Intel Allegedly Playing Dirty To Undercut AMD’s Ryzen

[bystander36]

It is illegal, its just that small companies cant do it in a meaningful way. Further, its also not worth the governments time to go after small illegal activity.

Not true at all. You have that one backwards. The government spends the majority of their time scrutinizing the little companies because they don't have teams of lawyers at their disposal. My parents and brothers own small businesses, and they are audited every 2 years by several agencies, and they never find anything, but that is where they make money, because the small business is an easy target.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Unbelievable seeing people trying to sweep this under the rug.

Yah, it's disgusting that people would let their biases influence their judgement enough to dismiss this a "business as usual".

 

[realibrad]

Do elaborate. Because it is difficult for me to envision how this backfires, outside of an outlandishly improbable scenario. Under what circumstances would Intel then be allowed to engage in illegal practices? You know, the very thing this tactic is intended to impede. And how could it financially damage AMD as badly as said practices, not only would, but have in the past?

I doubt it backfires in a big way.

Lets say that Intel has been sandbagging its products and does have something it can come out with. All that needs to be done is to point out how flawed AMD is/has been and then buy some time until it can get its product out.

or

People go too far with the Intel accusations and it starts to seem too pedantic and people tune out thinking its all exaggerated stuff. Call it the SJW effect. 🙂

 

[realibrad]

No, you are wrong. Anti-trust laws make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if the actor is of sufficient size/influence. Rebates aren't in and of themselves illegal. Exclusivity agreements are not in and of themselves illegal. They only become illegal (at least in the US) when the actor's influence and the nature of the agreements tend to create "substantial economic harm" and substantially lessen competition.

In fact, many exclusivity agreements are entirely reasonable and desirable in an economic system. Typically, such agreements will involve discounts in price or other compensation for the exclusive arrangement. The seller is willing to do this because it has a more secure source of revenue.

That would be incorrect. See Restrictive Practices.

Some practices are deemed by the courts to be so obviously detrimental that they are categorized as being automatically unlawful, or illegal per se. The simplest and central case of this is price fixing. This involves an agreement by businesses to set the price or consideration of a good or service which they buy or sell from others at a specific level. If the agreement is durable, the general term for these businesses is a cartel. It is irrelevant whether or not the businesses succeed in increasing their profits, or whether together they reach the level of having market power as might a monopoly. Such collusion is illegal per se.

So...

 

[richaron]

What they did is not illegal for most businesses, and they may not even have known it was not ok for them to do so at the time. There is nothing illegal about giving incentives to people to only use their chips. That's simply standard business practice. They were hit with the anti-trust lawsuit due to the near monopoly they have. Intel is working with a moving target. They don't know what will and won't be considered illegal until the courts rule.

Wow that's a extremely... useless?

I called you out saying Intel didn't break the law. But they did. They've broken the law multiple times and been convicted multiple times. You can use whatever strawman arguments or red herrings as you want, and you may even have a point if it was a different argument we were having.

But Intel broke the law and that's why I corrected you. If you keep responding to me I will keep replying with the same thing.

 

[realibrad]

Not true at all. You have that one backwards. The government spends the majority of their time scrutinizing the little companies because they don't have teams of lawyers at their disposal. My parents and brothers own small businesses, and they are audited every 2 years by several agencies, and they never find anything, but that is where they make money, because the small business is an easy target.

Lol, so just to be clear.

They only go after big companies, but they also mainly go after small companies.

 

[bystander36]

Lol, so just to be clear.

They only go after big companies, but they also mainly go after small companies.

The government focuses on the small companies, not that they don't ever look at big ones too. That said, anti-trust stuff is mostly all about large companies anyway, as it's almost exclusively about preventing monopolies.

 

[IEC]

Not true at all. You have that one backwards. The government spends the majority of their time scrutinizing the little companies because they don't have teams of lawyers at their disposal. My parents and brothers own small businesses, and they are audited every 2 years by several agencies, and they never find anything, but that is where they make money, because the small business is an easy target.

I've worked for several different multi-billion dollar corporations, including a few Fortune 500... one company I worked for had over a dozen attorneys IN HOUSE specifically because there were a ton of interactions with the government, particularly with a certain three-letter agency wanting to regulate particular software as a medical device.

Yeah, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[bystander36]

I've worked for several different multi-billion dollar corporations, including a few Fortune 500... one company I worked for had over a dozen attorneys IN HOUSE specifically because there were a ton of interactions with the government, particularly with a certain three-letter agency wanting to regulate particular software as a medical device.

