AMD Sues Intel

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
No, it isn't, because Intel isn't likely to lose this one. AMD really needs to pull their head out of their ass and learn how to run a business. Taking Intel to court is not the way to build market share. Regardless of whether they win or not, if the consumer doesn't know the product, they aren't going to buy it. Rather than wasting money in the courts they should be spending it on marketing and brand name development. The consumer doesn't care if you have the better product if they've never heard of you. If their is enough market demand for the product, OEM's will be forced to add AMD to their portfolio, Intel sweet deals or not. AMD has made no attempt at all to publically promote their products, so companies are not inclined to go against Intel who is their safest revenue source. That's AMD's fault, not Intel's. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
It will be all about the proof that they can present.

IBM could be an xfactor, since apple just dumped them for intel and they may have an axe to grind.
 

DanDaMan315

Golden Member
Oct 25, 2004
1,366
0
0
Originally posted by: Pariah
No, it isn't, because Intel isn't likely to lose this one. AMD really needs to pull their head out of their ass and learn how to run a business. Taking Intel to court is not the way to build market share. Regardless of whether they win or not, if the consumer doesn't know the product, they aren't going to buy it. Rather than wasting money in the courts they should be spending it on marketing and brand name development. The consumer doesn't care if you have the better product if they've never heard of you. If their is enough market demand for the product, OEM's will be forced to add AMD to their portfolio, Intel sweet deals or not. AMD has made no attempt at all to publically promote their products, so companies are not inclined to go against Intel who is their safest revenue source. That's AMD's fault, not Intel's. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

I think you have your head up your ass. It is quite difficult to penetrate a market where one company has a monopoly. The only thing that AMD can do to keep Intel from using illegal business practices is to go to the government. AMD is looking for a trust-buster.
 

Cheesetogo

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2005
3,823
10
81
Originally posted by: DanDaMan315
Originally posted by: Pariah
No, it isn't, because Intel isn't likely to lose this one. AMD really needs to pull their head out of their ass and learn how to run a business. Taking Intel to court is not the way to build market share. Regardless of whether they win or not, if the consumer doesn't know the product, they aren't going to buy it. Rather than wasting money in the courts they should be spending it on marketing and brand name development. The consumer doesn't care if you have the better product if they've never heard of you. If their is enough market demand for the product, OEM's will be forced to add AMD to their portfolio, Intel sweet deals or not. AMD has made no attempt at all to publically promote their products, so companies are not inclined to go against Intel who is their safest revenue source. That's AMD's fault, not Intel's. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

I think you have your head up your ass. It is quite difficult to penetrate a market where one company has a monopoly. The only thing that AMD can do to keep Intel from using illegal business practices is to go to the government. AMD is looking for a trust-buster.

He does have a point though, with amd not having any or many advertisments.
 

jimmyj68

Senior member
Mar 18, 2004
573
0
0
The next time you are in an eating establishment, not a fancy restaurant, ask why they either sell Pepsico products or Coca Cola Co. products, but not both. Ask them why - because they can't - whichever company gets to them first makes a deal that shuts out the competitor.
 

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81
Originally posted by: jimmyj68
The next time you are in an eating establishment, not a fancy restaurant, ask why they either sell Pepsico products or Coca Cola Co. products, but not both. Ask them why - because they can't - whichever company gets to them first makes a deal that shuts out the competitor.

Neither is close to having a monopoly on the beverage market. In 1997, coke had 44% and pepsi had 31% of the market share.
 

Cheesetogo

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2005
3,823
10
81
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: jimmyj68
The next time you are in an eating establishment, not a fancy restaurant, ask why they either sell Pepsico products or Coca Cola Co. products, but not both. Ask them why - because they can't - whichever company gets to them first makes a deal that shuts out the competitor.

Neither is close to having a monopoly on the beverage market. In 1997, coke had 44% and pepsi had 31% of the market share.

Can we get somthing more recent? That was 8 years ago.
 

govtcheez75

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2002
2,932
0
76
Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: jimmyj68
The next time you are in an eating establishment, not a fancy restaurant, ask why they either sell Pepsico products or Coca Cola Co. products, but not both. Ask them why - because they can't - whichever company gets to them first makes a deal that shuts out the competitor.

Neither is close to having a monopoly on the beverage market. In 1997, coke had 44% and pepsi had 31% of the market share.

Can we get somthing more recent? That was 8 years ago.

