidia and Intel have been bedfellows for some time)?

Year after year Intel takes AMDs ideas and makes them their own (AMD64/EM64T anyone?). Intel continues to takes ideas from others and use them against the originating company. Competition is multiple companies using different methods to provide similar or the same service to others. The keywords are DIFFERENT METHODS (read IBM and VIA). If Intel is taking AMDs tech specs towards their own use and blocking distributors from supplying AMD parts, wheres the competitiveness in that? I hope Intel gets a big boot in the rear. It is nice seeing the underdog get a rib jab on the big mean dog.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 12:52:42 PM , Rating: 1
> "I hope Intel gets a big boot in the rear. It is nice seeing the underdog get a rib jab on the big mean dog"

That pretty much sums up the motivations behind this case. Its an emotional response to the "underdog syndrome".


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/2007 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Year after year Intel takes AMDs ideas and makes them their own (AMD64/EM64T anyone?). Intel continues to takes ideas from others and use them against the originating company.


Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that your premise is true; that Intel takes AMD's ideas and makes them their own. Is AMD doing the same thing with Barcelona when they add to the K8 various features found in Core 2? If your premise is true, the answer is yes.

quote:
Intel continues to takes ideas from others and use them against the originating company.


So does AMD, and so does every company in virtually every business. It's a little thing called "competition".

quote:
Competition is multiple companies using different methods to provide similar or the same service to others.


Since when does the definition of competition fit into those narrow parameters? That's a first.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By TomCorelis on 7/28/2007 3:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't the two companies have a technology-sharing pact? If I remember correctly it was one of the provisions of an old anti-trust suit or something like that. The details are fuzzy.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/2007 6:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
They have a cross-licensing agreement, yes.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By KnightProdigy on 7/29/2007 5:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since 3D Now!, Intel has been playing catch up, releasing ideas originally thought of by other players.
Intel has the funding to bring things to market ahead of competitors. AMD announced Fusion LONG before Intel even had IGP on die on the roadmap. Yet they will probably bring the first products to spin.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "AMD announced Fusion LONG before Intel even had IGP on die on the roadmap"

Err, Fusion is state of the art, circa 1992, back when all graphics processing was done within the CPU. Companies like 3dfx pioneered the independent GPU, fought by Intel every step of the way.

Is AMD taking a great step forward or backwards with Fusion? I have my doubts personally, but in either case, the idea is certainly nothing new.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By KnightProdigy on 7/29/2007 5:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since 3D Now!, Intel has been playing catch up, releasing ideas originally thought of by other players.
Intel has the funding to bring things to market ahead of competitors. AMD announced Fusion LONG before Intel even had IGP on die on the roadmap. Yet they will probably bring the first products to spin.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 9:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever since 3D Now!, Intel has been playing catch up, releasing ideas originally thought of by other players.


Wrong. Intel is more than caught up.. they're ahead.

As for "ideas originally thought of by other players", I suppose you'd be quiet about AMD's inclusion in Barcelona many features found in Core 2.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/2007 6:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
By the time the 3.6 ghz P4 was out, Intel already knew Netburst was on it's last legs. The swap to 65nm brought it under control, but it would never have survived anymore speed increases.

If you have an agreement with a company to sell your products, who wouldn't get mad if they wanted to sell someone else's product. If they made an agreement of giving a nice discount on each proc/chipset/etc for not selling a competitor's product and the other side decided to back out, it's simply natural to no longer give a discount. It's called business.

As for AMD chipsets for Intel...they suck. That's why they are barely around. When they came out, they blew ass when compared to an Intel chipset or even an Nvidia chipset. Shoot, VIA/Sis had better chipsets than the POS AMD chipsets. If you want, there's always the current DFI Lanparty UT mobo. Uses an AMD chipset and supports Intel's latest procs. Oh...it also blows ass in the performance field. A mobo from ECS has higher performance. Not only does the board suck, but it costs $180. Tell me...who the hell cares about AMD chipsets?

So year after year Intel takes AMD's ideas. So what is it that AMD does, when they support MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSSE3? They are instruction sets and they are shared between companies. That's not competition, that's just business. No company would program with a specific instruction set if both procs didn't support it.

Shoot, look at MMX. AMD took MMX and attached their 3DNow! to it, cause the K6 sucked at floating point calcs. 3DNow! Pro was nothing more than SSE1 and Enhanced 3DNow! combined.

Here's something for ya. The x86 architecture was an Intel idea. So what is an x86 proc from AMD? Isn't it nothing more than AMD taking an Intel idea and making it their own? It's it nothing more than AMD taking the idea from someone else and using it against the originating company.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By sprockkets on 7/28/2007 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They knew Netburst was on its last days...


No they didn't. Read articles on how they expected Netburst to scale to 10ghz at Intel's own Developer Forum.

Again, all Intel had to do was just compete with their good products. But no, they had to use other tactics as well.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By deeznuts on 7/28/2007 10:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No they didn't. Read articles on how they expected Netburst to scale to 10ghz at Intel's own Developer Forum.
The time that "they knew Netburst was on its last days" and the time that they expected Netburst to scale at 10Ghz, were not the same time. Thye thought it would scale to 10Ghz, then they realized this wasn't feasible. Success of Pentium M had something to do with it.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Oregonian2 on 7/30/2007 2:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
In any case, I think netburst was a marketing design made to exploit the public that equated processor throughput with its clock Ghz rating. Not so much an engineering/technical advancement. Much like the ancient RCA CMOS processor design (1100 ?)that had a really big front end divider on the clock frequency coming in (div by 16? I forget.. been a few years) that made it sound like a really high clock rate processor when it really was a wimp.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not so much an engineering/technical advancement.


Not really. Netburst's design specifics created a need for improvements in branch prediction, among other things. Those have been carried over into Core 2.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Oregonian2 on 7/30/2007 8:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure there things done "properly", but I'm speaking more to the extreme pipelining was taken to get the advertised clock rate pumped up -- something that probably made branch prediction all the more meaningful. Core 2 cut the levels of pipelining substantially.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By AlexWade on 7/29/2007 9:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have an agreement with a company to sell your products, who wouldn't get mad if they wanted to sell someone else's product. If they made an agreement of giving a nice discount on each proc/chipset/etc for not selling a competitor's product and the other side decided to back out, it's simply natural to no longer give a discount. It's called business.


You may get mad if a company wants to sell someone else's product, but to prevent it is illegal and unfair. Companies usually give discounts based on how much you buy, that is how things are supposed to be. Intel based discounts on what percentage of Intel you sold. That is wrong and immoral. That shut out competition.

