• 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 Files Antitrust Complaint Against Intel in U.S. Federal District Court

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: RMSistight
Originally posted by: Pabster
Oh, get a grip.

Intel is a large corporation. AMD would do the same thing IF THEY COULD.

I'm not saying I support the tactics (assuming all these accusations are true) but criticizing a large company for using its power is pretty laughable.
Click to expand...

NO WAY. AMD would not engage in tactics like this.
Click to expand...



I hope you're kidding or else you take the prize for the biggest fanboy ever. Not just US champion, not Intercontinental champion, but World champion fanboy deluxe/extreme series version with HT and Hypertransport support plus SSE and MMX tech 64 bit enabled dual core fanboy champion (with liquid cooling of course).
 
Originally posted by: RMSistight
Originally posted by: Pabster
Oh, get a grip.

Intel is a large corporation. AMD would do the same thing IF THEY COULD.

I'm not saying I support the tactics (assuming all these accusations are true) but criticizing a large company for using its power is pretty laughable.
Click to expand...

NO WAY. AMD would not engage in tactics like this.
Click to expand...

You sir are a fvcking dumbass. AMD isn't run by a bunch of saints, they're just business men who are tired of getting their asses handed to them by Intel so they turn to the only backup, litigation.
 
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
Originally posted by: 2x
To be perfectly honest, even if AMD comes away from this with a blow-out victory over Intel, it will still not fix the oligopoly that exists in the CPU arena. Those of you who espouse "more competition" are correct. I wholeheartetly agree. I think, however, if this was Transmeta or IBM/Motorola, there would not be such interest or discussion, hence I really wonder if this is a "more competition is good" thing or is it just an "I hate Intel/love AMD" thing for many posting here.
Click to expand...

exactly....bunch of AMD fanboys in here tell me that I'm taking sides...

I'm not taking AMD or Intel's side, but I am saying AMD is a weak chump for suing.

as for how can AMD grow stronger? I don't know, I'm not a business man...

But I can say that if Intel is forcing Dell to use all Intel, why can't AMD do the same with say...HP? or Gateway? Dell won't be the biggest forever, they will fall just like the rest of them. Wouldn't it be nice if when Dell falls, you have the HPs and Gateways in your back pocket? Just a thought...

I'm not agreeing with what Intel does, but sometimes if you want to stand up to the big guy, you have to fight on their level.

-FP
Click to expand...


When there's a law named "antitrust regulation" there's nothing wrong with AMD suing. What are the uses of laws if they are not used to regulate injustice?

Base on your point, if AMD do the same to HP, would HP turn her table to AMD? I mean, Intel is still the bigger seller, if I am HP's boss, I would still go with intel despite AMD's offer.
 
486
Intel Pentium 133
Intel P3 650
AMD AthlonXP 1600+
Intel P4 2.4C (northwood owned back then, but runs hot as hell)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (backup)
Intel P-M 1.6 (laptop)

So I guess I have both, but did really love my AthlonXP, if it didn't I probably would have upgraded to Athlon64. But "go AMD!" for taking action.
 
What I'm hoping to see is Intel paying more attention to the technology. The Pentium line has been crap since the P3. In fact, I haven't bought a new Intel CPU since my Celeron 266.
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RMSistight
Originally posted by: Pabster
Oh, get a grip.

Intel is a large corporation. AMD would do the same thing IF THEY COULD.

I'm not saying I support the tactics (assuming all these accusations are true) but criticizing a large company for using its power is pretty laughable.
Click to expand...

NO WAY. AMD would not engage in tactics like this.
Click to expand...

You sir are a fvcking dumbass. AMD isn't run by a bunch of saints, they're just business men who are tired of getting their asses handed to them by Intel so they turn to the only backup, litigation.
Click to expand...

The point is, AMD has not yet done it whereas Intel has. That's the issue at hand. Who cares if AMD would if they could, if they ever do, they should be sued just as well. This case is about Intel breaking the law.
 
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
haha... they are about to get creamed by intel's lawyers...and since when does amd have any lawyers on it's payroll?
Click to expand...

Any smart company has lawyers on retainer.
 
Originally posted by: Continuity27
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: RMSistight
Originally posted by: Pabster
Oh, get a grip.

Intel is a large corporation. AMD would do the same thing IF THEY COULD.

I'm not saying I support the tactics (assuming all these accusations are true) but criticizing a large company for using its power is pretty laughable.
Click to expand...

NO WAY. AMD would not engage in tactics like this.
Click to expand...

You sir are a fvcking dumbass. AMD isn't run by a bunch of saints, they're just business men who are tired of getting their asses handed to them by Intel so they turn to the only backup, litigation.
Click to expand...

