- Status
geminireaper
Distinguished
- Feb 14, 2007
- 168
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]scw1988[/nom]Business is business. It's called get with the game or gtfo. This sort of business happens all the time, but you don't hear people QQing about it that much.[/citation]
Yeah the only reason you are reading about it is that the EU feels the need to line their pockets with US company money. They are nothing but greedy. When are they gonna go after a EU based company for billions of dollars. Im glad the US can help fund the EU failing economy.
Yeah the only reason you are reading about it is that the EU feels the need to line their pockets with US company money. They are nothing but greedy. When are they gonna go after a EU based company for billions of dollars. Im glad the US can help fund the EU failing economy.
soo-nah-mee
Distinguished
- Feb 5, 2009
- 564
- 0
- 18,990
[citation][nom]geminireaper[/nom]Im glad the US can help fund the EU failing economy.[/citation]
That's a joke right?
That's a joke right?
godnodog
Distinguished
- Sep 1, 2009
- 233
- 0
- 18,690
Oh, I forgot to mention that I too agree that the EU Comission is overreacting to all of this issue, and considering Intel as the only guilty part here. Intel has better product, AMD has better value in price/quality. I´d like to buy Intel, but I´m sticking with AMD, I wanna buy a laptop with a QuadCore from AMD (due to price) and GPU also from AMD/ATI, despite my performeance preference would go to Intel and Nvidia.
MrHorspwer
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2009
- 18
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]geminireaper[/nom]Yeah the only reason you are reading about it is that the EU feels the need to line their pockets with US company money. They are nothing but greedy. When are they gonna go after a EU based company for billions of dollars. Im glad the US can help fund the EU failing economy.[/citation]
The fanboys can banter back and forth all they want about who makes the better processor, what products provide better bang for the buck, or which drivers are more buggy. That will go on whether the EU levies a fine on Intel or not, so it really doesn't matter in the long run.
What does matter is how the EU is handling the levy. The EU plans on dispursing the reparations to their member states. Let me repeat that, the EU is not repaying those who were wronged, which would include AMD, the computer manufacturers forced into these unfair practices, or the customers who bought computers under them. Instead, they are giving the money to their member states, who were not directly wronged by Intel!
Now, where is the justice in that? We all know Intel is being punished, and righly so, but who is being repaid? This is far more deserving of anger than Intel not giving as much bang-for-the-buck as AMD.
I do think this airing of dirty laundry is a distraction tactic by the EU. It takes the focus off the nearly criminal way they plan to disperse the reparations and trys to paint Intel in an even more unflattering light, making the fine seem all the more appropriate.
The fanboys can banter back and forth all they want about who makes the better processor, what products provide better bang for the buck, or which drivers are more buggy. That will go on whether the EU levies a fine on Intel or not, so it really doesn't matter in the long run.
What does matter is how the EU is handling the levy. The EU plans on dispursing the reparations to their member states. Let me repeat that, the EU is not repaying those who were wronged, which would include AMD, the computer manufacturers forced into these unfair practices, or the customers who bought computers under them. Instead, they are giving the money to their member states, who were not directly wronged by Intel!
Now, where is the justice in that? We all know Intel is being punished, and righly so, but who is being repaid? This is far more deserving of anger than Intel not giving as much bang-for-the-buck as AMD.
I do think this airing of dirty laundry is a distraction tactic by the EU. It takes the focus off the nearly criminal way they plan to disperse the reparations and trys to paint Intel in an even more unflattering light, making the fine seem all the more appropriate.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
[citation][nom]geminireaper[/nom]Yeah the only reason you are reading about it is that the EU feels the need to line their pockets with US company money. They are nothing but greedy. When are they gonna go after a EU based company for billions of dollars. Im glad the US can help fund the EU failing economy.[/citation]
I am SO tired of people who think the European Union is just being greedy/trying to steal money from an American company.
1) The EU did not go after Intel for "billions of dollars." By law, they are allowed to fine up to 10 percent of a company's annual revenue. $1.45 billion is definitely not pocket change but the sad fact is, it's not exactly going to give Intel's accountant a headache either.
2) The fines are for anti-competitive practices. It is the job of the EU to protect the rights of the European customer. By having this, that and the other company delay or cancel AMD product launches (and in some cases, not stock AMD products at all), Intel was hurting the European consumer. The European Union is just trying to protect that right. Further, experts say the this verdict could lead to similar trouble for Intel in the United States. Will you still feel the same when it's the U.S. dishing out fines?
