AMD files antitrust suit against Intel

[rettihSlluB]

...And I really hope AMD to win this battle. Once for all OEMs and Big named companies would stop fear Intel.

It's a shame that Intel being a big company has to do all those nastiness to keep their market share stable.

My Beloved Rig:

ATHLON 64 FX 55
2X1024 CORSAIR XMX XPERT MODULES
MSI K8N DIAMOND (SLI)
2 MSI 6800 ULTRA (SLI MODE)
OCZ POWERSTREAM 600W PSU

 

[P4Man]

>Ok kids

I'm most likely old enough to be your father, so i'll try and take this as a compliment 😉

>I'm sure Intel uses aggressive tactics but guess what,
>that's what a capitalist system is. If you want to make
>money and stay on top then you have to be aggressive.

No one is sueing Intel over being "aggressive".

>There mad that they can and they are suing.
>Great grand just what the U.S. court system needs, another
>frivolous lawsuit

Frivolous ? What on earth is frivolous about it ? Even disregarding its merrit and eventual outcome, I see nothing frivolous about it at all. And if you think AMD doesn't have a case, I suggest we wait until the evidence is brought forward. If AMD can support their allegations in court, I personally think they have a pretty strong case. But hey, you don't even seem to understand what this is about:

>AMD isn't going broke so they really don't need to sue

that has got to be the most ridiculous comment I ever read on this subject.

>I think the decision against Microsoft set a bad example.
>Microsoft got hosed. There is not a better alternative to
>Windows because no one has come up with one

And no one ever sued MS for selling windows, or being a monopoly, but again you just show you totally don't understand what this is about.

>In a way I hope AMD looses this battle, it's not right to
>use the courts to gain market share

LOL.. yeah, whatever. Just a question: imagine a court ruling in favour of AMD, just how do you think that would result in an increased market share for AMD ? It takes customers buying your products to increase your share, but to achieve that, you need customers having the *option* of buying your products. If AMDs claims are correct, oem's today simply don't have that choice, and therefore, we as and customers don't have it. I can honestly not see why you would be agaist a ruling that would give us more choice, unless you are an intel fanboy/stock holder/employee.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[slvr_phoenix]

I dont knwo if they can prove that stuff tough...
...
Claiming is not proving but its a start hehe

Thanks for the link, labbbby. This was probably one of the best articles I've read on it yet. And you're exactly right. Claiming is not proving, and more importantly, even that which is proven it still may not be illegal.

The best statement that I've seen about this yet sums it up quite well:

<font color=blue>"Intel historically has been a company that has spent a lot of money to understand precisely where the line between legal and illegal competitive behavior is drawn," Brookwood says. "I'm sure Intel will come up with a compelling argument about why everything AMD claims either never happened, didn't happen the way AMD is reporting it, or even if it did happen, it was just good business practices."</font color=blue>

People can call it dirty tricks all that they want, but if it's still legal, then it's only their opinion.

And besides, if companies such as Dell had any integrity then they'd use their own advertising dollars anyway.

😱 <font color=green>یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ</font color=green> 😱
@ 192K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

 

[Schmide]

I'm sure Intel uses aggressive tactics but guess what, that's what a capitalist system is.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism. It will fail unless rules are made to govern the actions of business. It is illegal to have floating rebates (non public tailored to each customer), which basically constitutes bribes. You cannot use strong armed tactics to force your competitor into a sub competitive position, which basically resembles organized crime. When you hold the lion’s share of the market, you must be held to a higher standard as you have been granted governorship of your niche.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...

 

[darko21]

Bah ItaniumII is still very much alive. Its in the more expensive server segment...Intel wont drop it wayyy to much money in there

Life support is more like it, HP biggest oem server supporter and M$ biggest software developer for it dropped it if I'm not mistaken.

I'm sure Itainium 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 will have its very small niche like sparc or alpha. but really Itainium was built to replace x86 and move the x86 world to 64bit. Would have been nice for Intel if they could have pulled it off basically no competition what so ever, think about it no more need to bribe OEM's just this is the price, pay it or go out of business.

These forums mostly discuss x86 windows linux on amd or intel cpu's, apple's or macs come into it but even they seem to be switching to x86 or for some funny reason intel only x86.

Intel Itainium is some what irrelevant when talking about amd Intel. It's about as relevant as powerpc, sparc or the cell processor only the itainium is made by intel. Yes it's still alive but who cares? Who's writing any meaningful software to support it now, 5 years ago intel made out like everyone would be using itainium by now.

Thank god that did not happen.
We’d all be screwed because there would be no competition.

Competition is good, don’t you agree?

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[darko21]

Nice post Schmide, common sense really. I don't understand why so many people have so much difficulty with it.

Now that I think about it you always write excellent posts.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[darko21]

Nice read. I really liked the history section. It still had tones of Intel rewrite, seeing as how Fairchild was so downplayed, but not too shabby none the less.

yup a little long in the tooth but I enjoy that history stuff too. at first I looked at it and said nah too long,, couple of days later I read it all and was glad I did.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[endyen]

Think about it, if you where Acers' CEO, would you go and testify against Intel ? You would, only if you where certain that AMD would win the case and IBM's, HP's etc people would back up those claims as well. If you where the only one going on stand, and AMD would lose this case, you'd better start looking for another job and/or prepare to have your company bankrupted

I believe the strategy will be to use willing retired people, and supeona others only to coraborate testimony.
I would also suspect that the court will advise Intel that they will be under scroutiny with reguards to any corporation that has been called to witness.
Some of the witnesses may find their bank account has grown, before they get to court though.