The point is, AMD has not yet done it whereas Intel has. That's the issue at hand. Who cares if AMD would if they could, if they ever do, they should be sued just as well. This case is about Intel breaking the law.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying the only reason AMD hasn't done it is because they dont have the market penetration and financial backing to do so, not because they are somehow morally more upright than Intel.
 
A64 3200+ Venice
P-M 1.6 (Turion didn't come out in time 🙁 )
A64 3000+
AXP 2500+
AXP 1800+
Tbird 900
P3 700
P3 450
P200 MMX
 
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: eelw
Should something actually come out of this antitrust suit, does any AMD fanboy really think they will be able to increase market share by more than 5-10%? AMD just doesn't have the FAB capacity to supply all the large OEMs. Intel may have to give up a few hundred million for this case, but in the long run, it's not going to make a difference. Intel will still own 80% of the market and I was surprised that they account for 90% of revenue. And this market will just grow even more now with Apple signing on with Intel.
Click to expand...

You are really quite ignorant if you don't think AMD couldn't drive Intel into the groud. It's *IS* possible. To discount the possible as impossible is flat out ignorant. Actually I'd questions your product loyalties after a statement like that.

5-10% market swing is nothing, just as GM.
Click to expand...

It would take years with AMD spending tons to drive Intel into the ground. It just isn't possible right now. Between not having the fabrication plants to keep up with the demand, ignorant Bosses still prefering Intel over AMD just because they've heard of the name, and the actual cost associated to grab market share, amongst other things, it's going to be a awhile.

The one thing I hope doesn't happen is that they settle in favor of AMD, and then AMD blows the chance of capitalizing on this opportunity. And that is a very real possibility.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention time frames, neither did the post I was responding to. Yes, of course it'd take time... eelw said it couldn't happen. Fvck, he doubted they would get a 5-10% bump.
 
Pabster and Freshprince = troll. End of story for them.


Asfornik. Yes, they were COERCED. READ the details of the complaints that AMD put out to the court. It's linked from the first page and it's a nice thick 48 page legal document. In there is pertains of witness. At one point Intel FORCED an OEM to fire an executive from his office just because he tried to enter into a contractual agreement with AMD for his company. As since, Intel has kept track of his butt like the mafia and any time he tries to get a job Intel in no uncertain terms makes the company he applies at know that hiring him will make them lose business. Then use that example of him as a THREAT to others.

Holy crap, that's frikking mafia tactics. Anyone who thinks about using AMD products in the OEM market has to worry about their being able to eat for the next few years or work at Burger King. Sure it may not exactly be a GUN to your head type coercion but it's damn near close. If given the choice between being filthy stinking rich, or living in the gutter for the rest of your life what the hell do you think most people are going to chose between?




Please read the examples pertained in that document. I'll list one here in an easier to understand terms and numbers.


Retailer has shelf space for the upcoming quarterly event, IE XMAS, to hold 200,000 units. They have a choice between Intel and AMD to stock that shelf space. The going rate is normally $15 per unit of shelf space. At the going rate, that is $3million bucks. Intel tells that retailer if they stock all 200,000 spots with Intel products then it will offer $20 per shelf space. That's $4 million. However, if they stock less then 140,000 Intel units, they'll only pay $10 per shelf space.

So why doesn't AMD sweep in and pay $15 on all shelf spots? Limited availability. Since they produce less the max then can do is 80,000 units. So to get even 60,000 units on the shelves, which is what Intel will "allow" before dropping it's price below $15, AMD needs to pay $31.6 bucks per shelf spot to compete with Intels offer of $4mill total. If AMD wants to sell all 80,000 units, it must be willing to pay almost $35 per shelf spot. Which it can not possibly do to make even on the $4 million offer by Intel. That means AMD is now stuck with 20,000 unsold units, has to pay more per unit to produce, AND has to pay more just to even sell the units they can or be stuck with ALL units not being sold.

Any ANY scenario above, Intel having all 200,000 spots, only 140,000 or 120,000 they STILL come out ahead and make tons of cash. Where as AMD loses in all scenarios. This isn't with one retailer but ALL them.

By losing so much all the time, AMD can't generate the revenue to grow bigger and produce enough units to match intels cost per unit and ability to throw kick backs and money around. If you don't make money because you can't sell your product or you are forced to sell at a LOSS, then you are screwed.

This is why AMD has to resort to the Law stepping in or they have no hope of ever getting a fair chance. If the trend continues without the law stepping in, there will be no AMD anymore at all. Which means everyone loses except Intel. Sorry, I don't like to lose so I don't want AMD to lose either.
 