3) The $1.45 billion from Intel will go to the EU’s central budget, and will, according to the commission, reduce the contributions that Member States pay to the EU. In other words, that money goes to the countries who were affected by Intel's actions.
I am SO tired of people who think the European Union is just being greedy/trying to steal money from an American company.
1) The EU did not go after Intel for "billions of dollars." By law, they are allowed to fine up to 10 percent of a company's annual revenue. $1.45 billion is definitely not pocket change but the sad fact is, it's not exactly going to give Intel's accountant a headache either.
2) The fines are for anti-competitive practices. It is the job of the EU to protect the rights of the European customer. By having this, that and the other company delay or cancel AMD product launches (and in some cases, not stock AMD products at all), Intel was hurting the European consumer. The European Union is just trying to protect that right. Further, experts say the this verdict could lead to similar trouble for Intel in the United States. Will you still feel the same when it's the U.S. dishing out fines?
3) The $1.45 billion from Intel will go to the EU’s central budget, and will, according to the commission, reduce the contributions that Member States pay to the EU. In other words, that money goes to the countries who were affected by Intel's actions.
I don't see how this is any different from when intel made a deal with rambus to sell only boards with rambus ram support on it which screwed intel but it was an actual contract and gave rise to VIA power for a time. Or Nvidia making deals with XFX, BFG, EVGA etc not to produce ATI cards.
To me this just seems like an un-sung exclusivity contract between intel and companies. That neither company had to work over to sign.
To me this just seems like an un-sung exclusivity contract between intel and companies. That neither company had to work over to sign.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
[citation][nom]MrHorspwer[/nom]The EU plans on dispursing the reparations to their member states. Let me repeat that, the EU is not repaying those who were wronged, which would include AMD, the computer manufacturers forced into these unfair practices, or the customers who bought computers under them. Instead, they are giving the money to their member states, who were not directly wronged by Intel!Now, where is the justice in that? We all know Intel is being punished, and righly so, but who is being repaid? This is far more deserving of anger than Intel not giving as much bang-for-the-buck as AMD.I do think this airing of dirty laundry is a distraction tactic by the EU. It takes the focus off the nearly criminal way they plan to disperse the reparations and trys to paint Intel in an even more unflattering light, making the fine seem all the more appropriate.[/citation]
AMD (and all the other comapanies) will have to fight their own battles. This lawsuit was never about Intel hurting AMD, it was about Intel hurting Europeans.
This is a lawsuit between the European Union and Intel. Like I said before, the EU is there to protect the rights of the European consumer. Intel harmed millions of European consumers by essentially removing a competitor's product from the market, forcing customers to buy Intel-only. The fact that that competitor was AMD has very little to do with it.
You're right, that $1.45bn will be dispersed among EU member states as part of the EU's central budget. But how can you say that those wronged will not see a penny of the damages when that money will be used to reduce the contributions member states give the EU? In the long run, who do you think pays those contributions? The people of Europe, the people who have been wronged.
AMD has every right to file suit against Intel and when it does, it will be a case of AMD vs. Intel. AMD will spend AMD money on a legal team and will probably use this verdict as support for their lawsuit. AMD will argue that Intel's practices harmed it's business and if it wins, will keep every penny its awarded in damages.
AMD (and all the other comapanies) will have to fight their own battles. This lawsuit was never about Intel hurting AMD, it was about Intel hurting Europeans.
This is a lawsuit between the European Union and Intel. Like I said before, the EU is there to protect the rights of the European consumer. Intel harmed millions of European consumers by essentially removing a competitor's product from the market, forcing customers to buy Intel-only. The fact that that competitor was AMD has very little to do with it.
You're right, that $1.45bn will be dispersed among EU member states as part of the EU's central budget. But how can you say that those wronged will not see a penny of the damages when that money will be used to reduce the contributions member states give the EU? In the long run, who do you think pays those contributions? The people of Europe, the people who have been wronged.
AMD has every right to file suit against Intel and when it does, it will be a case of AMD vs. Intel. AMD will spend AMD money on a legal team and will probably use this verdict as support for their lawsuit. AMD will argue that Intel's practices harmed it's business and if it wins, will keep every penny its awarded in damages.
