Dell Received $6B Through Secret Intel Pact

[Nemesis 1]

Right, of course you aren't. So what exactly were you doing when you stated:

I bet Muslims and Jews and "Rome" (do you mean Romans, or the Catholic Church?) would find that statement rather "flamebait-y".

Just my 0.02. Far be it from me to wrestle with you, what with you being "an unconquerable opponent" and all that.

Really . You seem to be a believer . Which is a good thing . What I am saying is you should question your beliefs . Rome as I use it = HRCC

The 1st thing you need to do is research . Why was book of enouch removed from the Bible ? To understand you need to read the book .

Second What is the Word of God. Enouch holds the ans.

Third why is there a GOD and gods in the bible . God is unchanging but God of your Bible changes.

You need to know Enouch the only man to never die a mortal death of Soul (flesh). Lilith was only female to do the same.


I would wager you have never opened the jersulim bible. I have but thats not Bible I use . I use the African Bible Ethopian Bible.

 

[yh125d]

Nemesis is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, which is then wrapped in bacon, deep fried, slathered in butter, turkey, and more bacon, deep-fried again, and ready to cause heart failure in just about anyone that attempts to digest him thereafter :biggrin:

sig'd, "for the lulz"

 

[Fox5]

Really . You seem to be a believer . Which is a good thing . What I am saying is you should question your beliefs . Rome as I use it = HRCC

The 1st thing you need to do is research . Why was book of enouch removed from the Bible ? To understand you need to read the book .

Second What is the Word of God. Enouch holds the ans.

Third why is there a GOD and gods in the bible . God is unchanging but God of your Bible changes.

You need to know Enouch the only man to never die a mortal death of Soul (flesh). Lilith was only female to do the same.


I would wager you have never opened the jersulim bible. I have but thats not Bible I use . I use the African Bible Ethopian Bible.

So what part of that bible covers investments and trust busting?
Also, there were I believe a total of 4 books removed from the bible, make sure you take all of them to heart.

 

[Bryf50]

Pitful place . Buildings fall because planes. or fire were nowhere else in the world has this ever occurred .

You should be banned for that statement alone. Calling a place pitiful because 1000s of people died in a terrorist attack is heartless and wrong in so many ways.

 

[Phynaz]

Rome is a liar . Moslems are liars, Jews are liars. Last but not least All politicans are liars and lawyers. AMD is proven liar

Is that the ban stick I hear headed this way?

 

[Schmide]

Is that the ban stick I hear headed this way?

Needs one, been mucking up threads for the past couple days.

 

[Markfw]

The post's have been reported. Since I have posted in this thread, another mod will deal with this problem.

 

[Martimus]

You say my quote has no backing but your own post claims that it is fact that a government agency cares...so you, presumably, have proof validating this fact as being factual?

...Or are you perchance merely voicing your opinion as being counter to my stated opinion, neither of which are any more or less factual than the other and thus neither can be challenged as being provably wrong?

For the record, government agencies are not sentient beings, they are constructs of organizational charts within which individual humans attribute their employment with and somewhat align their daily activity agenda too, a government agency is without the capacity to invoke or project anthropomorphic emotional characteristics such as "caring" or "greed".

As such it is technically correct, in every sense of the literal application and interpretation of the terminology, to say that government agencies do not care about the consumer because a government agency is without the ability to care. Your lawnmower does not care about your yard, it is incapable of caring. Your government, a non-sentient entity, is incapable of caring about you.

You gave me a little chuckle with this analogy. My lawnmower is not composed of people, and thus does not have emotion. Government agencies, on the other hand, are composed of people who have the capacity of emotion.

I did use the term "in fact" as you deftly pointed out. I have my reasons for saying what I did, and I believe it is a fact. I will not go into my reasons here, as it would not be prudent to discuss such things on a public forum. That being said, I wrote the term "in fact" mostly as a freudian slip. It was meant to convey the oposite opinion was also plausable, and gave some reasoning to it. It was not meant to display the opposite view point as fact.

