Another AntiTrust case against Intel

Major_Spittle

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2006
459
0
18,780
0
The following has been blantantly plagerized from a news article:

"New York's attorney general announced Thursday that it has started an antitrust investigation of Intel.
The attorney general served Intel with a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents and information as part of an investigation into whether the chipmaker violated state and federal antitrust laws by coercing customers to exclude rival Advanced Micro Devices from the microprocessor market. "

I guess everyone wants a piece of the pie. :non:
 

keithlm

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2007
735
0
18,990
2


Apparently the NY attorney general has enough information to believe that Intel is breaking the law. Regardless of what you think of Intel or AMD, there are laws in place that do not allow monopolistic practices.

If Intel strong-armed manufacturers into using their chip instead of any other competitor's chip... they should be punished.

But then... we all saw Microsoft lose in court. Their punishment was less than Bill Gates gives out to charity every month.
 

chunkymonster

Splendid
Jan 12, 2006
3,679
0
22,960
78


IF?!?! Japan and the European Union already found Intel guilty.

It's not a questions of "if" it's a question of when Intel is found guilty.
 

Ca_lawman

Distinguished
May 19, 2007
19
0
18,510
0


What if there is not sufficient evidence of wrong doing by Intel and this is just a way for the state of NY to pay AMD back for choosing NY to build their new Fab there? We also need to remember that AMD's biggest fanbois, IBM, have their headquarters there. When it comes to politicians, I always question their motives. I doubt that consumer protection has anything to do with their actions. Follow the money.

BTW- considering AMD's financial situation, I don't see that Fab being built anytime soon. That provokes another cynical thought. Maybe this is a way to punish Intel for beating AMD so badly that they won't be able to build the proposed Fab in NY.
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
0


Link for EU, or I call BS.

Not to mention that US laws are not the same as Japan's or Europe's. It's IF, not WHEN.
 

navvara

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2007
73
0
18,630
0
Indeed in most European countries you get a fair chance to prove your innocence and that the states allegations are balloney.
 

thunderman

Distinguished
Nov 13, 2007
107
0
18,680
0
I'm very happy about this news because Intel deserves all the fines it gets. I predict huge loses for Intel this year.

Bad Intel news = Good news for me :)

AMD4Life!


 

azfj60

Distinguished
May 3, 2007
46
0
18,530
0
meh...

First, the EU case isn't settled one way or another. Second, why NY? why now? no mention of who brought up the charges (one guess, starts with A, ends with D). Of all the states to bring this up in, it's where AMD wants to build a fab? What PC OEM's are there in NY that are allegedly being "pressured" to not buy AMD? This whole thing stinks of the same-old, same-old, which has never worked out for AMD. Other than some laywer fees and some feel-good press for AMD until the case gets dismissed, I predict nothing will come of this. I have a feeling that after getting sued umpteen million times for the same allegations, Intel's business practices are pretty air-tight (legally), whether you like them or not... Plus, it'll be doubly hard to prove "stifling innovation" when AMD has stepped on their own dick pretty hard and pretty often in the last year... So again, meh...
 

chunkymonster

Splendid
Jan 12, 2006
3,679
0
22,960
78


Call it whatever you want...

Agreed, in America you are innocent until proven guilty, but you'd have to be totally niave to think that Intel is innocent in these suites. Especially when Dell, Compaq, and Gateway all stated that Intel withheld shipments as well as were given "incentives" and "rebates" to not use AMD processors.

But let's be real here, you'd have to be an idiot to think that any company, not only necessarily Intel, is not leveraging any and all options to push the competition out of the market place.

Saying Intel did not strong-arm resellers is like saying that GM actively marketed and sold the EV1 to consumers. GM can talk about promoting alternative fuel vehicles and show on paper the marketing dollars spent, but they still mothballed the EV1 claiming that it was not a competitive/successful product. And, like GM and the EV1, Intel can talk about fair practice and show on paper their compliance with regulations, but you only had/have to visit a resellers web-site to see that there were little to no products with AMD processors.

Is this a conspiracy? No.

Is Intel Evil? No.