PDF Linky
...pretty much says: 44% for Coke/32% for Pepsi

 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
Cola wars vis-à-vis x86 and the illusion of choice. Or for that matter the two-party political system. Discuss. ;)
 

crimson117

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2001
2,094
0
76
Originally posted by: Pariah
No, it isn't, because Intel isn't likely to lose this one. AMD really needs to pull their head out of their ass and learn how to run a business. Taking Intel to court is not the way to build market share. Regardless of whether they win or not, if the consumer doesn't know the product, they aren't going to buy it. Rather than wasting money in the courts they should be spending it on marketing and brand name development. The consumer doesn't care if you have the better product if they've never heard of you. If their is enough market demand for the product, OEM's will be forced to add AMD to their portfolio, Intel sweet deals or not. AMD has made no attempt at all to publically promote their products, so companies are not inclined to go against Intel who is their safest revenue source. That's AMD's fault, not Intel's. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

Did you even read the complaint that AMD filed? THey listed many many legitimate reasons why they've been artificially and illegally prevented by intel from growing into a larger player in the market.
 

narcotic

Golden Member
Jul 15, 2004
1,236
0
0
To my understanding (which is not that great...), AMD has played this card at a very good timing.
AMD has got an edge over Intel, an edge which has been ever growing since Intel's fiasco with its horrible Prescott core. Intel is down on its knees (in boxing terms), and AMD is all set to serve its final blow.
I have no doubt, even after this round is over, Intel will still regin over this segment of the market, though I'm just as sure that AMD is gonna take a big byte out off Intel's a$$.
At the end, I think the market (us) will benefit, Intel will have to step up, and start making cpu's that can actually compete with AMD's, perhaps even lower a little their agressive pricing policy.
Down the road, if Intel is not going to make a dramatic change, this could mark the beginging of the end for them.
On the other hand, AMD might have just woke up a mad giant from its sleep...

Anyway, I'm gonna get some pop corn and watch this battle. Peace.
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Originally posted by: DanDaMan315
Originally posted by: Pariah
No, it isn't, because Intel isn't likely to lose this one. AMD really needs to pull their head out of their ass and learn how to run a business. Taking Intel to court is not the way to build market share. Regardless of whether they win or not, if the consumer doesn't know the product, they aren't going to buy it. Rather than wasting money in the courts they should be spending it on marketing and brand name development. The consumer doesn't care if you have the better product if they've never heard of you. If their is enough market demand for the product, OEM's will be forced to add AMD to their portfolio, Intel sweet deals or not. AMD has made no attempt at all to publically promote their products, so companies are not inclined to go against Intel who is their safest revenue source. That's AMD's fault, not Intel's. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

I think you have your head up your ass. It is quite difficult to penetrate a market where one company has a monopoly. The only thing that AMD can do to keep Intel from using illegal business practices is to go to the government. AMD is looking for a trust-buster.

He does have a point though, with amd not having any or many advertisments.



What good would advertising be in those markets where no builder will use their stuff...that is just stupid to cite that as any real reason.....

Aso remember most of those sweetheart deals are for PC makers to make commercials using Intel products and when they mention Intel inside they get marketing subsidies....For the small guy commercials by the pc makers about them would have really helped, but obviously the old "knee cappers" wouldn't have allowed that....

Ppl need the choice...
 

DrCrap

Senior member
Feb 14, 2005
238
0
0
so, when the trial will start, they will put a sign on the door of the court house saying "Intel inside"...? ;)
 

Continuity27

Senior member
May 26, 2005
516
0
0
Originally posted by: DrCrap
so, when the trial will start, they will put a sign on the door of the court house saying "Intel inside"...? ;)

:laugh: That's clever.

Probably won't be for a long time, maybe a year or so. :p
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Pariah
AMD better have something better than the Japanese ruling which was baffling. Ruling Intel was using monopolistic practices because they were offering rebates and discounts to OEM's in return for reduced usage of competitors products is illegal? Since when? Had Intel threatened companies to not use competitors' products without offering anything in return, or threatened to no longer sell them Intel products, that would have been monopolistic abuse. Handing out discounts for exclusivity (EA's deal with the NFL) or preferential treatment is one of the most commonly used legal business practices in the capitalistic world to gain/maintain market share.

We all know Intel is giving a sweatheart deal to Dell to keep them from using AMD or anyone else. Good luck to AMD trying to claim there is anything illegal about that in court.

Well, if they get Capellas to testify about Intel refusing to send Compaq Xeons unless they stopped/reduced their dealings with AMD, that could be pretty harmful to Intel.
Also, there were similar accusations made in the early SlotA days, with some companies(I remember Abit being one of them) were supposedly bullied into not making SlotA motherboards for some time.

Of course, whether this is true or not, I don't know/remember.
We'll see what happens.

Not sure what AMD could to do break the ice though, I don''t know what it's like in the US, but around here, Intel isn't the big name, Dell, HP, etc are.
People don't buy "Intel Inside", they buy Dell and HP.
I've seen exactly one Intel commercial on TV in my life, and a few ads in some tech mags prior to the launch of the P-II.
Come to think of it, I've seen more AMD ads than Intel, by a long shot.
 

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
RE:"The next time you are in an eating establishment, not a fancy restaurant, ask why they either sell Pepsico products or Coca Cola Co. products, but not both. Ask them why - because they can't - whichever company gets to them first makes a deal that shuts out the competitor.:

I was just in 7-11. They had both.