Nvidia CEO Celebrates FTC's Case Against Intel

[IzzyCraft]

Ofc he does who benefits the most from this Nvidia 😀 esp when the ruling on this can be used aganist AMD

 

[azcoyote]

Can't stand that douche. He has been so unprofessional and snide in the past. Nvidia is behind the game right now. ATI is where it is at. We'll see if that hold in 12 months.

 

[daekar]

[citation][nom]cscott_it[/nom]Daekar, they are referencing leveraging tactics to OEMs, Server Builders, etc. (Dell, HP, Asus, etc.) And offering them steep discounts IF they did not buy X amount of other product and only make X product available through certain small channels. (For example, I believe there was something with HP and only being able to use AMD chips in servers for 'X' sized business otherwise they wouldn't be able to offer such steep rebates and price reductions).[/citation]
Well, making exclusivity agreements is OK, ie "We'll give you a discount, but only if you agree to use only our processors." I don't see what's wrong with that, and it's common in every industry. If you're correct in your summary of the issue, that's what they've done, with some specifics thrown in: "We'll give you this price if you don't buy from AMD." It comes to the same thing. If they go after Intel for this, then they must logically prosecute every company, large or small, that puts exclusivity provisions in their contracts. Are there any flaws in that logic?

 

[Guest]

I hate intel, I hope they burn in h**l

 

[-Fran-]

That's the way it's meant to be played for a fool!

Cheers!

 

[aceright]

[citation][nom]daekar[/nom]Well, making exclusivity agreements is OK, ie "We'll give you a discount, but only if you agree to use only our processors." I don't see what's wrong with that, and it's common in every industry. If you're correct in your summary of the issue, that's what they've done, with some specifics thrown in: "We'll give you this price if you don't buy from AMD." It comes to the same thing. If they go after Intel for this, then they must logically prosecute every company, large or small, that puts exclusivity provisions in their contracts. Are there any flaws in that logic?[/citation]
I work for a business that does exactly this. If you push a certain volume, or sign exclusive partnerships, etc you get additional rebates. This is pretty much standard in every business.

What is really being said by these commisions is that MS and Intel et al must stop competing in the traditional manner. This is why Apple avoids litigation over browsers, media players, etc. They aren't big enough to warrant "concern" and can make these deals until they are "too big" at which point it "hurts" the competition. Really a gray area.

 

[bfstev]

@Daekar: Exclusivity agreemnets are not that cut and dry. They are barely legal at best. Especially when you make one with everyone and when you do it to force a competitor out of the market. Its called unfair competion, google it. Here's the wiki article for all its good for...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_competition

 

[aceright]

[citation][nom]bfstev[/nom]@Daekar: Exclusivity agreemnets are not that cut and dry. They are barely legal at best. Especially when you make one with everyone and when you do it to force a competitor out of the market. Its called unfair competion, google it. Here's the wiki article for all its good for...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_competition[/citation]
The exclusive agreement mentioned in your link is the hoarding of raw resources preventing competition, e.g. contracting with all the wafer manaufacturers for exclusive access to wafers for CPU production could be an invalid exclusive relationship. That isn't the same as an exclusive contract or partnership. If it were all sorts of forms of licensing (think everything from NFL to NASCAR) would be invalid. IP holders have a right to market and partner as they see fit. If Intel doesn't approve of a companies quality they can choose not to sell to them directly. If they want to create a partnership to push a product into unique markets and take an invested interest they can. It is called business and it isn't a gray area of "barely legal at best." Preditory pricing, dumping, and arrangements specifically designed to block a competitor out from competing aren't legal--but e.g. Dell giving AMD a "contract" for all XPS for a design cycle is not an invalid exclusive agreement. The preditory part would be if AMD went to the top 5 PC manufacturers and told them they would only get rebates if they blacklisted Intel; and if they didn't comply the competition would have a price advantage. THAT is the issue people think Intel has been doing to AMD. This an monopoly compliance laws are the big issues Intel is up against; Everything else is money grabbing or soundbites that appeal to the masses but fail to understand the market.

 

[vaskodogama]

naughty NV. aren't you?

 

[retirepresident]

Intel Boy's just face it Intel screw the consumers and Intel boys to with high cpu prices. Hey, The proof is in the pudding!!!!!!!!!!