"The EU plans on dispursing the reparations to their member states. Let me repeat that, the EU is not repaying those who were wronged, which would include AMD, the computer manufacturers forced into these unfair practices, or the customers who bought computers under them. Instead, they are giving the money to their member states, who were not directly wronged by Intel!
Now, where is the justice in that?"
This is a fine imposed for unfair business practices, not one imposed due to AMD suing Intel.
The money will thus be dispersed through the EU via the respective states, which is exactly what you want - the money reaching the hands of the injured parties, namely the EU citizens.
You might have preferred a check in the mail but lets try and be realistic here, you'll gain the benefits in another way as a EU citizen. Maybe a few million extra in the state budget for the many worthy causes out there.
Now, where is the justice in that?"
This is a fine imposed for unfair business practices, not one imposed due to AMD suing Intel.
The money will thus be dispersed through the EU via the respective states, which is exactly what you want - the money reaching the hands of the injured parties, namely the EU citizens.
You might have preferred a check in the mail but lets try and be realistic here, you'll gain the benefits in another way as a EU citizen. Maybe a few million extra in the state budget for the many worthy causes out there.
I noticed that none of the EU's fine went to AMD? Why is that? And why was Intel not ordered to pay restitution to AMD in any form? To me it seems like the EU was the big benefactor of their own determination and not AMD. At least AMD will have this amunition when it takes Intel to court here in the US.
[citation][nom]jiggaplz[/nom]To me this just seems like an un-sung exclusivity contract between intel and all major companies.[/citation]
Fixed that for you.
The problem is that they threatened to increase the cost of one of, if not the, most expensive parts of the computer if they shipped even a small quantity of a competitor's product while it was still competitive with Intel's product (six months is a long time in the hardware world). This is not inherently bad, and is quite common in the business world. The problem is that they threatened all major computer building companies with a similar, usually monetary, punishment.
Don't forget that most people buy their computers preassembled, and then consider the effect of all major companies not carrying competitive products without Intel processors. I know it's common on Tom's for people to build their own and what major companies carry is of little concern, but to most, that's just one step below building a DeLorean in your garage.
Imagine if Apple had licensed their iPhone to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T Mobile, and told the telcos that their cost per phone would increase by $50 or $100 if they released the Pre before next January. Do you think any of them would really risk having any chance of selling the hugely popular product on potentially selling something that's unproven in the marketplace?
Fixed that for you.
The problem is that they threatened to increase the cost of one of, if not the, most expensive parts of the computer if they shipped even a small quantity of a competitor's product while it was still competitive with Intel's product (six months is a long time in the hardware world). This is not inherently bad, and is quite common in the business world. The problem is that they threatened all major computer building companies with a similar, usually monetary, punishment.
Don't forget that most people buy their computers preassembled, and then consider the effect of all major companies not carrying competitive products without Intel processors. I know it's common on Tom's for people to build their own and what major companies carry is of little concern, but to most, that's just one step below building a DeLorean in your garage.
Imagine if Apple had licensed their iPhone to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T Mobile, and told the telcos that their cost per phone would increase by $50 or $100 if they released the Pre before next January. Do you think any of them would really risk having any chance of selling the hugely popular product on potentially selling something that's unproven in the marketplace?
I am surprised to see so many people that don't realize that EU has a comparable GDP with USA and it is pocket change for them.
Second this is a fine and the government keeps it just like any other fine. Based on this fine other parts involved can sue Intel and get money if it right. But I don't know of any example of a fine going directly to the persons that had to suffer from some illegal act.
Second this is a fine and the government keeps it just like any other fine. Based on this fine other parts involved can sue Intel and get money if it right. But I don't know of any example of a fine going directly to the persons that had to suffer from some illegal act.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]presidenteody[/nom]overpriced GPUs whose drivers are buggy and flawed.[/citation]Oh you must be thinking of Nvidia. If it wasn't for AMD/ATI, people would be paying $649 for a single chip GTX 280. Even AMD's future top-of-the-line two-chip 5870X2 monster won't be quite that much at launch (probably $599 or under). The single-chip 5870 will be on par or better than the current top-dog Nvidia two-chip card (GTX 295), and at a lower price - $399 or less.
Not to mention Nvidia's drivers aren't all that amazing anymore, and AMD's are actually pretty solid nowadays. Not to mention the laptop GPU debacle. Which is too bad, because I really liked Nvidia's 6 and 7/8 series GPUs, and generally had good luck with their GPUs, excepting a laptop IGP. But you're an Intel fanboy so you're probably rooting for Larrabumblebee.