Yes, you are right, AMD took Intel's ideas. Intel tried desperately to get Itanium off the ground because AMD could take any patents on Itanium, just Intel's x86 line. However, lately, AMD has been the innovator, not Intel. Where is Intel's integrated memory controller? Who has the first x86-64 CPU? That isn't to say Intel is doing good things, Core 2 is a very good product.

I can't help but feel that Intel is really threatened now. They now have a legitimate threat and that has established itself, something that has Intel never had to deal with before. Although I don't have proof, I believe Intel is purposefully keeping their prices low to try to starve AMD's profit. I think Intel is still trying to destroy the competition instead of learning to live with the competition.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 9:29:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
However, lately, AMD has been the innovator, not Intel. Where is Intel's integrated memory controller? Who has the first x86-64 CPU? That isn't to say Intel is doing good things, Core 2 is a very good product.


AMD wasn't the first to come out with an integrated memory controller, and AMD is adding to K8 various features found in Core 2 and badging it as Barcelona/Phenom.

The truth.. that your AMD fanaticism is blinding you to.. is that *both* AMD and Intel are past, current, and future innovators.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 9:34:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think Intel is still trying to destroy the competition instead of learning to live with the competition.


That's what business is about; destroy the competition. Business isn't about holding hands with your competitors and singing Kumbaya. You're a fool if you think otherwise.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By ksuWildcat on 7/30/2007 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what business is about; destroy the competition.


Eh, I don't think that this statement is very accurate. I would say that business is about creating or selling a product which consumers demand, in an ethical and responsible manner. Companies that engage in business practices which go against the best interests of society should be penalized most severely.

Intel has clearly employed unethical business practices to stifle competition in an attempt to create a monopoly. Forcing vendors to only sell their products by threatening financial retaliation (via lost discounts and kickbacks), while not necessarily illegal, definitely hurts consumers and should not be tolerated.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would say that business is about creating or selling a product which consumers demand, in an ethical and responsible manner.


That's the overall view of business, but last time I checked that overall view of business is not in question. The competition aspect of business is indeed about destroying your competitors, and that's what we're dealing with here.

quote:
Intel has clearly employed unethical business practices to stifle competition in an attempt to create a monopoly. Forcing vendors to only sell their products by threatening financial retaliation (via lost discounts and kickbacks), while not necessarily illegal, definitely hurts consumers and should not be tolerated.


Intel is under no particular directive to offer *any* discounts or "kickbacks". What price they sell their products for.. and to who.. is their choice. Intel can refuse to offer discounts to anyone. The market will work this out for itself, though.. because the less discounts there are, the higher prices become and the lower the sales. It becomes in Intel's best interest to offer discounts and, in turn, the consumer benefits from the lower price.

The consumer is in no way under any obligation to buy a computer with an Intel chip in it or to buy Intel's products separately. If the consumer buys a computer with an Intel chip in it, they either specifically wanted an Intel chip in it (for whatever reason) or they don't care. In either case, if the cost is lower via discounts offered to one vendor and not another, the consumer directly benefits from that lower price. If the consumer doesn't like that a particular vendor is Intel-only, they're perfectly free to take their business elsewhere. Ignorance about the choices available is not something the consumer (or the consumer's advocate) can blame Intel (or any other company) for.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By ksuWildcat on 7/31/2007 8:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The competition aspect of business is indeed about destroying your competitors, and that's what we're dealing with here.


This is poorly worded. Ethical companies create good products and services to compete against others, but not to destroy their competition. That mentality hurts consumers and society in general. If Intel was allowed to continue unethical business practices, and AMD was forced to exit the CPU business, we would have a monopoly in the x86 market resulting in higher costs and less innovation. This is not a difficult concept. They teach this in ECON 101.

Vendors should be allowed to pick and choose which processors to use without the threat of financial retaliation. This is no different than if the government stepped in and said that Intel isn't allowed to provide Dell with 50% of their processors.

Competition is actually healthy for businesses.

quote:
It becomes in Intel's best interest to offer discounts and, in turn, the consumer benefits from the lower price.


Perhaps in the short term. This is not beneficial in the long run if AMD exits the CPU business. Then we will get to pay much more for processors than we do today. Discounts themselves aren't the problem, it's the requiring exclusivity to get the discounts which is unethical.

quote:
The consumer is in no way under any obligation to buy a computer with an Intel chip in it


When there is no choice, such as there was with Dell for years, then what is to be done? Dell wanted to build AMD based PCs, but could not due to Intel's influence. This is clearly unethical behavior on Intel's part.

quote:
If the consumer doesn't like that a particular vendor is Intel-only, they're perfectly free to take their business elsewhere.


Maybe, maybe not. Once again, your view is too narrow. What about 10 years from now? If Intel is allowed to continue using underhanded methods of business, forcing AMD out of the CPU market, what do you think will happen to consumer choice and pricing?


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/31/2007 12:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethical companies create good products and services to compete against others, but not to destroy their competition.


By "destroy" I'm not talking about blowing up competitor's buildings, etc. I'm talking about winning the business of more customers, etc.

Your hypothetical scenario with AMD exiting the CPU business is just that.. a hypothetical scenario. The reality, though, is altogether different. AMD isn't going anywhere. The CPU market will not be a one-company deal, not now and not 10 years from now.

quote:
Vendors should be allowed to pick and choose which processors to use without the threat of financial retaliation. This is no different than if the government stepped in and said that Intel isn't allowed to provide Dell with 50% of their processors.


Since when is not receiving a discount "financial retaliation"? The government has no right to tell Intel how much they can and cannot sell to Dell. Just because the government *did* do that doesn't mean they should have.

quote:
This is not beneficial in the long run if AMD exits the CPU business.


Again, a hypothetical scenario that's *not* going to happen.

quote:
it's the requiring exclusivity to get the discounts which is unethical.


No, it's not unethical at all. Intel sets the price on their products.. period. If a vendor doesn't want to be Intel-exclusive, they don't have to be.. but Intel doesn't have to supply the vendor with its products, either. Business transactions should be acceptable to the parties involved.

quote:
When there is no choice, such as there was with Dell for years, then what is to be done? Dell wanted to build AMD based PCs, but could not due to Intel's influence. This is clearly unethical behavior on Intel's part.