 

[function9]

Wow, one post out of this whole thread that has an understanding of the situation.

Though it sure is nice to see all these lawyers and very successful businessmen to pop in this thread and let all us common folk know whats going on. I mean I'm sure they have all the details and have been through it before. I'm glad they know more than the people that are actually involved in this, and offer their knowledge (for free no less) on an internet forum.

It's also funny to see how many people think because they recently read or heard about it in the media that this was some spur of the moment decision from AMD made within the last week.

 

[Guest]

I tottaly agree with you my comments about Itanium where specificalyl for this quote:

If it was not for Amd. We would still be stuck in 32 bit world. If it was not for Amd we would be stuck with Just one cpu.

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0

 

[Xeon]

If it was not for Amd. We would still be stuck in 32 bit world. If it was not for Amd we would be stuck with Just one cpu.

Is that so, care to share the mathematics behind that statement.

-Jeremy Dach

 

[Guest]

Ask AtolSammeek
7th page of the thread...I was talking about itanium to say he was full of s****

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0

 

[rettihSlluB]

I found something really interesting at sudhian:
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=690

After reading all of it, all I can say is:
SHAME ON YOU INTEL!! ):

My Beloved Rig:

ATHLON 64 FX 55
2X1024 CORSAIR XMX XPERT MODULES
MSI K8N DIAMOND (SLI)
2 MSI 6800 ULTRA (SLI MODE)
OCZ POWERSTREAM 600W PSU

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

"So before AMD dual core, there were dual-xeon(not dual core but dual processor per mobo) systems and also lots of Intel HT chips. Doesn't it seem like Intel was the driver of the multi-threaded bandwagon? Without AMD, it's pretty clear that Intel would still be moving toward dual core. Considering how the prescott turned out, it looks like doing a drop in frequency combined with adding cores would have been inevitable. Multi-core has been talked about for many years...I don't think you can say "If it was not for AMD we would be stuck with Just one cpu"." -wolverinero79



Just look how quickly the power of Computers skyrocked from a crappy 66mhz 10 years ago to a 3.8ghz EE which is probly over 57 times more powerful because of powerful compition. If no compition existed there would be no need to release or even talk about a CPU you have Designed which is 3 times more powerful. Competition drives better products and thats a fact. We need AMD to be strong not because AMD is cool and [-peep-] because we need strong Competition so that AMD and Intel show off the best stuff and give the best price. Compare a 2 year old rig (mine for example) to a brand new rig. 2800+ VS 4800+ (the latter 64bit with dual proccessors) and you see over a double (well over, more then likely) and now lets take a look at the graphics cards who have even stiffer competition Nvidia vs ATI. 2 years ago We saw the first our pressent Generation of cards with the 9700pro which is one hell of a card for its time. Now we have a card over 3 times more powerful. Now if ATI hadn't pumped out the 9700pro showing Nvidia that it no longer was the top dog we would never have seen anything as powerful as the 7800GTX for the lack of wanting to get that fast that quickly. Nvidia would have sat back and stayed with their outdated technology because the "cost" of R&D wouldn't have market shares or profit margans. Come on man stop think of intel as your fricken friend and think of it as the Multi Nation Corp it is. They think money and unless you have something (most of the time another Multi Nation Corp that thinks only about how to get the otheres money) to keep said corp under pressure they would relax all studies on computer tech and use what they have for as long it could up grade in a way that would make the consumer buy a computer once a year.

Now you are right that upgrades would come with out compition but it would be at a much slower pace and you wouldn't see as many die srinkig as we did as well as many of the other design improvements that you did on the P4 such as 64bit. Why research 64bit when 32 is doing just fine? Because of Competition is the answer!

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are

 

[Xeon]

This is why you do not run any large business your advice would send many to the poor house.

-Jeremy Dach

 

[wolverinero79]

Actually, the best reason for further development is not competition, but more money from people who already have bought your products.

Windows is a good example - there really isn't any significant competition to Windows (especially in the retail consumer space). Why does Microsoft continue to make new versions of Windows? To get customers to buy new products. If Microsoft stopped making upgrades to Windows (i.e. XP and 2k3 was it), they'd start having a serious revenue generating issue.

Likewise, if Intel stagnated in processor speed, there'd be no reason for someone with a computer to buy a replacement computer/upgrade, except for chip death (which for early processors wasn't an issue for 10-15 years unless you were OC'ing). Bottom line, you need to give people who have chips now a reason to continue spending money (and not just due to replacement parts).

If anything, heated competition may have led to items being released too quickly without adequate testing which led to some of the AMD stability issues (it wasn't all VIA's fault 😛) and the Intel recalls. Ultimately, if Intel had less competition, the first versions of Prescott may never have seen the light of day and we would have started with the later steppings (which would have given the Prescott a much better image).

Competition is definitely a major driver behind price (it's not the only one though). Competition does contribute to technological advancements, but don't paint such a broad brush and assume it's the primary reason there as well.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Wolverinero79 on 07/11/05 08:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>