Intel Allegedly Playing Dirty To Undercut AMD’s Ryzen

[R0H1T]

If they were found guilty in other jurisdictions why is the lack of a US decision of more importance?

You're talking about MS or Intel? If it's the latter then the US being Intel's headquarters is one thing that comes to mind, not only that but the US AT agencies would've likely set a precedent whereby Intel wouldn't even dare doing anything like that in the future.

 

[Crumpet]

The problem is Intel still hasn't paid 1 of the 2 lawsuits, so what incentive have they got for playing fair when the last one still netted them a massive financial bonus

 

[bystander36]

Which sort of activities (not illegal by themselves) are you referring to?
Intel wasn't involved in an incentive program, it was a straight up bullying vendors and retail outlets by threatening to cut their supply.

Having an exclusive agreement with companies is not normally illegal. It is illegal if it is done at too large a scale.

 

[dahorns]

what would amd be guilty of? it was the plaintiff.

it's difficult for you to stand on semantics and technicalities (that was an administrative body in korea, not a court!) when you're butchering that one.

Per the terms of the settlement, the listed disputes included Intel's claims of patent violations by AMD/GF. Of course, guilt is not the appropriate legal term as that relates to criminal conduct. Rather, AMD could be said to be liable for the patent violation(s). And that potential liability may have dragged down the value of the claim against Intel--ergo one could read it as an implicit admission by AMD that Intel's claims had some merit (I'm not saying that's my reading).

The problem is Intel still hasn't paid 1 of the 2 lawsuits, so what incentive have they got for playing fair when the last one still netted them a massive financial bonus

To be clear, one action was by a regulatory body instituting a fine against Intel and the other was settlement between AMD and Intel. The difference is that the settlement is an agreement by the parties that isn't going to be subject to any appellate process. The fine however can be appealed, and that is what Intel has been doing. If it wins on appeal, the fine goes away (or the case has to be retried).

Also, for those not around during the last scandal, I would like to acquaint you with something I found interesting. The most prevalent dismissal of Intel's infamous actions, was that AMD did not have the ability to supply 50% of the CPU market anyways. As though that made their illegal practices ok. Or mitigated the financial damage it inflicted on them.

Good post and an interesting topic. In a lawsuit the plaintiff has to first prove (usually by preponderance of the evidence) that the defendant committed some conduct that violated a statutory or legal duty. Second, the plaintiff must prove (same standard) that the defendant's conduct actually caused injury. In this instance, the argument was made that even if Intel had done everything AMD accused of it doing, AMD was not damaged (at least not as much as AMD claimed) because it had no ability to produce and sell the additional chips even if Intel had done nothing.

Based on the standards for anti-trust violations and Intel's position in the market, I don't think Intel was going to have much success convincing a judge or jury that its conduct did not violate the statute. Rather, I'm betting the damages issue (and potentially the patent claim) was the primary reason the settlement came out at $1.25 billion or about 2% of AMD's alleged damages.

 

[foghorn67]

Check some of the other threads, then again when every poster wants hard evidence there isn't much to debate here since greedy corps hide their trail better now. People defended the contra revenues, because hey they got cheapo tablets/phones & they also defended Intel till the time they lost to EU or settled out of court (according to some the settlement was proof that Intel did no wrong) so this time will be no different. Short term gain for long term pain, the question that what Intel is doing is wrong is fundamentally wrong with (some) customer's benefiting at the cost of AMD. In other words if people are willing to turn a blind eye to what Intel's doing, they deserve what comes to pass, alas they'll drag other consumers down as well.

How can you not offer evidence and still call it "not much debate". What? That means you can make up anything, anything really.

 

[DaveSimmons]

How can you not offer evidence and still call it "not much debate". What? That means you can make up anything, anything really.

Exactly. I could say "everyone agrees" that AMD is considering using the blood of puppies and kittens in its next liquid cooling solution but that doesn't make it true. WCCFTech would probably publish it though.