Oh please.. there are plenty of choices. Dell is *far* from the only place Average Joe can go for his/her computer. Dell can want whatever it wants, but what Dell wants isn't necessarily any of Intel's concern.. or responsibility.

quote:
Once again, your view is too narrow. What about 10 years from now? If Intel is allowed to continue using underhanded methods of business, forcing AMD out of the CPU market, what do you think will happen to consumer choice and pricing?


Once again, your view is too unrealistic. Ten years from now there will be 2 primary providers in the x86 market. It'll be Intel and either AMD or whatever company purchases it. Consumer choice and pricing will be as competitive as it has ever been.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By ksuWildcat on 7/31/2007 1:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By "destroy" I'm not talking about blowing up competitor's buildings, etc.


Neither am I. I have no idea where you came up with this statement. But to engage in shady and unethical business practices as Intel has in an effort to drive AMD out of the CPU market certainly would qualify as destroying a competitor.

quote:
Your hypothetical scenario with AMD exiting the CPU business is just that.. a hypothetical scenario. The reality, though, is altogether different. AMD isn't going anywhere. The CPU market will not be a one-company deal, not now and not 10 years from now.


You do not know the future any better than I. There is no certainty that AMD will still be in the CPU market 10 years from now.

quote:
Since when is not receiving a discount "financial retaliation"?


Let's say you're that selling computer parts and that I am your sole supplier, but suddenly a competitor is able to offer better value. You want to sell both products, but I tell you to remain exclusive or else I will take away your kickbacks. That would definitely be financial retaliation, and it is also a rather unpleasant way to do business. If I were to take that approach with everyone, eventually I could force my competitors out of business because I have the volume and spending power to do so.

quote:
Again, a hypothetical scenario that's *not* going to happen.


You do not know this with certainty. Maybe AMD will still be around, maybe they'll be bought out, but who can guarantee that they will remain the CPU market? No one. I think it is unlikely that AMD will leave the market, but that doesn't mean that it could not happen.

quote:
No, it's not unethical at all. Intel sets the price on their products.. period. If a vendor doesn't want to be Intel-exclusive, they don't have to be.. but Intel doesn't have to supply the vendor with its products, either. Business transactions should be acceptable to the parties involved.


Vendors should be able to choose a product to sell based on performance and value without remaining exclusive and losing discounts. They could be selling even more Intel processors, but Intel would still demand that AMD chips aren't used. This isn't ethical. Your moral compass is so messed up if you believe otherwise.

quote:
Oh please.. there are plenty of choices. Dell is *far* from the only place Average Joe can go for his/her computer. Dell can want whatever it wants, but what Dell wants isn't necessarily any of Intel's concern.. or responsibility.


I never said Dell was the only choice. But Intel was using this practice with other vendors as well. You are really quite naive. It wasn't until governments starting investigating Intel for unfair business practices that a greater number of vendors were able to use AMD chips.

The idea is that there should be a level-playing field and that all businesses should be allowed to compete without undue influence. Intel violated this notion.

quote:
Once again, your view is too unrealistic. Ten years from now there will be 2 primary providers in the x86 market. It'll be Intel and either AMD or whatever company purchases it. Consumer choice and pricing will be as competitive as it has ever been.


Again, you do not know this, nor does anyone else. I believe that it is unlikely that AMD will leave the CPU market, but not impossible. Now that various government entities are investigating Intel's business practices, I think that AMD will not be at such a competitive disadvantage.

Intel can set whatever price they want on processors, but they should never influence exclusivity with illegal kickbacks. Businesses should be allowed to compete fairly on a level field, pure and simple. That is all I am advocating.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/31/2007 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do not know the future any better than I. There is no certainty that AMD will still be in the CPU market 10 years from now.


Who said anything about "certainty"? I said it's not going to happen because it's highly unlikely.

quote:
Let's say you're that selling computer parts and that I am your sole supplier, but suddenly a competitor is able to offer better value. You want to sell both products, but I tell you to remain exclusive or else I will take away your kickbacks. That would definitely be financial retaliation, and it is also a rather unpleasant way to do business. If I were to take that approach with everyone, eventually I could force my competitors out of business because I have the volume and spending power to do so.


Your example is not accurate. There isn't a sole vendor that either Intel or AMD deal with. They're not all going to agree to be Intel-exclusive. Those vendors would alienate a considerable chunk of their customer base by doing so. The market, by itself without government intervention, takes care of these things by itself.

quote:
Vendors should be able to choose a product to sell based on performance and value without remaining exclusive and losing discounts. They could be selling even more Intel processors, but Intel would still demand that AMD chips aren't used. This isn't ethical. Your moral compass is so messed up if you believe otherwise.


And who is to say a vendor cannot be exclusive if it's financially advantageous to do so? Vendors don't have to be exclusive, but they don't have to be non-exclusive either. Intel can demand that a vendor (or more vendors) not use AMD chips, but then Intel would be shooting itself in the foot. The market would exact a penalty for that choice, and that's how it should be. The government shouldn't be involved.

quote:
You are really quite naive


.. said the pot to the kettle.

quote:
The idea is that there should be a level-playing field and that all businesses should be allowed to compete without undue influence. Intel violated this notion.


There is already a level playing field, and there was before this government investigation nonsense began, too. Just because there's a level playing field, though, doesn't mean there will (or should be) equal results.

And what's "undue influence"? Intel can hold back discounts from any vendor it chooses, for whatever reason. This isn't in Intel's best interest, though, because it will come back to haunt them in terms of lower overall sales. What reason, then, is there for the government to step in?

quote:
but they should never influence exclusivity with illegal kickbacks. Businesses should be allowed to compete fairly on a level field, pure and simple.


The expansion of discounts for exclusivity are not evil, immoral, or unethical. They are, long term, impractical.. but there's nothing wrong with letting Intel do it and figure it out on its own later when sales are down.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 10:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "Companies usually give discounts based on how much you buy, that is how things are supposed to be"

Incorrect. Exclusivity contracts are extremely common in business, and are not illegal per se. They have been shown to have clear advantages for consumers, by reducing prices and eliminating inefficiencies.

> "Although I don't have proof, I believe Intel is purposefully keeping their prices low..."

Interesting how the theme of "not having proof" runs very strong in these anti-Intel diatribes.

And are you actually suggesting we as consumers should ask for higher prices? Intel is still making billions each year. They're not losing money on the cpus; they're pricing them more than high enough to make a profit.

> "However, lately, AMD has been the innovator, not Intel. Where is Intel's integrated memory controller?"