The reasoning for why the agency would not care about the people it is chartered to protect was not given in your statement, and I could not think of a plausible reason that the agency would not care that outweighs the reasons it would care. It exists for a reason, and it makes a lot more sense that the agency would be trying to do what is in the best interest of the general public than the corporations it is watching.

While bribery is still happening, it is far from prevalent in US government agencies, and the consequences for it are very severe. (I may supply examples if I find some time later in the day) Other than bribery, the other feasible reason to avoid punishing illegal anticompetitive behavior is because the personal relationship between the auditor and the company. In this case, that relationship is not nearly the same is it would be with other industries, as there is not a product that is being regluarly inspected by that auditor. In all likelyhood this is a one time audit (or maybe an infrequently occuring audit), which would make that relationship far less of an issue.

The reason they would work on fixing uncompetitive practices is because it is their job. The auditor would likely have more connection with the consumer than the company, since the company is doing these things at a macro level which often dehumanizes them to that auditor. Also those workers do a very boring job, that does not pay well, and many cope with that by thinking of how they are helping those they are charged to protect while doing their job. Even at the higher levels, this is often true - although perspective may not always be what you would like up there.

Anyway, I cannot keep going on about this, and I don't know how coherent my message on this subject is, but I hope you understand where I am coming from here. Also, I hope you are having a good day!

 

[JackMDS]

"Rome is a liar . Moslems are liars, Jews are liars. Last but not least All politicans are liars and lawyers. AMD is proven liar".

Let take this at face value.

Modern Math is a Lie (invented by Muslims).

The Theory of relativity is a Lie. (Albert Einstein).

Christianity is a Lie (Jesus was Jewish).

Many Intel executives are Jewish.

Example (Wiki), Andrew Stephen "Andy". He was one of the earliest employees of Intel Corporation and ultimately played key leadership roles in its success.

Early life and education
Grove was born to a middle-class Jewish family in Budapest, Hungary.

Substantial part of Intel development is Done in Israel.

As for the Ethiopian Bible, it is probably the closet one possible to the original Jewish Bible.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm

.
.

 

[Markfw]

Rome is a liar . Moslems are liars, Jews are liars. Last but not least All politicans are liars and lawyers. AMD is proven liar


----
What is wrong with you? Take this somewhere else.
AnandTech Administrator Evadman

Thanks Evadman !

 

[Seferio]

Back to the topic; even if AMD may have been capacity constrained, this covers a very LONG period of time where AMD was considering outsourcing some of its cpu fabrication. Outsourcing is always a possible avenue of increasing capacity for the short-term, but there probably was not enough excess demand (beyond what AMD itself could produce) to call for it possibly due to Intel's marketing money.

 

[Idontcare]

You gave me a little chuckle with this analogy. My lawnmower is not composed of people, and thus does not have emotion. Government agencies, on the other hand, are composed of people who have the capacity of emotion.

I absolutely would not hold it against you, nor would I argue with the statement, if your argument is that the people within the agency care about you.

My point was more just that people do things - the caring, the greeding, the killing, the bribing - not government agencies nor business entities.

Intel is not greedy, the people making decisions at Intel are greedy. The government doesn't care about consumers, the people who are in the government are supposed to care about consumers.

Now my reasoning for making it a point to imply that the people within the government don't care about the consumer is based on the fact that I know of no government agency that doesn't have a watchdog group on their ass precisely because simply having a charter doesn't seem to be enough to motivate people to align their daily work activities within the organization to that stated by the charter.

And why do lobbying groups exist? What is it our our caring government agencies that creates and enables the existing lobbyist-driven environment?

So to me the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact that watchdog groups need to exist and the fact that lobbyist groups do exist is all the evidence I really need to have to resign myself to the position of assuming my government could give a shit about me so long as I am paying my taxes.

Now I am absolutely positive that there are very good-minded and well-intentioned individuals working within the system for reasons that I would find to be noble if I ever became intimately knowledgeable of their detail...but I'm not counting on it is all I'm saying.

