"Boohoo. We didn't screw AMD over when their processors were better than ours (aaah, the pre Core 2 Duo years).
It will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars WE could have extorted from them with a new netburst-like ripoff.
Competition is bad, the FTC sucks, the consumers' interest (and my houses in the Caribbean) are clearly better served by an Intel Monopoly."
Shame on you Intel, I hope they stick it to you. You were very very very bad by giving companys like Dell, Gateway, Acer millions of dollars if they choose to only use your processers in all the high end PC's. Not only did you violate federal laws, you made it nearly impossible for consumers to get the Processor they wanted with the PC they wanted which i think a Class Action Lawsuit should also be filed. When it comes to fair competition you are as bad as bad can be, i hope they punish you very very badly.........
It's a good thing Obama can't be held accountable for his choice of FTC chairman, or his aggressive stance on anti-trust legislation, or anything else for that matter, otherwise this might reflect poorly on him.
Intel is dead on. The FTC is trying to crate new laws with this lawsuit. But who can Intel turn to to defend them? This is what the Obama administration wants: More American companies becoming dependent upon the government.
but really, intel is the leading company in cpu's, it is a little hard on them to file a case after a case for them. I did not like the actions they did to AMD forcing oems to buy only their cpu's.
in my opinion, until they are not forcing others to do shit, they can innovate then sell their products at any price they want, it's not their fault, it's the others that cannot compete.
I hope ftc's case drops.
[citation][nom]sliem[/nom]There's no such thing as spellcheck in TH news.[/citation]
Then I recommend all Tom's writers to use Fire Fox which has a built in spell checker.
Also, though I think there is something to the claims, Intel is right in that the prices of processors are at an amazing low for amazing performance. In both the CPU and GPU world we have price to performance ratios totally unheard of in the PC industry.
Yeah, elel, Intel's prices aren't high because they're money-grubbing bastards, no sir, it's because they get fined when they break the law....
A price range of $250 to $1000 for what is an identical CPU with just a higher multiplier? Clearly the $250 part has a decent margin, what's the margin on the $1000 part, since we know it didn't cost any more to make?
I'm glad that Intel is getting paid back for what they have done to AMD and to the Consumers. I know Tom's get's a kick back from Intel. I read in AMD forum that Tom's banned some members on the subject: EU regulators levied a record 1.06 billion-euro ($1.55 billion) fine against Intel and ordered the company to stop using illegal rebates to thwart competitors.
You don't know squat about Tom, Tom doesn't even own this website anymore, it was sold over a year ago to a group of buisness people, so get your facts straight before you fill these blogs will lies and assumptions. And for the Record this website has always been fair to AMD, if people got banned it was probably because they were being like you on here spreading a bunch of lies.