 

[matt87_50]

STFU nvidia! when was the last time you ever innovated!? " oh, our graphics cards are being delayed because we are struggling with how to increment the numbers in their name..."

GPUs haven't changed since they came out, its just now consumers are moving towards that type of architecture for general computing, you make it sound like the other way round, that GPUs are evolving to do general computing tasks. making a fixed function pipeline programmable isn't innovative...

Larrabee was the alot more innovative...

And WTF, werent YOU inflating prices and not changing anything back when you had a strangle hold on ATI? like back in the 9 series?

so just STFU.

I think my i7 920 was perfectly good value.

 

[that_aznpride101]

[citation]What exactly is the FTC charging Intel with, and on what grounds? I'd say that nothing I've heard so far - which is why I'm asking - sets off any "evil corporation" bells in my head. Look at the their processors and SSDs. Are they the best performing pieces of kit out there? Yep. So why shouldn't they command a price premium? It's not the government's job to make sure that no company gets too far ahead of any others. Besides, having Intel products priced high means more room for other companies in the lower price-tiers, where consumers (at least) seem to be putting their cash these days. Zipzoomflyhigh, do you have a link to any further information about this "stealing, bribing, and copyright infringement?" I know they made that big settlement with AMD, and that's that. No double-jeopardy, that issue is solved, so the FTC shouldn't try to go after them for that. Would love more information...[/citation]

[citation][nom]daekar[/nom]Well, making exclusivity agreements is OK, ie "We'll give you a discount, but only if you agree to use only our processors." I don't see what's wrong with that, and it's common in every industry. If you're correct in your summary of the issue, that's what they've done, with some specifics thrown in: "We'll give you this price if you don't buy from AMD." It comes to the same thing. If they go after Intel for this, then they must logically prosecute every company, large or small, that puts exclusivity provisions in their contracts. Are there any flaws in that logic?[/citation]

Do some research on your own first before you come up with an opinion on something you haven't even read yet.

The FTC Sues Intel Over CPU & GPU Competition

 

[rambo117]

Im looking forward to this Intel's Insides cartoon >: )

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]Glorian[/nom]Nice, another line of dialogue has been added.Intel: Ok AMD we are sorry, you can have some pie.AMD: Thank you.FTC: CAN I HAS PIE TOO?!Nvidia: Pssss, hey FTC. Get a big piece so I can have some too.[/citation]
I thought the post was funny in the original article. =D

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]I agree with sstym, BUT, this does seem a little hypocritical coming from the same company that decided, if you're using a competitor's GPU, "No PhysX for YOU!"[/citation]

Not only that but kept SLI exclusive to their chipsets because they knew that without it they would have no real reason for people to buy nV chipsets....

[citation][nom]zipzoomflyhigh[/nom]Stealing, bribing and copyright infringement will NOT be tolerated. Glad to hear the Gov has taken action against such shady business practices as big Intel.[/citation]

You still on the whole Transmeta thing? The one where Transmeta was also found to have infringed on Intel patents?

BTW, the Government saying bribing is not to be tolerated is a bit two sided since most of them have taken bribes....

 

[sykozis]

This is all just becoming a joke. FTC is going after Intel....nVidia's recent actions have been very similar....yet nVidia is still babbling on... The industry as a whole is better off not having nForce chipsets. From my experience, most of the nForce chipsets were shitty as best and unusable at worst. I've used nForce2, 3, 4 and 5....all suffered from problems in 1 form or another. Some companies even marketed nForce405 and 430 "chipsets" as nForce 5xx "chipsets".... My nForce570SLI had worse performance with SLI than it did with a single card, had unstable drivers than nVidia never updated, and had a faulty memory controller....Thanks nVidia!!! Loved reinstalling Windows every 2-3 weeks because it got corrupted by a chunk of shit immitating a chipset...

 

[Guest]

Hyprocritical...

PhysX...

Also, a while back, you had to use their crappy nForce chipset to get SLI. They didn't enforce this with inovation, bat rather encryption.

 

[deanjo]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]Hyprocritical...PhysX...Also, a while back, you had to use their crappy nForce chipset to get SLI. They didn't enforce this with inovation, bat rather encryption.[/citation]


Funny and yet I don't see me able to run Crossfire on a Nvidia based board. AMD and Nvidia are doing the exact same game.