Intel was designing and patenting integrated memory controllers long before AMD. But a cpu with an IMC is not necessarily superior-- putting one on a chip has a long list of negatives as well as positives. Claiming an IMC as an example of AMD's "innovation" is a very poor example.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/2007 6:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
So while AMD delayed their release of Athlon 64, we didn't receive FSB speed increases, clock speed increases, or hyperthreading. Oh wait...we did receive such things from Intel.

The following year, Intel threw out the C model P4s with a higher fsb and clock speeds. During this time, AMD only gave a fsb speed increase. Looking at it, if it weren't for Intel, we'd still be stuck with Barton core Athlon XPs.

Also how is AMD's procs have a superior design? Both companies have and still do make excellent designs. The Athlon 64 was hardly the superior proc against the P4, when it was terrible for multitasking when compared to the P4. Just like how the P4 was hardly the superior proc, when it was terrible with business apps and games when compared to the A64.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Adonlude on 7/30/2007 5:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Intel had not used these underhanded tactics, We'd have had Barcelona last year and we'd be working on the next generation right now. AMD lost out on a lot of money because of Intel's tactics. If AMD gets out of the CPU business, we're all completely screwed. Intel would bring out a clock speed ramp every 5 years or so.

AMD has been making superior designs to Intel for a long time. Sure, the Core2 performs better for right now, but it is a half generation ahead. I would be willing to bet Barcelona at 2.3Ghz would match a Conroe at 3Ghz.

Sheesh, what else does your magic future telling crystal ball of heresay tell you???

quote:
AMD has been making superior designs to Intel for a long time.

Sure there is about a 4 year chunk of time where AMD outperformed Intel... since the invention of the microprocessor. Geee, that sure is a LONG time!

quote:
Sure, the Core2 performs better for right now, but it is a half generation ahead. I would be willing to bet Barcelona at 2.3Ghz would match a Conroe at 3Ghz.

Is that your professional opinion? Based on what? If enjoy betting you should probably find a craps table. We go off of real numbers here.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Phynaz on 7/28/2007 10:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really hope that the EU now, won’t let this go unpunished, and as I said before, when a company gets as much power as Intel.


So your saying a company should be punished just for being large.

This is what's wrong our schools people.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 10:50:46 AM , Rating: 2
Like it or not, there is a real 'punish the rich' mentality in most nations. Its more prevalent in the EU and Russia, and is a philosophy which, historically, has been largely responsible for dragging down their economies.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By leidegre on 7/28/2007 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 3
A bold claim. But it's not all bad, because if you look at these nations, it's about sharing the wealth, more than prevailing as singular individual.

I'd like to bring up how much of that which is the US, is solely based on its economical wealth. While people are denied health insurance, the rich get even richer. In my opinion, everything reaches a certain point, were money is not the single most important thing in the world, nor is power.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Phynaz on 7/28/2007 1:30:55 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a lessen for you:
The entire world is based upon economic wealth, the EU leaders just don't want their citizens to know it.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 1:51:15 PM , Rating: 3
> " if you look at these nations, it's about sharing the wealth, more than prevailing as singular individual....In my opinion, everything reaches a certain point, were money is not the single most important thing in the world..."

Money isn't the most important thing; freedom is. And when "share the wealth" mentality reaches the point of "seize the wealth", it turns the hard-working and productive into slaves, forced to support the masses. Is the EU as bad as the third-world nations who regularly seize foreign assets to placate the masses? No, but its fast approaching that point.

The worst part is the long-term pernicious effects of such policies. Whereas capitalism actually creates wealth, redistribution reduces it. Steal the riches long enough, and the golden goose eventually stops laying eggs. Then everyone winds up poor.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By eion on 7/29/2007 1:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
I really can't agree with this more, and I'd like to add something:

Economic freedom and personal liberty aren't all that distinct when it comes down to it, so it's not just a matter of wealth and poverty. Gerald Ford had a nice quote on this subject: "[a] government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have" - your money and your freedom.

I can't say I'm a big fan of much of antitrust law, although I do support a very limited anti-monopoly law. There's currently no antitrust law in the jurisdiction I'm in, and consequently every gas station charges exactly the same (high) prices for fuel.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 7:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
Gerald Ford wasn't the first to come up with or use that quote. IIRC, it originated with Thomas Jefferson.

"Government that is big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/29/2007 6:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
lol how ignorant of you when the US scores so bad on the for instance freedom of press lists, or when the US keeps enforcing laws and acts that limit the freedom of its own people… and between you and me I would rather have the rich be the slave of the masses than the other way around. And why then the US being as capitalist as it is still has (and by far) a greater disparity between the rich and the poor than in most (if not all) EU countries, isn’t it in the US where 20% of its people has 80% of its wealth?... The fact is what you say is nothing more than a theoretical capitalism that doesn’t exist anywhere on earth, people always want more and more and are capable of anything for it, that’s why laws and governments exist to set some limits…


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 7:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly, the US has greater freedoms in some areas and less in others compared to EU countries. As a Libertarian, I'm generally opposed to most restrictions on freedom so I don't support restrictions on the press or the Patriot Act.

You can't honestly and in good conscience ignore economic freedom and trumpet personal freedom, though.. which is what you appear to be doing.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/29/2007 5:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Economic freedom has nothing to do with personal freedom; I don't see any reason to link them both... If there was an economic freedom with no one to watch over it then the government would be void of propose since everything would be controlled by private companies... between you and me I would rather live in a country where people have some power than no power at all...


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 5:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Economic freedom has nothing to do with personal freedom"

I'm sorry, did you actually type this? In today's modern society, what are you free to do without money? If the government seizes your income, you are utterly helpless.

The right to retain the results of your own labors and spend them how you wish is THE most important personal freedom which exists. Without that, no other freedom is possible.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 12:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Give me a break a company makes billions of profits and it's not the hard working people of it that get the most but the upper echelon of the hierarchy, those that have the "shares" and the banks...

I don't see any reason to think the businessmen are any more hard working than the public toilet cleaners... on the contrary and yet who's struggling to feed its child?... give me a break will you, money was NEVER given to the hard workers but to those that were born with a golden spoon, that had "the chance of being there at the right time"... sure many got rich by being hard workers but being hard worker never meant you would be rich, you can’t be more wrong to think that most people are rich cause they are hard workers.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By SirLucius on 7/30/2007 2:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
Physical labor is not the only form of hard work. You're being very simple-minded. And this "every successful businessman comes from money" mentality is so outdated. While that held true in the past, things are changing quite a bit.