How long did this Intel/Dell deal go on and on and on before the government could be bothered to intercede on the consumers behalf and do something about it? WWII was started and finished in less time than it has taken the US government to get on the ball here. Same in the EU.

At any rate you can no doubt surmise I am really just venting here, my posts in this thread weren't drafted with the intent of standing up to much in the form of rigorous scrutiny. If you've read this post this far thanks for humoring me on my little rant.

I did use the term "in fact" as you deftly pointed out. I have my reasons for saying what I did, and I believe it is a fact. I will not go into my reasons here, as it would not be prudent to discuss such things on a public forum. That being said, I wrote the term "in fact" mostly as a freudian slip. It was meant to convey the oposite opinion was also plausable, and gave some reasoning to it. It was not meant to display the opposite view point as fact.

The reasoning for why the agency would not care about the people it is chartered to protect was not given in your statement, and I could not think of a plausible reason that the agency would not care that outweighs the reasons it would care. It exists for a reason, and it makes a lot more sense that the agency would be trying to do what is in the best interest of the general public than the corporations it is watching.

While bribery is still happening, it is far from prevalent in US government agencies, and the consequences for it are very severe. (I may supply examples if I find some time later in the day) Other than bribery, the other feasible reason to avoid punishing illegal anticompetitive behavior is because the personal relationship between the auditor and the company. In this case, that relationship is not nearly the same is it would be with other industries, as there is not a product that is being regluarly inspected by that auditor. In all likelyhood this is a one time audit (or maybe an infrequently occuring audit), which would make that relationship far less of an issue.

The reason they would work on fixing uncompetitive practices is because it is their job. The auditor would likely have more connection with the consumer than the company, since the company is doing these things at a macro level which often dehumanizes them to that auditor. Also those workers do a very boring job, that does not pay well, and many cope with that by thinking of how they are helping those they are charged to protect while doing their job. Even at the higher levels, this is often true - although perspective may not always be what you would like up there.

Anyway, I cannot keep going on about this, and I don't know how coherent my message on this subject is, but I hope you understand where I am coming from here. Also, I hope you are having a good day!

Your logic is impeccable, the message is quite coherent, I really have no retort against what you have said. I think I understand where you are coming from and from that point of view I agree with everything you are saying. My only grouse here, and I felt the same way about the student loan debacle and the Madoff scandel, is why the f*** did it take so long for the government to get around to showing us consumers how much they care. Why is everything measured in units of decades?

Unlike yesterday it turns out I had a rather good day today, I hope you had a good day too Martimus!

 

[palladium]

hmm so nemesis was banned afterall for his inappopriate statements.....

 

[Markfw]

hmm so nemesis was banned afterall for his inappopriate statements.....

Probably just a warning, or at most a short vacation.

 

[eternalone]

This is probably a major cause of AMD's current financial troubles.

From the time the Athlon 64 launched until the time the Core 2 Duo launched(2003-2006), AMD had both the best performance at every price point and also the performance crown. There really was no reason for anyone to go with a Pentium 4. Despite this, at least on the desktop side, Athlon 64 processors were never terribly popular. Now we know why.

Intel was paying Dell(and possibly other companies) not to use AMD until they could develop a processor capable of competing with the Athlon 64, while at the same time causing AMD to not make much return on the huge investment they put into the K8 despite it being the right product at the right time in every aspect. The lack of significant return throughout the entire K8 life cycle was probably what caused them to be so behind with the Phenom and Phenom II as well.

Thoughts?

This is right on point, sums up exactly what they were trying to do and they did it effectively. This story makes me mad, imagine the type of Cpus's we could have had now. This is some mafioso secret plot type money making muscle you out of the game type moves. Damn!! Very effective bussiness model if your Don Corleone.

 

[Arkaign]

Probably just a warning, or at most a short vacation.

lulz Nemesis is plain old batshat crazy. For real.

As for the 'secret' pact, hmm, wouldn't really be surprising. Corporations, as I've said before ad infinitum, will do whatever they can however they can to make as much $$ as possible. The preference is obviously to do it legally, but if the payoff is big enough, well it's open season.

 

[zmatt]

Back to the topic; even if AMD may have been capacity constrained, this covers a very LONG period of time where AMD was considering outsourcing some of its cpu fabrication. Outsourcing is always a possible avenue of increasing capacity for the short-term, but there probably was not enough excess demand (beyond what AMD itself could produce) to call for it possibly due to Intel's marketing money.

AMD sold their fabs for liquidity that they desperately needed. It helped in the short term, but not they have to pay a middle man to make their chips. That is a crutch that Intel does not have.

AMD has been competitive with Intel for most of it's history. They succeeded by making chips that were almost as fast or as fast as Intel's and under cutting them by a large margin. The Athlon (classic not 64), was really the first time AMD actually surpassed Intel, the Athlon XP and 64 followed the trend. AMD had an opportunity then to work on a next gen chip. The Athlon, although good for it's time did have some major flaws, which only became more pronounced later in it's life when AMD used it as a basis for their newer chips. One of the big ones is it's clock scalability, until the Phenom 2 you really couldn't get much extra GHZ out of an AMD, this wasn't a big problem because they outperformed Intel, but when Conroe hit the streets it became a different game. That is where AMD screwed up, instead of developing a new architecture they just shrunk K8 to 65nm and gave it DDR2 support. The chips were marginally faster than the s939 ones. And agena for lack of a better word was a fiasco. Intel took advantage of the situation and never looked back. They have spent a lot of money on Core and nehalem, much mroe than AMD could hoped too. They tried to play Intel's game, and they lost big time. You can't do that and survive. They should have stuck to their guns. AMD would be in a much different position today if they had.

As for the 'secret' pact, hmm, wouldn't really be surprising. Corporations, as I've said before ad infinitum, will do whatever they can however they can to make as much $$ as possible. The preference is obviously to do it legally, but if the payoff is big enough, well it's open season.

That is what risk analysis is for. If they think that the payoff is greater than the penalty if caught then they will do it regardless of the law. AMD isn't exactly rosy either. If they were in Intel's position NY would be suing them right now.

 

[jvroig]

AMD isn't exactly rosy either. If they were in Intel's position NY would be suing them right now.

If by that you mean "If AMD were the bigger company and used illegal tactics by using monopoly power to coerce vendors into offering only AMD products", then yes, NY would be suing them right now.

But if you only mean "If AMD were the big fish and Intel the small fish in the pond", then no, NY won't necessarily be suing them.

Far as I know, Intel isn't being sued for being big. Intel is being sued because of questionable tactics it has used.

 

[zmatt]

If by that you mean "If AMD were the bigger company and used illegal tactics by using monopoly power to coerce vendors into offering only AMD products", then yes, NY would be suing them right now.

But if you only mean "If AMD were the big fish and Intel the small fish in the pond", then no, NY won't necessarily be suing them.

Far as I know, Intel isn't being sued for being big. Intel is being sued because of questionable tactics it has used.

What I mean is, if AMD were the big fish they would be just as likely to do the same thing that Intel does. All corporations are the same. They try to make money in the most efficient way possible. Anyone who thinks that any particular company is "one fo the good guys" is wrong. Large organizations, be they governments, companies or anything else have agendas. And they will do whatever it takes to realize them. The agendas may not necessarily be malicious, or the means may seem benign. But it's only human nature to get what you want. If something one does happens to benifit you, that is only a side effect of their efforts.

 

[jvroig]

What I mean is, if AMD were the big fish they would be just as likely to do the same thing that Intel does. All corporations are the same. They try to make money in the most efficient way possible. Anyone who thinks that any particular company is "one fo the good guys" is wrong. Large organizations, be they governments, companies or anything else have agendas. And they will do whatever it takes to realize them. The agendas may not necessarily be malicious, or the means may seem benign. But it's only human nature to get what you want. If something one does happens to benifit you, that is only a side effect of their efforts.

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure you meant that, instead of "Those [politicians | greedy organizations] are just out for money, milking the big fish."

 

[Idontcare]

What I mean is, if AMD were the big fish they would be just as likely to do the same thing that Intel does. All corporations are the same. They try to make money in the most efficient way possible. Anyone who thinks that any particular company is "one fo the good guys" is wrong. Large organizations, be they governments, companies or anything else have agendas. And they will do whatever it takes to realize them. The agendas may not necessarily be malicious, or the means may seem benign. But it's only human nature to get what you want. If something one does happens to benifit you, that is only a side effect of their efforts.

This line of thinking is true, but it has its limits. I don't think it is fair, or logical, to assume that the only thing that separates EVERY executive decision maker from corruption/bribery/illegal activities is that their company is either above a certain marketshare size or below it.

Look at the guys that were running Enron, or the CEO at Tyco. These guys were criminals regardless the scale of the operation they were tasked with managing. All that changed with their position of power was the scale and magnitude of the crimes they committed.

Same with Madoff...not every money manager with $50B in funds is running a ponzi scheme just because they can.

I agree the system is setup such that decision makers are pressured to seek maximization of returns on shareholder equity, and that risk-management includes breaking the law if the penalties and fees from doing so are outweighed by the benefits...hell the shareholders have grounds to sue if the decision makers don't make those decisions as a violation of fiducial responsibilities (perverse, isn't it?).

But I don't see good people who do the right thing as a matter of their life's legacy and code resigning themselves to crime of the scale that Intel is accused of perpetrating as a matter of risk-management, just as the guys at Enron were not calculating the risks of getting caught versus the gains they thought they were making...criminals tend to not be like that, the first thing a criminal is assuming in making the crime is that they aren't likely to get caught so the risks are irrelevant.

 

[yh125d]

AMD sold their fabs for liquidity that they desperately needed. It helped in the short term, but not they have to pay a middle man to make their chips. That is a crutch that Intel does not have.

I'd add that although they sold their fabs for short term liquidity (they couldn't handle keeping fabs up to date AND designing new processors without slacking on one or both), they will in the near future be fabbed by GF, which is somewhat middleman, but not totally (the way it is now)

 

[zmatt]

This line of thinking is true, but it has its limits. I don't think it is fair, or logical, to assume that the only thing that separates EVERY executive decision maker from corruption/bribery/illegal activities is that their company is either above a certain marketshare size or below it.

Look at the guys that were running Enron, or the CEO at Tyco. These guys were criminals regardless the scale of the operation they were tasked with managing. All that changed with their position of power was the scale and magnitude of the crimes they committed.

Same with Madoff...not every money manager with $50B in funds is running a ponzi scheme just because they can.

I agree the system is setup such that decision makers are pressured to seek maximization of returns on shareholder equity, and that risk-management includes breaking the law if the penalties and fees from doing so are outweighed by the benefits...hell the shareholders have grounds to sue if the decision makers don't make those decisions as a violation of fiducial responsibilities (perverse, isn't it?).

But I don't see good people who do the right thing as a matter of their life's legacy and code resigning themselves to crime of the scale that Intel is accused of perpetrating as a matter of risk-management, just as the guys at Enron were not calculating the risks of getting caught versus the gains they thought they were making...criminals tend to not be like that, the first thing a criminal is assuming in making the crime is that they aren't likely to get caught so the risks are irrelevant.

I agree. I don't think every person or business is evil. But cheating is part of Human nature. And when you get down to the individual cases it becomes a matter of who is a "better" person. Madolf stole a lot of money. And Enron played the energy market in California. Both directly hurt consumers. I wouldn't rank Intel's deeds as badly as thoughs since the only people who got hurt was AMD, and not consumers. And at the time the people who really would have known enough to go AMD did, my self included.

I just don't think it's fair to think AMD is a bunch of good guys just because they have a smaller market share than Intel. Sure they are the under dogs, but since when is the favorite automatically a bad person and the under dog a good one? Knowing how competitive the cpu market is, I can see AMD doing the same thing. And we now know that AMD's CEO at the time doesn't have strong ethics anyway. He insider traded which is much easier than paying oems to not stock competitors products.

On a related note, I just thought of a defense Intel could use. What if they said that they "sponsored" the OEMs? Sponsorship essentially is the same, one group is payed money and supplied with parts from a company in agreement that they will use them and advertise the fact that they are using them. Those Intel logos are pretty common. What do you guys think? Is that a long shot? I have no legal knowledge whatsoever.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'm not sure if we can exactly say AMD is fabless. That was quite a move to get some infusion of capital without breaking the x86 license.

I would say atm AMD is the preferential partner of GF (even the ATI GPU should move into GF) and I wouldn't be too surprised that if in the future, if AMD improves its situation, GF being merged with AMD again.

Anyway, GF and AMD are quite bond together.

 

[Idontcare]

I agree. I don't think every person or business is evil. But cheating is part of Human nature. And when you get down to the individual cases it becomes a matter of who is a "better" person. Madolf stole a lot of money. And Enron played the energy market in California. Both directly hurt consumers. I wouldn't rank Intel's deeds as badly as thoughs since the only people who got hurt was AMD, and not consumers. And at the time the people who really would have known enough to go AMD did, my self included.

I just don't think it's fair to think AMD is a bunch of good guys just because they have a smaller market share than Intel. Sure they are the under dogs, but since when is the favorite automatically a bad person and the under dog a good one? Knowing how competitive the cpu market is, I can see AMD doing the same thing. And we now know that AMD's CEO at the time doesn't have strong ethics anyway. He insider traded which is much easier than paying oems to not stock competitors products.

Agreed.

We can never truly know how evil people are when they haven't been in a position of power that would have enabled them to be all they could be. So simply having no evidence to support a claim of being evil does not mean the same thing as being proof that someone is incapable of being evil. WWII showed us this. Ordinary citizens who might have otherwise lived out full lives doing nothing more evil or sinister than baking bread or some such were given opportunity to show just how evil they could become, and that resulted in the holocaust.

But not everyone partook, the opportunity to partake merely empowered folks with that predisposition to then express the evil-side of themselves they had been harboring up until then.

So we can never conclude that AMD would have taken the high road had they traded places with Intel, just as we can't conclude they would have fallen into the same trough of vice and anti-competitive antics. We can't judge on what could have been, we can only judge on what did happen.

On a related note, I just thought of a defense Intel could use. What if they said that they "sponsored" the OEMs? Sponsorship essentially is the same, one group is payed money and supplied with parts from a company in agreement that they will use them and advertise the fact that they are using them. Those Intel logos are pretty common. What do you guys think? Is that a long shot? I have no legal knowledge whatsoever.

Somebody here can correct me if I am wrong but I think the crux of the issue isn't whether or not Company A doing Activity B is illegal or anti-competitive (think about it, all marketing campaigns and advertisements are anti-competitive, so too is pricing)...but rather the issue is whether Company A has attained significant girth in their respective markets such that their doing Activity B suddenly becomes the tail wagging the dog in that marketspace.

An anology...stock trading and market manipulation. By definition every stock transaction you or I make, be it to buy stock or sell it, has the cause-and-effect of manipulating the price of that stock. But when we buy and sell stock it isn't considered price manipulation because the relative magnitude of our ability to influence price is quite limited owing to our own limited resources relative to the scale of the market itself. But if we were Bill Gates and we were throwing around billions of dollars at small-cap stocks in which we were buying and selling appreciable fractions of the float then our impact on the price would be viewed as unacceptable by governing bodies and we'd be regulated as price manipulators.

So as I see it this isn't a case where Intel has done something illegal in that other company's can do it and get away with it or that it just needs to be "spun" as an investment/incentive program with different nouns and adjectives employed in the boilerplate. Rather I see the issue here as being one of "is Intel so large that their activities, regardless the legality of them, invokes Anti-Trust regulations and anti-competitive reactions?".

Once you cross that threshold as a business where the government looks at you and concludes "you know AT&T, errr we mean Intel, even if you were to toe the line and do absolutely nothing in terms of diminishing competition you are just so damned big at this point that we simply have no choice but to bust you up and hope it resparks competitive activity in your market-space."