Yeah, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I guess that would mean they really like going after everyone, equally.

 

[dahorns]

That would be incorrect. See Restrictive Practices.



So...

What I said is true. Yes, some conduct, like price-fixing, may be per se illegal. Rebates and exclusivity agreements are not price fixing and are not per se illegal.

Here is a simple example, mom-and-pop bakery enters into agreement to sell their muffins exclusively to local restaurant. No law makes that agreement illegal since it has no anti-competitive effect on the market for muffins. On the other hand, if giant-corporate bakery enters into deal with all grocery stores to only sell muffins from giant-corporate bakery, that obviously would have an anti-competitive effect on the market for muffins and would be actionable under US anti-trust laws.

I hate to appeal to authority, but I'm a lawyer. This is what I do. You are wrong here.

 

[realibrad]

What I said is true. Yes, some conduct, like price-fixing, may be per se illegal. Rebates and exclusivity agreements are not price fixing and are not per se illegal.

Here is a simple example, mom-and-pop bakery enters into agreement to sell their muffins exclusively to local restaurant. No law makes that agreement illegal since it has no anti-competitive effect on the market for muffins. On the other hand, if giant-corporate bakery enters into deal with all grocery stores to only sell muffins from giant-corporate bakery, that obviously would have an anti-competitive effect on the market for muffins and would be actionable under US anti-trust laws.

I hate to appeal to authority, but I'm a lawyer. This is what I do. You are wrong here.

Nope, you said this sir...

No, you are wrong. Anti-trust laws make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if the actor is of sufficient size/influence.

That statement is false. The size of the actor is not important in determining if the activity was illegal or legal.

Further, what Intel did was beyond exclusivity agreement, as it set quotas as to how much a company could buy of a competitor.

 

[dahorns]

Nope, you said this sir...

That statement is false. The size of the actor is not important in determining if the activity was illegal or legal.

My statement is true. The size/influence of the actor is a factor utilized to determine if the conduct could have substantially lessened competition. Price-fixing is a somewhat unique category in that, by definition, it involves the actions of multiple entities. An example would be all manufacturers of pens agreeing to price their products at $20 dollars a pen.

Further, what Intel did was beyond exclusivity agreement, as it set quotas as to how much a company could buy of a competitor.

That may be true. I really wasn't talking about Intel in particular, just the general legal principles.

 

[realibrad]

My statement is true. The size/influence of the actor is a factor utilized to determine if the conduct could have substantially lessened competition. Price-fixing is a somewhat unique category in that, by definition, it involves the actions of multiple entities. An example would be all manufacturers of pens agreeing to price their products at $20 dollars a pen.



That may be true. I really wasn't talking about Intel in particular, just the general legal principles.

No again. You said that their size and or impact is what makes it legal or illegal.

No, you are wrong. Anti-trust laws make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if the actor is of sufficient size/influence.

You literally said that small companies or small impacts are legal, and that is false. The impact could be zero and it still be illegal.

Read this over one more time.

Some practices are deemed by the courts to be so obviously detrimental that they are categorized as being automatically unlawful, or illegal per se. The simplest and central case of this is price fixing. This involves an agreement by businesses to set the price or consideration of a good or service which they buy or sell from others at a specific level. If the agreement is durable, the general term for these businesses is a cartel. It is irrelevant whether or not the businesses succeed in increasing their profits, or whether together they reach the level of having market poweras might a monopoly. Such collusion is illegal per se

You might be able to claim you misspoke but you made a false statement.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I'm most likely wrong here but curious: How is this different from when companies say "Look, I'm willing to give you a REALLY nice discount if you buy from me today"? Not defending Intel in the least. Just wondering why it's different.

It has been already stated but people need to understand this point with crystal clarity. Intel in the past prohibited OEMs from carrying any AMD products, or limited the volume they could buy from AMD, if either of the above was not followed then the OEM(s) would be black listed and could no longer compete because they would have to pay much higher prices. This basically ensured they had to comply with Intel's demands. This is highly illegal.

Btw, If they try them again, wouldn't it be infringement of settlement from 2009?

Yes it would, the question is does Intel see the risk as being worth it financially. Recall that Intel started their "incentive" program because they were extremely concerned AMD would reach a "critical mass", meaning they would sell in numbers that not only made their products well known and accepted by consumers, but would give them the capital to make class leading products going forward.

This was something Intel could not allow to happen, and so far they have succeeded.

 

[dahorns]

No again. You said that their size and or impact is what makes it legal or illegal.