Just because someone is wealthy and running their own business they are automatically lazy? That is so ignorant it leads me to believe you have no idea what even goes into running a successful business. What makes you assume that all people cleaning toilets work hard at their job? Because it's a job nobody wants to do? I worked at a warehouse, and believe me, the "cleaning" staff there hardly did any work. And they were payed accordingly. How many people do you know that are truly qualified to run a multi-million dollar business? And when I say run, I mean keep investors interested, make a profit, innovate, etc...

I'm not trying to make CEO's sound like these great humanitarians, but anyone, and I mean anyone is capable of janitorial work. I can't say the same for other jobs. That's the way things are run. People get rewarded for making use of specific skills, not for doing something that 14 year olds' parents force them to do every weekend.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 6:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Of course is outdated... I mean a guy kills himself over work and still barely lives and you say he's poor cause he doesn't work hard... and the guy next to him has a nice job that at most will give him stress while filling his pockets to no end and you want to make me believe they are both hard working?... yeah maybe but to come around and pretend just like mash and others that people are poor cause they are lazy is a non sense garbage.

There’s plenty of jobs that are highly restrictive when it comes to people fit to do them yet there’s very few that will give as much as a CEO… doctors, PhD., engineers, and others don’t get millions regardless of how hard they work and even if there aren’t that many people capable of doing what they do.

And BTW yeah everyone can be a toilet cleaner… for a weekend, things only become though after a little longer and when you have no choice. The fact is that they do a job no one wants, they are needed and yet they are “payed accordingly”…


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
If someone doesn't like their job or is sick of working so hard, physically, then they should seek better employment. If they aren't qualified for better employment, they should acquire the skills to become qualified.

Some people are simply not able to achieve the same as others, even if they wanted to and attempted to do so. Those are the people for whom we have some sort of a safety net, not to mention charities and the kindness of others.. and those are all good things.

Your disgust with CEOs specifically and wealth in general is incredibly naive. What gives you or anyone else the right to say that a CEO shouldn't be paid what he/she is paid? Who do you think you are? What in-depth knowledge of the company or the CEO do you have that makes you such an expert on what he/she should and should not be paid?


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By BiuTech on 7/30/2007 12:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
Economic freedom has nothing to do with personal freedom; I don't see any reason to link them both...

A very ignorant thing to say, don't you think. Just ask those who are in heavy debt how much personal freedom they feel they have. Surely, economic freedom has a lot more to do with personal freedom that you would think.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 6:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I can tell you make your own debts...

Anyway economic freedom was used in the sense of relation between companies without the government doing the police work and not really how you put it.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 11:18:58 AM , Rating: 3
> "I would rather have the rich be the slave of the masses than the other way around"

Why should ANYONE be a slave at all? Isn't freedom a better alternative?

> "And why then the US being as capitalist as it is still [has] a greater disparity between the rich and the poor..."

But "the poor" in the US have a better standard of living than the middle class do in many other nations. This attitude that eliminating "disparity" is more important than the actual standard of living is motivated by thinly disguised jealousy, and the basis of countless failed economies.

Imagine this situation-- one nation where half the people make $20K/year and the other half $100K. And other nation where everyone makes $10K/year. Which nation would you rather live in?

The socialists among us would have us believe the latter case is best. Or worse-- they'll try to convince us that its possible to simply "average" incomes without affecting the total wealth of the nation-- to create a case where no one makes $20K and no one makes $100K...but everyone makes $60K. Unfortunately, thats been tried countless times, and it never works. When you continually rob the hard-working and productive, they lose all interest in continuing their efforts. Very soon, the nation's wealth vanishes-- the rich become poor, and the poor poorer still.

Doubt this? Then I suggest you examine the booming economies of nations like Cuba, North Korea, or one of the former Soviet republics.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/29/2007 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 1
“Why should ANYONE be a slave at all? Isn't freedom a better alternative?”
The moment you need money to eat no one is really free…

“the basis of countless failed economies.”
Cause you think capitalism is some kind of success story? If that was the case then I don’t see why even in the US there’s plenty of cases just like this one… and why when big companies decide to merge they need the authorization to do so… or why companies keep fighting each other in tribunals… does antitrust law ring you a bell?...


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 6:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "Cause you think capitalism is some kind of success story?"

Yes I do. And only a person who has never lived in a society that wasn't based on capitalism would think otherwise.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By leidegre on 7/30/2007 1:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
While my original point was that there are more important things than money and power, things Intel, have enough of. This little post seems to have spun off into many different comments.

But I have to agree with masher2 here, because we do live in world of capitalism, and it's not something which should bad regarded as bad, because it's a great idea. But that which troubles me is how money which equals in many way power, can be used to hurt and damaged the freedom of others. And there is little you can do to prevent that. Even though people never intend to do just that, it's not that farfetched to think that people will use their money to gain an unfair advantage. And in my opinion the government may have to go in, and adjust the market. NOW THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM and one would be an idiot to think that it is, it's just another layer of protection.

I have several real world scenarios from Sweden, were the national postal office, and telecom industry (which both were a monopoly), either choose to just lower the prices to the point were smaller competition could no longer keep up, as well as to more or less deny access to the telecom grid. These things had to be settled by a special government body, which deals with and monitors the competition among industries.

Capitalism works, it really does! But there are many improvements that can be made along the way. And there is something to this as well: “if you never say no to a child, it will never learn respect.”


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/30/2007 8:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "the government may have to go in, and adjust the market. ...it's just another layer of protection..."

But without fail, these market adjustments invariably winds up hurting consumers, not helping them. Thanks, but I'd prefer to do without that kind of "protection".


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
The usual cornered guy when faced with facts he ignores them… if not how come you keep making the differences between the EU and the US huge while completely ignoring the similarities…

The fact is that the US also as an anti-trust committee (or what you guys call it) that already more than once asked Intel or AMD to justify some actions and what not, heck the US companies keep challenging each other in courts so often that no one is really amazed when it’s done and BTW here some facts for you dude:

“December 30, 1994 The California Supreme Court decided that the award was correctly confirmed by the superior court, rejecting Intel’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The decision reversed an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal. This AMD victory was important because of the arbitrator’s detailed findings of how Intel intentionally violated AMD’s rights, and because it affirmed AMD’s intellectual property rights in its highly competitive Am386 processor.”

“March 10, 1994 Jury in new trial returned verdict in favor of AMD finding that AMD had the right to use Intel’s microcode in its x86 microprocessors through the 486 generation.”

“August 20, 1991 AMD filed an antitrust complaint against Intel claiming Intel engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly. This case was settled as part of a global settlement of all outstanding litigation in January 1995.”