Not to mention Nvidia's drivers aren't all that amazing anymore, and AMD's are actually pretty solid nowadays. Not to mention the laptop GPU debacle. Which is too bad, because I really liked Nvidia's 6 and 7/8 series GPUs, and generally had good luck with their GPUs, excepting a laptop IGP. But you're an Intel fanboy so you're probably rooting for Larrabumblebee.
[citation][nom]dtm4trix[/nom]I noticed that none of the EU's fine went to AMD? Why is that? And why was Intel not ordered to pay restitution to AMD in any form? To me it seems like the EU was the big benefactor of their own determination and not AMD. At least AMD will have this amunition when it takes Intel to court here in the US.[/citation]
AMD has not legal reason to sue Intel in the US. God, you really are a damn idiot.
AMD has not legal reason to sue Intel in the US. God, you really are a damn idiot.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 8,445
- 0
- 30,780
[citation][nom]dtm4trix[/nom]I noticed that none of the EU's fine went to AMD? Why is that? And why was Intel not ordered to pay restitution to AMD in any form? To me it seems like the EU was the big benefactor of their own determination and not AMD. At least AMD will have this amunition when it takes Intel to court here in the US.[/citation]
This lawsuit was never about Intel hurting AMD, it was about Intel hurting Europeans.
This is a lawsuit between the European Union and Intel. Like I said before, the EU is there to protect the rights of the European consumer. Intel harmed millions of European consumers by essentially removing a competitor's product from the market, forcing customers to buy Intel-only. The fact that that competitor was AMD has very little to do with it.
If AMD wants restitution/damages/whatever, it will have to file its own suit against Intel.
This lawsuit was never about Intel hurting AMD, it was about Intel hurting Europeans.
This is a lawsuit between the European Union and Intel. Like I said before, the EU is there to protect the rights of the European consumer. Intel harmed millions of European consumers by essentially removing a competitor's product from the market, forcing customers to buy Intel-only. The fact that that competitor was AMD has very little to do with it.
If AMD wants restitution/damages/whatever, it will have to file its own suit against Intel.
soo-nah-mee
Distinguished
- Feb 5, 2009
- 564
- 0
- 18,990
[citation][nom]saljr[/nom]I hope more people will support AMD because there is a article about AMD and its not good news. I only buy AMD and lets all support AMD. Because competitions is good for consumer's benefit. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-tick [...] GT,MYL,HTZ[/citation]
The thought of AMD going bankrupt made me vomit a little in my mouth. What happens if that happens and there is no longer a choice for consumers? Total lack of competition in the consumer CPU industry would be a disaster on many levels, but for system builders & hobbyists it would be a crushing blow. Not only do we pay the price that is demanded, but advancement of technology could slow down dramatically.
The thought of AMD going bankrupt made me vomit a little in my mouth. What happens if that happens and there is no longer a choice for consumers? Total lack of competition in the consumer CPU industry would be a disaster on many levels, but for system builders & hobbyists it would be a crushing blow. Not only do we pay the price that is demanded, but advancement of technology could slow down dramatically.
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]Inclined to go with AMD from now for all my customer builds, except the high end users that need the power of i7. Cant beat intel for pure performance though, irrelevant of business practices![/citation]
Intel was able to produce such a high end processor from the profits which rightfully should have belonged to AMD so its no surprise.
Was worried of buying a laptop with turion x2 but not any more. i'm
definitely going with it (if i buy a laptop) even if intel is better (costlier too).
Intel was able to produce such a high end processor from the profits which rightfully should have belonged to AMD so its no surprise.
Was worried of buying a laptop with turion x2 but not any more. i'm
definitely going with it (if i buy a laptop) even if intel is better (costlier too).
Major7up
Distinguished
- Aug 17, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,780
You are right but that does not mean that Intel has the right to manipulate the market in an illegal manner. If you read my above post then you saw that I prefer AMD but asked for people to remain objective. 'Better' is relative and I have no doubt that AMD would have done better in the market had Intel left it alone but that Intel would have still remained the biggest player by far. I have no allusions about AMD vs Intel but Intel deserved to be fined for their actions as would AMD should it be discovered that they engaged in similar practices.
changkong78
Distinguished
- Sep 8, 2009
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
1. EU does not go against other companies like Apple and whatnot, and only punishing M$ and Intel BECAUSE these companies use their LARGE MARKETSHARE to compete UNFAIRLY, according to EU LAWS. Americans should just shut up and stop whining about OTHER COUNTRIES' LAWS and GOVERNMENTS. Intel wants to do business in Europe, follow their law. If not, get out and give all EU marketshare to AMD.
