Who are the socialist idiots who are neg-voting all of these very valid comments?!
The fact of the matter is that the FTC does very little to actually help or safe-guard consumers anymore. Between this, and their recent warnings about adult content in online social environments (thank you, Captain Obvious), and their recent chastizing of the movie and game industry for supposedly targeting kids with too much violence and sex, what we are seeing is, yet another, bloated government agency who thinks they have a mandate from on high to dictate to us what is and is not socially acceptable. I think the FTC, as well as numerous other federal agencies, should be defunded and their bureaucrats made to find real jobs (if that is even possible given their lack of real-world experience).
[citation][nom]logitic[/nom]How did my comment get a Neg mark.[/citation]
[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]Who are the socialist idiots who are neg-voting all of these very valid comments?![/citation]I typically will give someone a thumb down for asking why others have given them a thumb down. How/why you got a thumb down is irrelevant to the article.
If Intel could post on these boards, I'm sure it would look like this:[citation][nom]Intel[/nom]Who the heck just gave us a thumb down!? We already paid AMD![/citation]
The money Intel gave AMD to settle out of court is nothing compared to the money AMD lost due to intels wrong doings. I am glad the FTC is getting involved, i hope they hit them with the biggest fine in America history. If you don't play fair you must be punished, now it's time for Intel to get their spanking.............
[citation][nom]logitic[/nom]How did my comment get a Neg mark. I thought is was rather accurate since FTC Dismisses Rambus Antitrust Case, and right after that they filled their own lawsuit. I think it's rather ironic![/citation]
It's because other people (like me) probably read "Is FTC the new RambO?" I didn't -1 as I re-read.
Hamid: What's that?
Rambo: It's blue light.
Hamid: What does it do?
Rambo: It turns blue.
[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]Why does it seem like everything "consumer advocacy" groups do has less to do with helping the consumer and more to do with milking money out of companies?[/citation]
To be only fair the FTC worked better before Obama appointed a former lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), by the name of Jon Leibowitz. Since then it has dropped the ball on a lot on principal arguments.
This has nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with the way Intel tries to steamroll competitors. People shouldn't be bitching about how the FTC is trying to "stifle the free market economy" or "socialize capitalism" or "blah blah blah". Duplicitous market practices are what got Intel into this mess in the first place, and there's plenty of evidence to show that.
I dunno anything was said about a "fine" per se in the suit - seems to me to be aimed more at preventing abusive practices by Intel, as in the form of a restraining order or some such. I guess this would formalize what Intel & AMD already agreed to in their own settlement, in which case I don't see anything wrong with it...
Intel's settlement with AMD doesn't protect them from other investigations and other legal issues already in progress, and it doesn't protect them from government scrutiny and accountability concerning their past monopoly abuses since Intel actually appears to have committed criminal offenses. It just means AMD won't be launching any more anti-competitive suits against them in the near future.
Consider the OJ Simpson case: he went to court twice over the murder of Jessica Simpson, once in a court of law and the other in civil court. In this case, Intel has settled with AMD on the civil side, but US and other governments can still hold them account for criminal activities.
The fact that they've settled privately with AMD doesn't exonerate them from the FTC's measures. It might, however, play into the final ruling, since Intel has tried to bury the hatchet.