“October 10, 1991 Intel filed an action against AMD alleging that AMD violated copyrights on the logic programming in a microprocessor and on the Intel microcode contained in the AM386 microprocessor. This case became moot when AMD prevailed in the 287 microcode litigation.”

Where’s your capitalist country now when it’s the public services that do the police work just like in … the EU.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By ksuWildcat on 7/30/2007 5:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should ANYONE be a slave at all? Isn't freedom a better alternative?


Slavery can have many different definitions, most of which depend greatly upon one's point of view. Many of our "freedoms" are determined by our income level, and sadly, justice in this country is often determined by money and social status rather than legality.

quote:
When you continually rob the hard-working and productive, they lose all interest in continuing their efforts.


You're absolutely correct, although in the wrong sense. Look at President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. This is tantamount to robbing hard-working, productive American workers. Most, if not all, of the wealthiest 1% of people have made their money off others' hard work, yet laborers and ordinary workers don't reap the rewards like CEOs and other executives. You should read what Warren Buffet has said on this matter. He is the third wealthiest person on this planet, and yet he contends that wealthy people owe a debt to the rest of society and should pay more taxes, rather than less. Contrary to what many of the wealthy say, it is the middle-class which shoulders a disproportionate amount of the tax burden in the U.S.

quote:
The socialists among us would have us believe the latter case is best. Or worse-- they'll try to convince us that its possible to simply "average" incomes without affecting the total wealth of the nation-- to create a case where no one makes $20K and no one makes $100K...but everyone makes $60K.


I don't think that anyone is really advocating this. But no executive is worth $10 million per year, let alone $100 million. There are many people who work hard, have valuable skills, and get paid far less while contributing more than any executive. This is a grave injustice.

Capitalism works in a sense, but it is far from perfect.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Contrary to what many of the wealthy say, it is the middle-class which shoulders a disproportionate amount of the tax burden in the U.S.


It's also a fact that the middle-class and the poor are the largest beneficiaries of the spending of "the welfare state".


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By ksuWildcat on 7/31/2007 8:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also a fact that the middle-class and the poor are the largest beneficiaries of the spending of "the welfare state".


Are you saying that it should be the other way around? That the middle-class should be taxed more to support the wealthy?


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/2007 7:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...no one is denied health insurance. Even high risk patients can get health insurance. Shoot, Jackie Chan made a company just to bring health insurance to stuntmen/stuntwomen.

What you mean is denied healthcare for not having insurance or the money to pay for healthcare. Course if you are on the verge of death, it's mandatory for the hospital to provide healthcare, regardless of money issues (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act).

Me...I'm personally fine with that. I really don't want to pay higher taxes to give Joe Schmoe medication for this syphillis. Also, it's not like health insurance is expensive. I can get health insurance for around $37 to $130 a month. Course like many ppl, the company I work for has health benefits and I only pay $18 a month.

$18 a month is a hell of a lot better than getting taxed six ways til Sunday, just to pay for healthcare for some other schmuck.

Shoot most universal healthcare isn't all encompassing anyways and you end up having to get health insurance to offset high costs for those items that aren't covered. Take for example NHS in the UK. NHS Dental care sucks. It cost a lot of money. To the point that you end up having to get health insurance just to cover that. So not only are you taxed, but you end up paying for health insurance anyways.

Course even with free market healthcare, the US government still pays 44.6% of health costs. Course universal healthcare isn't the topic here.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Strunf on 7/29/2007 6:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well I would rather live in a country where the mentality is "punish the rich" than "protect the rich" or "punish the poor"... but then again it all comes down to how much you have in the bank...


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 7:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
There's no such thing as "punish the poor" in the US. Are those too lazy to work or acquire the skills they need to get the job they want (as opposed to the job they have to do) being "punished" just because they're poor? No! The only thing that's punishing them and holding them down is their own laziness and/or apathy.

Surely, not everyone can pick themselves up by their bootstraps.. and some sort of safety net for everyone is indeed quite proper and beneficial to everyone, but to say that there is anything close to a "punish the poor" aspect to American life is totally absurd.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By ChipDude on 7/28/2007 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
This is such a naive point of view. Its so popular to see Exxon, INTEL, Microsoft and others that dominate their respective markets as bad 800lb gorillas.

Let me give you another prospective, it isn't a fanboi one but just another prospective.

What does it take to supply the world with 200 million CPUs and update them every two years? Billions in R&D, billions in manufacturing. you think AMD has a track record business model to advance the state of the art?

I don't dispute that industry wants/needs a healthy AMD keep INTEL honest. But to say you hope to penalize the golaith in the industry is to say you want to penalize those that invest and reap the rewards of invesment. I agree if INTEL was doing questionable stuff they should be stopped. If it was really marginal maybe a fine is justified. But if you say you want to screw the company for no other reason then you don't like the fact the big guy is successfuly and makes money is short sighted and you really don't want to see innovation.

AMD should be allowed to compete, but they shouldn't be subsidized or protected. And INTEL shouldn't be screwed just because it is big, makes lots of money. They made the money because they invested and should be allowed to reap the benifits of this investment. AMD has instead choosen to spend billions on other stuff beside technology and new products. Their current predictment has nothign to do with INTEL but only their own crappy technology and inablity to execute their designs


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By lindejos on 7/29/2007 4:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
Really? How do you explain that Intel has been driving Moore's Law for almost 40 years?

Complacency due to lack of competition?


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 6:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Really? How do you explain that Intel has been driving Moore's Law for almost 40 years?"

Intel hasn't been driving Moore's Law for 40 years. Until the mid 80s, Intel wasn't even focused primarily on CPUs, most of their profits came from RAM, and they didn't have a lead on litho process technology either.

Even in the 1980s, Intel wasn't dominant in the CPU industry; Motorola had a larger market share, and a dozen other competitors existed. Intel wasn't in a position to become "complacent" until the mid 1990s...where in fact it did just that, and AMD wound up introducing the first gigahertz processor before it. That shocker led Intel to create Netburst, which allowed them to quickly ramp up processor speeds to 3ghz.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Oregonian2 on 7/30/2007 5:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Intel revolutionized the electronics industry over and over, reinventing itself either through their own inventions or the popularizing of other's research (like Apple did with the mac). They "invented" the DRAM. The "invented" reprogrammable ROMs (UV erasable) that lead to flash memory. The "invented" the microprocessor. Interestingly they stopped completely re-inventing themselves and revolutionizing the industry some time ago and got "stuck" on microprocessor sales. I've been expecting them to "invent" some variation of subatomic computation that makes current silicon CPU's obsolete, but they're way behind my expectations! :-) They've gone from revolutionizing the world to just evolutionizing it.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Oregonian2 on 7/30/2007 2:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really hope that the EU now, won’t let this go unpunished, and as I said before, when a company gets as much power as Intel. They should be stopped, to allow other companies to co-exist.