I feel like there is a miscommunication here. Yes, some conduct like price-fixing is per se ("per se" means by itself) illegal. Anti-trust laws like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act also make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if certain conditions are met. Examples of conduct that is generally legal include exclusivity agreements and rebates. It is only when that conduct can be said to have a substantial negative impact on competition that it becomes illegal. Although the size of the actor isn't an element of law, it is probative in determining whether the conduct can be said to have a substantial negative impact on competition. Again, the example of a mom-and-pop bakery is illustrative. That bakery is simply too small to have any substantial negative impact on the market for muffins.

You might be able to claim you misspoke but you made a false statement.

I was attempting to correct the incorrect assertion that things like exclusivity agreements are always illegal. My statement that "Anti-trust laws make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if the actor is of sufficient size/influence" is correct. I should have clarified that anti-trust laws also presume some conduct illegal regardless of the actual effect on the market place. Both are true, it just depends on what conduct you're talking about.

 

[tamz_msc]

Jut putting it out there to clear up the terminology being used:
Intel was found liable not guilty, which is the distinction we must make discussing civil cases. You can't rule for a conviction against a company.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

The government focuses on the small companies, not that they don't ever look at big ones too. That said, anti-trust stuff is mostly all about large companies anyway, as it's almost exclusively about preventing monopolies.

Maybe ryour parents are up to some shady stuff? I know plenty of small business owners, and thry don't get extensively and repeatedly audited.

 

[Teizo]

Unsubstantiated rumors from WCCFTech being taken as truth. Welcome to the new world of drama driven fake news.

 

[realibrad]

I feel like there is a miscommunication here. Yes, some conduct like price-fixing is per se ("per se" means by itself) illegal. Anti-trust laws like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act also make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if certain conditions are met. Examples of conduct that is generally legal include exclusivity agreements and rebates. It is only when that conduct can be said to have a substantial negative impact on competition that it becomes illegal. Although the size of the actor isn't an element of law, it is probative in determining whether the conduct can be said to have a substantial negative impact on competition. Again, the example of a mom-and-pop bakery is illustrative. That bakery is simply too small to have any substantial negative impact on the market for muffins.



I was attempting to correct the incorrect assertion that things like exclusivity agreements are always illegal. My statement that "Anti-trust laws make illegal conduct that is otherwise legal if the actor is of sufficient size/influence" is correct. I should have clarified that anti-trust laws also presume some conduct illegal regardless of the actual effect on the market place. Both are true, it just depends on what conduct you're talking about.

So Clayton Act. That kinda invalidates everything you are now arguing. Its purpose was to prevent monopolies by trying to prevent activity that would lead to monopolistic situations. Again, it has nothing to do with market impact or the company's size. It specifically addresses the thing you are talking about.

 

[realibrad]

Unsubstantiated rumors from WCCFTech being taken as truth. Welcome to the new world of drama driven fake news.

What person has taken them as truth?

 

[Teizo]

What person has taken them as truth?

Putting allegedly and ????? does not get you off the hook so easily in my book. Clickbait driven fake news in a deliberate attempt to steer narratives is the name of the game these days, and personally I think it is pathetic.

 

[R0H1T]

Jut putting it out there to clear up the terminology being used:
Intel was found liable not guilty, which is the distinction we must make discussing civil cases. You can't rule for a conviction against a company.

Well technically they were found guilty & liable In Europe, in the US they settled out of court with AMD on the condition of not admitting the various charges in the matter, also IIRC they were found guilty in Japan, Korea et al.

 

[Phynaz]

This post over at overclockers.co.uk has some sound explanations about why exactly Intel lost in court last time : https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30545759/

When has Intel lost in court?

 

[Phynaz]

WHAT?!????... They were convicted in multiple international courts for intentionally ruining AMD's PC business

Please link to these court rulings!

 

[IEC]

Intel settled the case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...o-pay-1.25bn-to-settle-disputes-with-AMD.html

Computer chip maker Intel is to pay rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) $1.25bn (£755m) to put a stop to a number of long-running legal disputes on competition and patent issues around the world.

Intel Fined $1.45 Billion by EU for Antitrust Violations:
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Fined-145-Billion-EU-Antitrust-Violations

Intel Fights Record $1.2 Billion Antitrust Fine at Top EU Court:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rd-1-2-billion-antitrust-fine-at-top-eu-court

Of course, they're still trying to get out of paying what they agreed to.
Settling for that amount of money is pretty much an implicit admission of unfair business practices, even if it does not mean an admission of guilt in the legal sense.