Is Intel doing whatever it takes to pull a profit and return a dividend to shareholders regardless of fair practice or how it skirts the law? Yes.
 

nachowarrior

Distinguished
May 28, 2007
885
0
18,980
0



yeah, they've got a giant dong.... that's why they keep tripping all the time... it's all that manhood. :p
 

Major_Spittle

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2006
459
0
18,780
0
#1 Pricing incentives are legal and what Intel offered Dell was already found to be legal.

#2 Dell accepting Intel's discount for exclusively using Intel processors hurt Dell. Dell put out a lot of Netburst crap that didn't compete on the market and their brand name lost value. This is why Dell broke from the exclusive deal with Intel, but then Intel turned around and came out with C2D processors a few months later and Dell has kicked itself ever since.

#3 Of course Intel would want customers to buy their product and since AMD is their only competition in the x86 home PC market that would by default make them want to exclude AMD from the market.

#4 Intel coercing customers???? Do you really think Intel could threaten a costomer with "we will not sell to you" or "we will charge you more" or "we will limit you shipments??? ANY customer would laugh and say " OK, go for it and we will see you in court while we sue your ass for Monopolistic behavior in our market ".

#5 Intel is getting closer to a true Monopoly everyday. They have 80% of one of the richest markets in the world so of course they are going to get antitrust cases brought against them. This should not be confused with the company being evil so much as a company doing something right. Just like Microsoft, bit.ch all you want as you type on your windows computer because window is the best OS you could buy.
 

Major_Spittle

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2006
459
0
18,780
0


Have you really ever seen it? I have when I was at a urinal next to AMD I peeked over and looked. Sure it looked long, but it was about 40% thinner than a normal dong. This leads me to believe that it wasn't really long at all, but just appears long because it is so thin. All AMD likes to talk about is length, but in reality we all know that girth is what creates friction. :pfff:
 

thefumigator

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2005
142
0
18,680
0
Actually in my country, when you go to a store to buy a computer they absolutly discourage the AMDs. This has some reasons, first the credit intel gives to the best reseller (sell more intels the better), and that people who don't know nothing about computers can be fooled easily to buy a more expensive intel over a cheap AMD. That has an advantage specially to those who earns a comission for selling (a more expensive machine, more profit for you)
In the year 2000 I went to a computer store and the dialog was like this:

-"I recommend you the P3 600Mhz system, with 256MB SDram, and a intel motherboard..."
-"What about that new eh, AML, AMT, AMF..."
-"You mean AMD?"
-"yeah, right, AMD... do you sell that?"
-"Well, to be honest we offer a 750Mhz AMD Athlon PC, but we don't sell it, LOL. its not as good as the intel PC, I personally recommend the P3, intel is intel you know..."
-"Yeah but... its a 750Mhz "Athlon" or whatever, while the P3 system is only 600Mhz and costs 300$ more..."
-"Yeah, but despite the speed rates in Mhz, the P3 system is much better in performance. also it comes with an intel motherboard, while the AMD comes with a gigabyte motherboard that to be honest, we never sold nothing from this manufacturer before**, moreover, I can tell you its like a low end PC..."
-"oh, you are talking in terms I barely understand, but you mean the intel is worth every penny?"
-"exactly, I confess its more expensive but you won't regret it, you'll getting a much better system overall"

**Gigabyte brand was entering our local market in year 1999~2000 or so, the mobo offered was actually my first AMD system, the GA 71-XE, AGP 2x, SLOT-A. The P3 he offered to me was slot1. When people first heard about the brand name "gigabyte" they run away
 

Major_Spittle

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2006
459
0
18,780
0
Actually the same conversations went on in Best Buys all across America during that time.

At that time I was running my Celeron 300A overclocked to 450mhz and getting ready to upgrade to an AMD thunderbird as I recall. It would be the 1st of 3 AMD system I built and overclocked.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
thefumigator, The commision is from the company really not Intel. Of course people will want to try to sell you a more expensive PC. Like if you walked into a Dell or Gateway store they want to sell you the one that would get you more commision. And if I worked there thats what I would try to do but when it comes to my friends/customers I help in my spare time I ask what they want and give them options. Right now I recommend Intel as they have a great product for the buck but if AMD turns out to be better I would tell them AMD.

So this is a NY state only lawsuit which will probably not fly since thre has to be no reasonable doubt. If there is any one part of a lawsuit that seems to be not true of not unlawful the whole thing gets thrown out. Plus It was the PC vendors decision to sign a contract with Intel.