You say they should be punished and axed not because of doing anything wrong, but only because they've been successful. You're saying power should go to the incompetent because if you're really good and become successful at something you will be punished for having done so. "No good deed will go unpunished". Ick.

I'd agree to axe'm for any wrongdoings, but not to punish them for heavy R&D investment and heavy fab-building investment that they've done even during industry downturns.


Pro Competitive
By SlyNine on 7/28/2007 1:54:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers.


I would like to know how blocking chipset manufacturers from producing AMD chips and trying to deny AMD to use OEM's like Dell and Gateway makes them " pro-competitive " and " beneficial to the consumers ". If the allegations are true that is.

Remember though nothing has been proven yet.




RE: Pro Competitive
By afkrotch on 7/28/2007 2:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty normal business practice for the OEM issue. If you sell our product, don't sell theirs.

As for blocking chipset manufacturer's, I never heard anything about that. I guess Intel could keep IC from VIA, SIS, AMD, or Nvidia as a leverage tool from keeping them from creating chipsets for AMD, but that could also hurt Intel. Less variety of motherboards for Intel procs could be a bad thing. Course it would boost sales of Intel chipsets at the same time.

Now there was the whole Intel vs VIA thing, where essentially Intel said,"You can't sell a chipset that's better than our chipset for the same proc. Your chipset can't equal ours, until we've had that chipset our for 6 months."

Course even that is totally understandable in business sense. Like how Sony went to Sandisk for help on creating a faster memory stick. Sony's memory stick duos are a whole lot faster, thanks to Sandisk, but Sandisk's memory stick duos are a wee bit faster than Sony's.

It's natural that the best stuff goes to the owner.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Treckin on 7/28/2007 2:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
I accidentally down-rated you. I hope a mod will fix it. I meant to give you plus 1.

Anyhow, I absolutely agree. I really is tragic that Intel had all of those key files 'disappear' when AMD brought the same suite against them in the US (I believe its still in litigation). I think AMD simply took the case to the EU because the EU has a greater history (albeit shorter) of handing down liberal and anti-conglomerate anti-big business judgments.

I would not personally be surprised if the allegations were entirely true. I would not be surprised as well if Nvidia or ATI (laughable though) were convicted of the same practices. Its just the way it is. I hope though that Intel is in the wrong. Just to spite them.

Also, everyone talks so much shit on Intel's Netburst, however I had one running at 4.5 ghz with phase change cooling and it SMOKED everything that I had ever come across to that point. People were just butt-hurt because Intel's anti-competitive practices then allowed them to jack up the prices to ball dropping heights.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Khato on 7/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Pro Competitive
By Proteusza on 7/28/2007 7:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
You just dont get it do you?

Intel broke the law. They lost the case in Japan, and were found guilty. Why do some people always think that if the EU or the FCC want to investigate a company for fraudulent, anti-competitive, or otherwise illegal behaviour, that they are interfering, and not doing so for the good of the economy?

If Intel did something illegal, should that be forgotten for the greater good of the economy? I dont think so. While a free and fair economy will benefit the consumer by way of increased competition, if that competition is not fair, like the case between Intel and AMD because of Intel's business practices, then that is hardly in the interest of the consumer is it? Why would be wrong to step in, if Intel broke the law?

As the facts stand, with Intel having lost a similar suite in Japan, I fail to see how they can win this one.


RE: Pro Competitive
By 16nm on 7/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Pro Competitive
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 10:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
> "Intel broke the law"

So much for the presumption of innocence and a fair trial, eh? The EU has investigated Intel for six full years now, and even they admit their case is largely based on assumption and conjecture.

> Why do some people always think that if the EU [investigate] a company ...that they are interfering.

Easy answer. Past history. Without exception, all the major antitrust actions resulted in higher prices and/or inferior products for consumers. This is a pattern which has remained true all the way back to the breakup of Standard Oil.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Phynaz on 7/28/2007 10:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think you don't get it.

As far as Japan, Intel was not found guilty of anything, as there was no court case, got it?


RE: Pro Competitive
By JumpingJack on 7/28/2007 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel broke the law. They lost the case in Japan, and were found guilty.


This is factually incorrect, Intel was never charged by the JTC and the case never went to trial.
http://news.com.com/Intel+to+abide+by+Japan+FTC+re...

Intel simply agreed to accept the recommendations of the JTC -- which amounted to ending volume discounts, as such Intel was never tried, never found guilty. We will never know of the allegations were true, or were illegal within the framework of Japanese law since the adversarial adjudication process never took place. In short, you are assuming proof where there was only allegation.

That is not to say that it was or was not illegal, but you jump to a conclusions that is not true, presuming a guilty verdict when in fact there was none.

Intel has been investigated several times for anti-trust charges, and has get to be found guilty of actual monopolistic practices. The FTC did so twice, in one case it was settled in another the investigation was simply dropped for lack of evidence.

The first one was over IP rights, and witholding certain information. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chroni...

There is simply two ways to look at it, Intel is an evil empire who will stop at nothing to get ahead ... AMD certainly claims this... or Intel, simply becoming big and successful where competitors failed, is a the target of a witch hunt... due to the underdog scenario, it would appear more people are quick the assume the former than to consider the latter.


RE: Pro Competitive
By afkrotch on 7/28/2007 7:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even understand how volume discounts can be considered unfair or illegal. Costco does it all the time. The consumer buys their products in bulk and receive a discount because of that.

Like those gigantic bags of cereal that cost 5 bucks, while going to a smaller supermarket, where 5 bucks would only get you a couple smaller boxes of cereal that wouldn't equate to the same amount as the larger bag.

Other examples would be items like batteries. You a discount by buying 12 AA batteries versus buying 6 packages of 2 AA batteries.

Course the discount not only comes from buying more, but just overall less packaging for the product also.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Xavian on 7/28/2007 8:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
You do realise that whatever amount Intel is fined from the EU, it will be minuscule compared to the money paid into the EU by its member states (the UK especially).

The EU is more active in pursuing monopolies and unlawful business practices then the FCC, that's it, no ulterior motive.


RE: Pro Competitive
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 1
Miniscule? No. Several hundred million dollars is never miniscule, especially when it goes into the EU's administrative fund. The annual administrative budget for the EU is only in the €6B range; a massive fine from Intel goes a long way towards increasing this.

Furthermore, most euros in the EU's budget come directly from EU citizens. Politically, that's unpopular. Money from evil foreign corporations is always popular politically. It explains why millions cheer Hugo Chavez every time he seizes another factory or oil rig in the name of the "public good". It's free money. And the masses always love that.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Strunf on 7/29/2007 6:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see any reason to feel bad when fining companies that have such a huge profit...

As for Hugo Chavez well dude again I would rather have the government control ALL the natural resources of a country than have someone else doing it, the natural resources of a country should be the property of all its citizens.


RE: Pro Competitive
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 7:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
What makes you think the government knows best.. or better than one person or a small group of people?

The government, by default, isn't ordained with special supernatural or super-human abilities. It is as fallible as anyone else, and when you give an entity as fallible as any ordinary person the power to tax, spend, shoot, and curtail the freedoms of others.. power far greater than they would have individually.. the consequences of failure are more disasterous and the likelihood of failure far greater.


RE: Pro Competitive
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 7:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
.. the consequences of failure and, especially, error are more disasterous and the likelihood of failure and error far greater.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 12:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing to know about natural resources, if you have them you produce and sell them, it doesn't get any more complex than that. What we don't lack is of people ready to buy oil and gas... it's for no reason that Oil companies make billions of profits...


RE: Pro Competitive
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's nothing to know about natural resources, if you have them you produce and sell them, it doesn't get any more complex than that.


If you truly believe that.. and that "government knows best" in other matters as well.. then you truly are a Socialist. I'm very thankful that socialism is (and has been for a long time) in decline.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Phynaz on 7/29/2007 9:53:50 AM , Rating: 2
So, making profit is bad?


RE: Pro Competitive
By BiuTech on 7/30/2007 1:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
So, making profit is bad?

Why of course it's bad, because it makes you richer than someone else, remember. And that just isn't fair. (sarcasm)



RE: Pro Competitive
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "As for Hugo Chavez well dude again I would rather have the government control ALL the natural resources of a country "

As I said, such all-embracing socialism has been tried many times before, and it predictably ends the same way. It always winds up reducing entire nations to poverty, and eventually being discarded in favor of privatization. How many times must people be knocked in the head with historical facts before they learn from them?


RE: Pro Competitive
By Aprime on 7/29/2007 11:44:42 PM , Rating: 1
Shit, I didn't know that government monopolies on natural resources were a bad thing! Oh wait, you're talking about everyone having the same salary, still.

Socialism mixed with capitalism equates to the best of both worlds, you should know that.


RE: Pro Competitive
By theapparition on 7/30/2007 9:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many times must people be knocked in the head with historical facts before they learn from them?

Apparently, not enough.


RE: Pro Competitive
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 11:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
lmao like if external powers (US and others) had nothing to do with the poverty some countries have while being so rich in resources...

And who benefits the most out of privations? Certainly not the little guy...
And BTW how your memory is short... does «the great depression" rings you a bell?


RE: Pro Competitive
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge you to demonstrate the relevance of The Great Depression to today's economy.


RE: Pro Competitive
By rnnh on 7/29/2007 8:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
The EU does not need to appropriate money from american corporations.

I don't know where this perception comes from that the rest of the world somehow lives off America.

The EU trades with the US on an equal basis. In fact the EU is a net exporter of high value goods to the US rather than vice versa.

And those "masses" you talk about are on average better educated, healthier and even taller (sorry) than the average US citizen.


RE: Pro Competitive
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
> "The EU does not need to appropriate money from american corporations"

Of course they don't need to. A person who robs banks doesn't need the money either. He merely wants it.

In any case, the money taken from Intel is secondary to the political gain. In the minds of most EU citizens, large corporations are automatically suspect. Foreign ones doubly so. There are countless voters who will cheer any fine directed against an American firm, regardless of whether any rationale exists for it or not. That makes such acts popular. And popular acts are good for politicians...whether or not they are justified, or even wise.



RE: Pro Competitive
By Strunf on 7/30/2007 11:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
hmm yeah just like the whole freedom fries thing... I mean heck there's only one way and that's our way.


RE: Pro Competitive
By zsdersw on 7/30/2007 6:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
Your way is for more government, more regulation, more reduction in freedom. Oh yeah.. that's surely a good way to go.


RE: Pro Competitive
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 7/28/2007 3:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I accidentally down-rated you. I hope a mod will fix it. I meant to give you plus 1.

If you comment on an article you moderated on, it wipes your ratings out.


So what?
By INeedCache on 7/29/2007 6:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
"Intel says complaints are from AMD, not customers, and the market is doing perfectly fine". So what? The EU constantly goes after Microsoft even though there are no complaints coming from the customers and the market is doing fine. Welcome to how the EU does business, Intel.




RE: So what?
By Kaleid on 7/29/2007 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft + no complaints = LMAO :)

Hey, Intel, you robbed with that P2 400Mhz overpriced CPU, I want some of that money back! :P


This will drag on for years !
By crystal clear on 7/28/2007 6:46:24 AM , Rating: 1
In the E.U,cases like these will drag on for years with no results.Example -M.$. !

These E.U. commissions have to 2 motives-

1) 1)They want Your money-$ $ $ $ $ $(6 figures)

2)They have to show/prove to E.U parliment/people/press etc that they really working hard.(in fact hardly)

They do this by taking on high profile cases/issues with M.$. Intel etc.

It generates good publicity & achieves their objectives-namely-

See we are really working hard & doing something very constructive & positive




By crystal clear on 7/28/2007 9:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
The EU has been sniffing around Intel's business practices in Europe for six years.

It took them 6 years just to come up with something(trifle) with a substantial help from AMD.


Well that's nice
By sirius4k on 7/30/2007 11:12:26 AM , Rating: 3
They make better (better as more effecient/faster) processors.. let's sue those bastards.

How lame is that?

AMD is WAYY behind their schedule and they still find time to pick on their "big brother"? :P
Hope they find reasonable solution to this crap and go on with their business.




My guess of the outcome
By defter on 7/28/2007 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Lawyers will win.




Intel vs. AMD
By vladio on 7/28/2007 2:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty standard business practice ...
just look around, look some different stores
they all sale some staff wich can be found Only there.
'competition, specialty'... just words, botton line:
every one trying to make some money, no body put gun to your head, if you do not like it -- you do not have to buy. Lets give businesses what they do best, Lets make governments do what they suppose to do!




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard











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