2. This case was about the time period when AMD has better products, NOT CURRENTLY, but THEN during P4 vs A64.
3. The victim here IN THIS RULING are EU CITIZENS, not AMD. When AMD wants to sue, that's THEIR problem.
Please don't be idiots by not acknowledging these facts first BEFORE making stupid comments.
2. This case was about the time period when AMD has better products, NOT CURRENTLY, but THEN during P4 vs A64.
3. The victim here IN THIS RULING are EU CITIZENS, not AMD. When AMD wants to sue, that's THEIR problem.
Please don't be idiots by not acknowledging these facts first BEFORE making stupid comments.
mitch074
Splendid
- Mar 17, 2006
- 2,843
- 423
- 21,540
The deal here is not Intel vs. AMD. Like other commenters posted before, this is the EU against Intel for unfair business practices and monopoly abuse.
Case in point: Intel did wrong in 2002-2005, when AMD had the K7/K8 architectures out. At that time, Intel was going P4 full steam ahead - but the P4 sucked, wasn't adapted to the market (at the beginning, all Intel chipsets for P4 required RAMBUS memory), was a power hog (140W) requiring specific case adaptations by OEMs to run properly... In fact, enthusiasts at the time wanting to build a gaming rig with Intel had to spend on average $300 more than the same thing with AMD components, which were relying upon:
- 3rd-party chipsets (VIA KT266A and following were actually pretty nifty, mine certainly was)
- DDR RAM (K7s liked low latency more than throughput, and capacity-wise you could get 3 times more RAM with DDR than RAMBUS for the same price)
- rather low power envelopes (around 80W) and temperatures (cramped cases with low cooling were not a problem)
Without even mentioning stuff like specialized cooling or overclocking capabilities, why did OEMs not propose even a single AMD machine? Because if they did, then suddenly all their Intel machines would have cost $200 more apiece, at least - putting them at a disadvantage over their competitors. In short, if they proposed an AMD-based solution, they had to go fully AMD. Something AMD couldn't face due to a lack of production facilities, but also because their product portfolio wasn't as large as Intel's (in 2002, AMD didn't have a server processor).
Having secured a monopoly with OEMs in 2002, when AMD unveiled the Opteron (remember, the cheap, 64-bit, dual core capable, very good at maths, stable, with integrated RAM controller, power sipping architecture), no OEM agreed to sell them - and a definite winner in technology and price was blocked from the market.
All that customers could get were power-hungry, low performing, costly Intel-based solutions. Because when you deal with, say, a building equipped with a thousand computers, you can't go at the little mom'n'pop computer maker across the street nor can you build them yourself: that'd require assembly and testing that most companies don't have.
And since people go with what they use at work... "Intel Inside".
So, once AMD had a winning design, with advanced technical capabilities, low support and acquisition prices, while their main competitor had a sucking design (P4) that cost a lot (PSU, cooling, power, RAM at the beginning) and no replacement in sight (the Core2 wasn't even dreamed of yet, only a small team in Israel was still working on improving the 686 design), most customers couldn't get more powerful, less power-hungry parts.
At the same time, VIA got in trouble with Intel because Intel refused to renew their license to the socket and 386 instruction set for the very low power C3; uncertain about the product, and anyway blocked by Intel from building anything from these components (set-top boxes, cheap laptops - think netbooks), customers couldn't get very low power, very mobile computers.
So, yes, AMD was hurt; VIA was hurt; even Transmeta was hurt; but first and foremost EU customers were hurt. So a fine is fair. It will be distributed among EU states, which will indirectly redistribute it to their citizens through tax cuts or further infrastructure investments without tax raises. It may not be perfectly fair, but it's far more effective than deciding how much a single customer would have saved from getting a specific AMD-based product instead of the Intel product he/she got, but tracking them all down would be slow, costly, error-prone... Might as well add it to the community chest and be done with it, eh?