Originally posted by: eelw
Should something actually come out of this antitrust suit, does any AMD fanboy really think they will be able to increase market share by more than 5-10%? AMD just doesn't have the FAB capacity to supply all the large OEMs. Intel may have to give up a few hundred million for this case, but in the long run, it's not going to make a difference. Intel will still own 80% of the market and I was surprised that they account for 90% of revenue. And this market will just grow even more now with Apple signing on with Intel.
Click to expand...

Intel fanboy!
 
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: eelw
Should something actually come out of this antitrust suit, does any AMD fanboy really think they will be able to increase market share by more than 5-10%? AMD just doesn't have the FAB capacity to supply all the large OEMs. Intel may have to give up a few hundred million for this case, but in the long run, it's not going to make a difference. Intel will still own 80% of the market and I was surprised that they account for 90% of revenue. And this market will just grow even more now with Apple signing on with Intel.
Click to expand...

Intel fanboy!
Click to expand...

Calling the kettle black are we???

Nice little editorial on fanboys Yes, this is a console based rant, but still applies to the PC wars.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Pabster and Freshprince = troll. End of story for them.
Click to expand...

POT->KETTLE->BLACK

If you can't have a discussion (even in OT!) without resorting to insults and name calling like a 5 year old...
 
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
Originally posted by: Continuity27
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
AMD has lost my respect....and makes me want to get rid of my A64...

what a joke, you can't beat intel so you pull the "antitrust" card...shame on you! :|
Click to expand...


FYI, antitrust is illegal. They're not just complaining, they're pointing out that Intel is breaking the law by using anticompetitive practices.
Click to expand...

Yeah seriously, if a person or company is BREAKING THE LAW, who gives a **** about "timing" or "card playing". Antitrust card in desperation? Listen buddy, if you break the law, you should get punished, they've been saying this for years but now have enough sources and proof to back it up. You don't just keep something like this silent, what kind of criminal are you?
Click to expand...

to me, it's about being a good businessman or a bad one...and AMD is being a bad one...

if Intel is so bad, why aren't all the senior execs behind bars? This is the same argument with M$

It's like all the weak minded businessman want to do is ask mommy and daddy to solve their problems for them...

if Intel plays dirty? play on their level, don't go crying to you mommy about it.

:|
Click to expand...
You obviously don't get it.

If Intel is breaking the law, something needs to be done about it. You do understand that monopolistic practices are illegal, right?
 
Eli, just face it, FreshPrince isn't hear to discuss. He's just here to say, over and over again, that AMD is a bunch of b|tches for having the nerve to sue someone who's doing something illegal.

Obviously, when someone does something illegal that makes his life more difficult, he won't be complaining about it to anybody. He's a real man.

And Pabster, the reason you get the troll title is because of the dual core AMD vs. Intel threads and the way you posted in them. I don't know you, so I can't say with absolute certainty whether you're a fanboy or not. But if I had to guess based on your posts, the speed with which you bash AMD, combined with an extreme reluctance to say anything negative about Intel, can only lead to one possible conclusion.
 
Any one the trolls actually read the complaint? I'm on page 32 right now, and so far its pretty damning stuff.
 
Originally posted by: timosyy
Any one the trolls actually read the complaint? I'm on page 32 right now, and so far its pretty damning stuff.
Click to expand...

The thing is, that doesn't matter. According to Pabster and FreshPrince:
- the lawsuit itself is stupid because AMD is acting like b|tches
- AMD would do it if they could, so they shouldn't sue

How can one argue with logic like that? 😕
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Never owned an AMD processor. Don't plan on it either.
Click to expand...

😕
Click to expand...

i owned 2 and i wont own one ever again, the chips arent bad other then they run terrible hot but i have a problem with all the substandard motherboards everyone loves soo much. both amds that i have had i threw out as i had more problems then successes with.
 
Originally posted by: Sqube
And Pabster, the reason you get the troll title is because of the dual core AMD vs. Intel threads and the way you posted in them. I don't know you, so I can't say with absolute certainty whether you're a fanboy or not. But if I had to guess based on your posts, the speed with which you bash AMD, combined with an extreme reluctance to say anything negative about Intel, can only lead to one possible conclusion.
Click to expand...

<sigh>

It is quite obvious that most of you either haven't been a member of AT (or weren't paying attention) for the last 4-odd years. Back in the day, I was in the opposite boat. Accused of being an "AMD troll" when I was so very critical of the Willamette-core P4s upon release. And I'm no less critical of them now. I had more heated debates with certain forum members then than I do now!

Also (just to go WAAAAAAY back in time) my first AMD processor was a freaking 286/12.
It was in a shiny new Northgate machine I bought. Most of you probably aren't old enough to even recall that processor. And I've used nearly every AMD core since in at least one of my personal machines at one time or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top