I remember some PC vendors that only sold AMD and those were custom built PCs. CyberPower is one I believe and that happened from 2003 don't know when they stopped.

I personally think its weird. I don't think intel "forced" them to as a company can make a choice. I am just sick of hearing about it. I wounder if they are trying to prove Intel is doing it now even though you can clearly see that AMD is shoting themselves.
 

thefumigator

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2005
142
0
18,680
0
later on similar conversations went on against the Athlon 64. I remember they mentioned the Tom's video about the palomino burning, going "on smoke".

However, lot of people confused the 64bit as "double performance" which somewhat helped the sales and everybody talked about that. Other people were confused and thought that the A64 wasn't compatible with 32 bit at all, for that time I was already a reseller. Later on the Intels with 64 bit support arrived.

There's still people demanding Pentium 4 socket 478 with HT, they don't really know -and we have to tell them- that the core 2 are way much better.

If we count the amount of CPUs that AMD couldn't (or can't) sell because the resellers recommending Intels, I don't know the amount of money AMD lost for this, but also intel earns much more selling the new processors than those old P4 that people search in the stores...
 

thefumigator

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2005
142
0
18,680
0
@jimmysmitty
Around here the price gap between intel and AMD was big those times. Intel was overpriced and AMD quite devaluated. But also buying a computer was for people who had money, even with AMD the price wasn't always low enough and many people ended up with old celerons or second hand PCs. But the resellers I knew were really dishonest, they really wanted to sell intel no matter what. Maybe it was voluntary by the resseller themselves...
 

bixplus

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2006
398
0
18,780
0


Yeah, Cuomo is trying to recover that peice that he just lost too.

What we have here is a classic example of politicians over extending themselves and then trying to cover their arses. First, this is Andrew Cuomo, the AG of NY, who was also a key player in presenting AMD with that juicy taxpayer subsidized incentive to build a plant there. NY has also spent roughly $150 in improvements in that area in anticipation that AMD would go through with the offer. So now, that the deal has fallen through, the politicians are scrambling to recover some of their losses...gotta blame some for their incompetence.


I predict that this will go absolutely nowhere.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
thefumigator, Believe me it is up to the resellers themselves. Intel would be higher cost so there ya go. They would make more money selling some Joe blow a 2k PC with Intel instead of a 1.5k PC with AMD.

But currently they are roughly the same price. I put together a new AMD system using newegg.com as a wish list and a new system with a Phenom 9600, 790FX mobo(nice one since a old AM2 wouldn't cut it for me), 2GB DDR2 Ram, 2x 500 Seagate 7200.11 HD PSU(to support the video cards) 2x HD3870s and it came to $1500. A Intel setup with the same parts(except the CPUQ6600 / P35 mobo) would be roughly the same price.

Only major difference is that the Q6600 system would provide better performance and has a better OC'ing headroom. So now its up to the reseller to decide which one will be better for the user. Its easier in the laptop arena and will be once the 45nms come out since AMD is lagging there. Maybe they will have them out some day.
 

chunkymonster

Splendid
Jan 12, 2006
3,679
0
22,960
78
#1 - Japan found the pricing incentives illegal.

#2 - Dell partially pulled out of the deal with Intel because they were going to end up getting dragged into the lawsuit and needed to do some quick damage prevention. Also part of the reason why Mikey Dell went back to being the CEO and took over for Kevin Rollins. Of course Dell got hurt, but that is the price they are paying for agreeing to (being forced to?) the Intel incentives.

#3 - Fair practice, a tiered pricing model, and healthy competition are a far cry from offering incentives and rebates to resellers to not use a competitors products.

#4 - Compaq, HP, and Gateway stated in the AMD suit that Intel coerced them into not selling AMD chips. And apparently they did laugh, why else does Intel have antitrust suits filed against them in multiple countries.

#5 - Agreed, large companies can be a target simply because they are large,
but size and success alone are not the sole reason why a company has
antitrust suits filed against them. If only one country or only one company cried foul and filed an antitrust suit against Intel, this would be a non-topic. But when multiple companies and multiple governments file suit against Intel for the same reason, well, you know what they say...if it looks like $hit and smells like $hit, it must be $hit.
 

Similar threads