Now though, all x86 makers could indeed attack Intel on grounds of unfair competition; they may not win, but Intel is actually a convicted monopolist now.
A similar investigation could be opened in the US too; and in Japan; in Korea; India; South America countries etc. Depending on local laws, Intel may be in for a rough ride. With the Obama administration trying to clean up after GWB's terms and Microsoft peeved by the Vista Capable fiasco (caused by Intel, in a related situation too), there might just be enough for having Intel condemned in the US, on the same ground with a similar fine.
Case in point: Intel did wrong in 2002-2005, when AMD had the K7/K8 architectures out. At that time, Intel was going P4 full steam ahead - but the P4 sucked, wasn't adapted to the market (at the beginning, all Intel chipsets for P4 required RAMBUS memory), was a power hog (140W) requiring specific case adaptations by OEMs to run properly... In fact, enthusiasts at the time wanting to build a gaming rig with Intel had to spend on average $300 more than the same thing with AMD components, which were relying upon:
- 3rd-party chipsets (VIA KT266A and following were actually pretty nifty, mine certainly was)
- DDR RAM (K7s liked low latency more than throughput, and capacity-wise you could get 3 times more RAM with DDR than RAMBUS for the same price)
- rather low power envelopes (around 80W) and temperatures (cramped cases with low cooling were not a problem)
Without even mentioning stuff like specialized cooling or overclocking capabilities, why did OEMs not propose even a single AMD machine? Because if they did, then suddenly all their Intel machines would have cost $200 more apiece, at least - putting them at a disadvantage over their competitors. In short, if they proposed an AMD-based solution, they had to go fully AMD. Something AMD couldn't face due to a lack of production facilities, but also because their product portfolio wasn't as large as Intel's (in 2002, AMD didn't have a server processor).
Having secured a monopoly with OEMs in 2002, when AMD unveiled the Opteron (remember, the cheap, 64-bit, dual core capable, very good at maths, stable, with integrated RAM controller, power sipping architecture), no OEM agreed to sell them - and a definite winner in technology and price was blocked from the market.
All that customers could get were power-hungry, low performing, costly Intel-based solutions. Because when you deal with, say, a building equipped with a thousand computers, you can't go at the little mom'n'pop computer maker across the street nor can you build them yourself: that'd require assembly and testing that most companies don't have.
And since people go with what they use at work... "Intel Inside".
So, once AMD had a winning design, with advanced technical capabilities, low support and acquisition prices, while their main competitor had a sucking design (P4) that cost a lot (PSU, cooling, power, RAM at the beginning) and no replacement in sight (the Core2 wasn't even dreamed of yet, only a small team in Israel was still working on improving the 686 design), most customers couldn't get more powerful, less power-hungry parts.
At the same time, VIA got in trouble with Intel because Intel refused to renew their license to the socket and 386 instruction set for the very low power C3; uncertain about the product, and anyway blocked by Intel from building anything from these components (set-top boxes, cheap laptops - think netbooks), customers couldn't get very low power, very mobile computers.
So, yes, AMD was hurt; VIA was hurt; even Transmeta was hurt; but first and foremost EU customers were hurt. So a fine is fair. It will be distributed among EU states, which will indirectly redistribute it to their citizens through tax cuts or further infrastructure investments without tax raises. It may not be perfectly fair, but it's far more effective than deciding how much a single customer would have saved from getting a specific AMD-based product instead of the Intel product he/she got, but tracking them all down would be slow, costly, error-prone... Might as well add it to the community chest and be done with it, eh?
Now though, all x86 makers could indeed attack Intel on grounds of unfair competition; they may not win, but Intel is actually a convicted monopolist now.
A similar investigation could be opened in the US too; and in Japan; in Korea; India; South America countries etc. Depending on local laws, Intel may be in for a rough ride. With the Obama administration trying to clean up after GWB's terms and Microsoft peeved by the Vista Capable fiasco (caused by Intel, in a related situation too), there might just be enough for having Intel condemned in the US, on the same ground with a similar fine.
amnotanoobie
Distinguished
- Aug 27, 2006
- 1,493
- 0
- 19,360
So this is probably why intel sold a ton of Pentium 4 HT's and Pentium D's, when the Athlon 64 was cooler and consumed less electricity.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC- Started by Tommy Sawyer
- Replies: 4
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Latest posts
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC
- Latest: ohio_buckeye
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram