• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD File Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Pabster
I'd be interested to see how your opinion (and probably many others here) would differ if the current scenario were reversed. For example, if Intel had recently released a "killer" chip that was faster than anything AMD had. Then what would be the excuse?

As I mentioned elsewhere (this thread is everywhere 😀) this is a clear-cut case of "If you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em" and ultimately we all know AMD is David and Intel is Goliath. In the story books David manages to overcome Goliath but this is business.
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for finally admitting AMD chips are currently better than what Intel has to offer.

Secondly, Intel broke the law, leave politics out of this. This is just like FreshPrince in the other thread talking about AMD supposedly "crying to mommy". How can you believe in playground politics? No, don't snitch, snitching is bad, no matter what happens to the victim (in this case the distributors and consumers). That's a stupid belief right there...
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Even worse, AMD kicked themselves in the nuts with the K6....the one meant to compete with the PII. The chip, especially the K6-2, was a decent enough chip, but the chipsets were all immature which gave AMD an aweful name. Popping up in the mainstream market around the same time as Cyrix was bad fortune since they looked, together, like some cheap knock-off immitators. Even now, you have some non-techies or newbs touting Intel's superior "stability".
Click to expand...

The K6, K6-2, and K6-III used the same socket and chipsets as the Pentium, some of which were rock-solid stability wise. When the K6 was introduced, the bus it was using had already been used by the Pentium for 5 years, and the chipsets were extremely mature. My K6-166 ran at 250MHz on an Asus P2T4 (Intel 430HX chipset, with the system bus overclocked to 83MHz on a board that officially supported only 66MHz), and was rock-solid stable at 225MHz. The early Athlon chipsets, particularly those from VIA were the ones with stability issues. K6-2/K6-III brought along some new chipsets to support 100MHz bus and some of those weren't so great, my ALi Alladin V chipset mobo ran pretty well (400MHz K6-III at 440MHz, unstable at 475Mhz).
 
# Forcing major customers to accept exclusive deals,
# Withholding rebates and marketing subsidies as a means of punishing customers who buy more than prescribed quantities of processors from AMD,
# Threatening retaliation against customers doing business with AMD,
# Establishing quotas keeping retailers from selling the computers they want, and
# Forcing PC makers to boycott AMD product launches.

That is the just of the complaint...

If they can prove any of that then that is serious....If they have representatives of the companies going to testify to that then that is definitely badnews for INtel....Personally I am apalled being a person who lives right next to INtel and wants Intel to be strong to help the economy. All my neighbors work at INtel. I honestly did not know it was as much as described here....

I can definitely see where this has been a large monetary hit to AMD...which for the morons above is why they cat deliver the volume and the pricing to compete with this coercion and collusion....
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TO the morons barking about capitalism, why??? It would be very entrepreneurial for me to set up a glass shop and then go around at night breaking every window in the city. It's called UNETHICAL. NOw a few i supposed misguided souls around 100 years ago thought that concentrating market power throw strong arm tactics is BAD For the market. And practically every nation has adopted anti trust statutes.... so maybe some educated people tend to think such behavior is bad?
Click to expand...

Nobody said Capitalism was kind and gentle.

If I make a really REALLY good cookie, then I have done something tremendous that is worth being rewarded for (In a Capitalist society that is). I can choose to not leverage my cookies reputation and let it sit on a rack with 15 other brands, or I can only sell to places who will cave to my demands. I want each of them to carry only my cookies and to buy in very large quantities. They, the free businesses, can choose to give into my conditions of partnership or they can choose not to. It depends on how VALUEABLE my cookies are to them. Maybe my cookies taste awful, but I've spent tens of thousands on advertising all over town to establish a name.....it doesn't matter. If carrying only my cookies is a safer bet than carrying several other brands and not carrying mine, then they'll take that route. They aren't conspiring against other cookie makers, they're just doing what makes the most sense to their bottom line. Sure I'm being a ruthless bastard and not many people including the store owners would like me very much, but that's my choice to conduct business thusly.

See? Everybody with choices to make.....THAT is freaking Capitalism, junior.
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference between leveraging and anti-competitive behaviour...

1. Intel is a monopoly because they are the ONLY manufacturer capable of supplying the entire market. If Intel stopped selling CPUs, the rest of the manufacturers could only produce less than half of the worldwide market demand. Remember that monopoly doesn't mean that you have NO competitors...MS was declared a Monopoly with a smaller marketshare than Intel maintains.
2. By threatening to withhold shipments of needed supplies that would be unavailable from any other source (regardless of quality), Intel is mis-using their monopoly.
3. Intel has constantly used strongarm tactics to shut OFF markets (i.e. Japan) from AMD in order to maintain their monopoly. This is not leveraging, it is the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour.

Legal definition of Monopoly:"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition"

80% would (I'm sure) be considered "nearly all", and Intel certainly meets the "barrier of entry" description.
 
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TO the morons barking about capitalism, why??? It would be very entrepreneurial for me to set up a glass shop and then go around at night breaking every window in the city. It's called UNETHICAL. NOw a few i supposed misguided souls around 100 years ago thought that concentrating market power throw strong arm tactics is BAD For the market. And practically every nation has adopted anti trust statutes.... so maybe some educated people tend to think such behavior is bad?
Click to expand...

Nobody said Capitalism was kind and gentle.

If I make a really REALLY good cookie, then I have done something tremendous that is worth being rewarded for (In a Capitalist society that is). I can choose to not leverage my cookies reputation and let it sit on a rack with 15 other brands, or I can only sell to places who will cave to my demands. I want each of them to carry only my cookies and to buy in very large quantities. They, the free businesses, can choose to give into my conditions of partnership or they can choose not to. It depends on how VALUEABLE my cookies are to them. Maybe my cookies taste awful, but I've spent tens of thousands on advertising all over town to establish a name.....it doesn't matter. If carrying only my cookies is a safer bet than carrying several other brands and not carrying mine, then they'll take that route. They aren't conspiring against other cookie makers, they're just doing what makes the most sense to their bottom line. Sure I'm being a ruthless bastard and not many people including the store owners would like me very much, but that's my choice to conduct business thusly.

See? Everybody with choices to make.....THAT is freaking Capitalism, junior.
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference between leveraging and anti-competitive behaviour...

1. Intel is a monopoly because they are the ONLY manufacturer capable of supplying the entire market. If Intel stopped selling CPUs, the rest of the manufacturers could only produce less than half of the worldwide market demand. Remember that monopoly doesn't mean that you have NO competitors...MS was declared a Monopoly with a smaller marketshare than Intel maintains.
2. By threatening to withhold shipments of needed supplies that would be unavailable from any other source (regardless of quality), Intel is mis-using their monopoly.
3. Intel has constantly used strongarm tactics to shut OFF markets (i.e. Japan) from AMD in order to maintain their monopoly. This is not leveraging, it is the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour.

Legal definition of Monopoly:"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition"

80% would (I'm sure) be considered "nearly all", and Intel certainly meets the "barrier of entry" description.
Click to expand...


right on!! PLus this is why I said in the differeing markets of cpu sales this cuold be different...Intel controls I though 90% of the desktop x86 market so that is evevn worse....
 
Originally posted by: Continuity27
Secondly, Intel broke the law, leave politics out of this. This is just like FreshPrince in the other thread talking about AMD supposedly "crying to mommy". How can you believe in playground politics? No, don't snitch, snitching is bad, no matter what happens to the victim (in this case the distributors and consumers). That's a stupid belief right there...
Click to expand...

And you have hard evidence to back it up?

Don't believe everything you read online.

And I'm sorry, but Capitalism != Playground Politics.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Continuity27
Secondly, Intel broke the law, leave politics out of this. This is just like FreshPrince in the other thread talking about AMD supposedly "crying to mommy". How can you believe in playground politics? No, don't snitch, snitching is bad, no matter what happens to the victim (in this case the distributors and consumers). That's a stupid belief right there...
Click to expand...

And you have hard evidence to back it up?

Don't believe everything you read online.

And I'm sorry, but Capitalism != Playground Politics.
Click to expand...

Did you read the entire press release, because I did. If ANY of the information in that is well founded, Intel has been carrying on some incredibly illegal behavior. I think it will be hard to find people to testify against Intel, and if it can be proved, the punishment will most likely be a slap on the wrist, but I for one will think twice about buying another Intel processor until this has been cleared up (proven wrong or been compensated for).

 
Originally posted by: ender11122
Did you read the entire press release, because I did. If ANY of the information in that is well founded, Intel has been carrying on some incredibly illegal behavior. I think it will be hard to find people to testify against Intel, and if it can be proved, the punishment will most likely be a slap on the wrist, but I for one will think twice about buying another Intel processor until this has been cleared up (proven wrong or been compensated for).
Click to expand...

Not to be (too) cynical, but do you really trust PRESS RELEASES?

Did you expect AMD to file a big suit and then have nothing to claim? Come on.

Like I said, don't believe everything you read (or hear, for that matter).
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Duvie
I think what Intel is doing is shameful and quite sad...quite sad becuase they know they have inferior products in the desktop solutions, dual core solutions, and business/ server solutions and they are scared....This is the type of desperate tactics an inferior product company trying to live off of past performances does...
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see how your opinion (and probably many others here) would differ if the current scenario were reversed. For example, if Intel had recently released a "killer" chip that was faster than anything AMD had. Then what would be the excuse?

As I mentioned elsewhere (this thread is everywhere 😀) this is a clear-cut case of "If you can't beat 'em, just sue 'em" and ultimately we all know AMD is David and Intel is Goliath. In the story books David manages to overcome Goliath but this is business.
Click to expand...

In addition to what Duvie said in rebuttal, where do you get "if you can;t beat'em, sue em, " as AMD is beating intel in every sector at the moment. And again, forget situation revesed, etc... If they can prove that Intel even did ONE of those things, they are dead wrong, and it illegal. Stop trying to defend them. fanboyism at its height.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: ender11122
Did you read the entire press release, because I did. If ANY of the information in that is well founded, Intel has been carrying on some incredibly illegal behavior. I think it will be hard to find people to testify against Intel, and if it can be proved, the punishment will most likely be a slap on the wrist, but I for one will think twice about buying another Intel processor until this has been cleared up (proven wrong or been compensated for).
Click to expand...

Not to be (too) cynical, but do you really trust PRESS RELEASES?

Did you expect AMD to file a big suit and then have nothing to claim? Come on.

Like I said, don't believe everything you read (or hear, for that matter).
Click to expand...

I appreciate your cynicism Pabster, and I agree that normally we should take this with a HUGE grain of salt...but these practises have been an open secret for MANY years. I personally know of several incedences where Intel has threatened and cajoled to prevent AMD from being sold...
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
In addition to what Duvie said in rebuttal, where do you get "if you can;t beat'em, sue em, " as AMD is beating intel in every sector at the moment. And again, forget situation revesed, etc... If they can prove that Intel even did ONE of those things, they are dead wrong, and it illegal. Stop trying to defend them. fanboyism at its height.
Click to expand...

You quite obviously don't understand the jest of this entire thing.

No one is debating processor PERFORMANCE here. When I speak of Intel "beating" AMD (or vice-versa) I'm speaking in relation to market share. Sales.

So anotherwards, AMD is not beating Intel "in every sector". Intel owns AMD in terms of market share, sales, revenue, cash reserves, capacity, the list goes on and on. But that isn't the point here, is it?

If you'd quit being such a fanboy in your own right, you might be able to see through the haze.
 
The 48-page suit expands those charges, alleging that Intel "has resorted to old-fashioned threats, intimidation and knee capping" around the world to sell its microprocessors, the brain of every computer.

Comparing its rival to the Standard Oil monopoly of the 19th Century, AMD charged that Intel coerced 38 companies, including such household names as Dell Inc. (Research), Sony Corp. (Research) and Gateway Inc. (Research), as it took control of 90 percent of the revenue generated by microprocessor sales.

"Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation -- and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market," AMD Chief Executive Hector Ruiz said in a statement Tuesday.

Intel defended its business, saying in a statement that it's sales practices "are both fair and consistent with federal anti-trust laws."

Charles Diamond, an attorney with O'Melveny & Myers LLP who led AMD's investigation, said in an interview that AMD could seek "hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars" in damages and hopes to have the case before a jury by the end of 2006.

Diamond said he would be open to settlement discussions. He declined to say whether any talks have yet taken place related to the suit, which paints a dark picture of cutthroat practices in the chip business.
Click to expand...

Got that from CNN's website, here is the link http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/28/technology/amd_intel.reut/index.htm

I dont think AMD is going to let Intel go quietly or without throwing some mud in their collective faces, and if this does go before a jury, well when a jury hears that Intel has 90% of the microprocessor revunue sales, they'll be thinking monopoly in a hurry....at least one would think that.

 
Originally posted by: Viditor
I appreciate your cynicism Pabster, and I agree that normally we should take this with a HUGE grain of salt...but these practises have been an open secret for MANY years. I personally know of several incedences where Intel has threatened and cajoled to prevent AMD from being sold...
Click to expand...

Remember, this isn't the first time AMD has made a complaint against Intel. Hardly.

And I agree 100%. If this case makes it to court and the evidence is there to back up the claims AMD has presented, Intel should be punished appropriately.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: ender11122
Did you read the entire press release, because I did. If ANY of the information in that is well founded, Intel has been carrying on some incredibly illegal behavior. I think it will be hard to find people to testify against Intel, and if it can be proved, the punishment will most likely be a slap on the wrist, but I for one will think twice about buying another Intel processor until this has been cleared up (proven wrong or been compensated for).
Click to expand...

Not to be (too) cynical, but do you really trust PRESS RELEASES?

Did you expect AMD to file a big suit and then have nothing to claim? Come on.

Like I said, don't believe everything you read (or hear, for that matter).
Click to expand...

Considering this backs up claims made by japanese companies in the Fair trade trial back in march (that was obvioulsy proven enough to be believed to be true there) it is not far fetch to believe now....

I agree dont always believe what you read on the NET but genius press releases are also in newspapers, and released on TV...This is not a blog, buddy!!! This is the same journalism reporting you see in every other medium....
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Markfw900
In addition to what Duvie said in rebuttal, where do you get "if you can;t beat'em, sue em, " as AMD is beating intel in every sector at the moment. And again, forget situation revesed, etc... If they can prove that Intel even did ONE of those things, they are dead wrong, and it illegal. Stop trying to defend them. fanboyism at its height.
Click to expand...

You quite obviously don't understand the jest of this entire thing.

No one is debating processor PERFORMANCE here. When I speak of Intel "beating" AMD (or vice-versa) I'm speaking in relation to market share. Sales.

So anotherwards, AMD is not beating Intel "in every sector". Intel owns AMD in terms of market share, sales, revenue, cash reserves, capacity, the list goes on and on. But that isn't the point here, is it?

If you'd quit being such a fanboy in your own right, you might be able to see through the haze.
Click to expand...

Well, I now understand that part of your comment, however MY biggest problem is your attitude, and assuming AMD is suing since they are the little guy. AGAIN:
If they can prove that Intel even did ONE of those things, they are dead wrong, and it illegal.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Well, I now understand that part of your comment, however MY biggest problem is your attitude, and assuming AMD is suing since they are the little guy. AGAIN:
If they can prove that Intel even did ONE of those things, they are dead wrong, and it illegal.
Click to expand...

I agree unequivocally.
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Considering this backs up claims made by japanese companies in the Fair trade trial back in march (that was obvioulsy proven enough to be believed to be true there) it is not far fetch to believe now....
Click to expand...

Except that the burden of proof in Japan doesn't seem nearly as high as what will be required for the case here.

I agree dont always believe what you read on the NET but genius press releases are also in newspapers, and released on TV...This is not a blog, buddy!!! This is the same journalism reporting you see in every other medium....
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's the problem. Mainstream media sucks the big one. Hell, even the White House puts out fake press releases 😀
 
My own opinion is that Intel will settle this quickly...
I expect that AMD would settle for no money and Intel cancelling their rebate programs, just as they did in Japan...
 
At least one person here has presented a grave misunderstanding of what capitalism is.
Capitalism is not the absence of law. Capitalism does not work without regulation by law. Nor can a market economy exist without protection by law.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Duvie
Considering this backs up claims made by japanese companies in the Fair trade trial back in march (that was obvioulsy proven enough to be believed to be true there) it is not far fetch to believe now....
Click to expand...

Except that the burden of proof in Japan doesn't seem nearly as high as what will be required for the case here.

I agree dont always believe what you read on the NET but genius press releases are also in newspapers, and released on TV...This is not a blog, buddy!!! This is the same journalism reporting you see in every other medium....
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's the problem. Mainstream media sucks the big one. Hell, even the White House puts out fake press releases 😀
Click to expand...


How do you know it is or was??? As far as I know they had executives testify there as well....You either believe someone or not....The burden of proof if I remember the wording of the ruling was they found several instances...

This is not death penaly case...there is not reasonable doubt...it is preponderance of the evidence I believe as it is civil cases...remember OJ found not guilt in criminal case due to jury citing reasonable doubt...in civil case for damages for WRONGFUL DEATH (pretty much stating he was responsible for her death) he lost to Nicoles parents with a MAJORITY of the jurors believing it...

They are better off going jury then a judge trial..The ppl love this little guy stuff....


This is not a FAKE press prelease and I am sure they have sworn depositions from the ppl cited in the official claim long before they would level a claim like this.
 
Originally posted by: Viditor
My own opinion is that Intel will settle this quickly...
I expect that AMD would settle for no money and Intel cancelling their rebate programs, just as they did in Japan...
Click to expand...


I agree except in this case they may want agreements to other tactics ceasing as well......
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Viditor
My own opinion is that Intel will settle this quickly...
I expect that AMD would settle for no money and Intel cancelling their rebate programs, just as they did in Japan...
Click to expand...


I agree except in this case they may want agreements to other tactics ceasing as well......
Click to expand...

I think AMD is not going to let Intel off the hook, they want to compete and they want a bigger market share, I quote from that CNN article
Charles Diamond, an attorney with O'Melveny & Myers LLP who led AMD's investigation, said in an interview that AMD could seek "hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars" in damages and hopes to have the case before a jury by the end of 2006.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Viditor
My own opinion is that Intel will settle this quickly...
I expect that AMD would settle for no money and Intel cancelling their rebate programs, just as they did in Japan...
Click to expand...


I agree except in this case they may want agreements to other tactics ceasing as well......
Click to expand...

I think AMD is not going to let Intel off the hook, they want to compete and they want a bigger market share, I quote from that CNN article
Charles Diamond, an attorney with O'Melveny & Myers LLP who led AMD's investigation, said in an interview that AMD could seek "hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars" in damages and hopes to have the case before a jury by the end of 2006.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is another possibility if Intel decides not to settle quickly...
However, if they do settle quickly (just before the busiest time of year I might add), AMD could potentially make up the difference without the time and costs of going to court. This would have the advantage of an assured outcome as well...
IMHO, if Intel stops their rebate programs right away (within 1-2 months), AMD has a product line that is ripe to take advantage of that almost immediately!
 
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Viditor
My own opinion is that Intel will settle this quickly...
I expect that AMD would settle for no money and Intel cancelling their rebate programs, just as they did in Japan...
Click to expand...


I agree except in this case they may want agreements to other tactics ceasing as well......
Click to expand...

I think AMD is not going to let Intel off the hook, they want to compete and they want a bigger market share, I quote from that CNN article
Charles Diamond, an attorney with O'Melveny & Myers LLP who led AMD's investigation, said in an interview that AMD could seek "hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars" in damages and hopes to have the case before a jury by the end of 2006.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is another possibility if Intel decides not to settle quickly...
However, if they do settle quickly (just before the busiest time of year I might add), AMD could potentially make up the difference without the time and costs of going to court. This would have the advantage of an assured outcome as well...
IMHO, if Intel stops their rebate programs right away (within 1-2 months), AMD has a product line that is ripe to take advantage of that almost immediately!
Click to expand...



Very good point Viditor, I hadnt even thought of that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top