• 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.

Intel Allegedly Playing Dirty To Undercut AMD’s Ryzen

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Three problems with all of these appeals to the 2005 lawsuit are:

- That was 12 years ago
- intel was convicted and forced to pay over a billion dollars.
- If they engaged in the same behavior again the penalties might be much steeper for a repeat offender even during a Trump administration.

Companies change. Microsoft engaged in similar abusive behavior last century but now is more open, standard-compliant and willing to work with other operating systems.

I'm hoping for Ryzen to succeed, but I'm not going to blindly accept wild rumors of new secret deals with OEMs and vendors.
 
DaveSimmons said:
Companies change
Click to expand...

When they are forced too, or have no reason anymore to do what they did for an extra buck before, it can truly change. Of course without the original variables influencing their decisions.

But greed never truly changes. Greed always has selfishness as its best friend.
 
Phynaz said:
Here, from AMD's own website.
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-press-release-2009nov12.aspx
https://www.amd.com/Documents/AMD_Intel_Settlement_Agreement_-_Full.pdf

It doesn't matter if AMD was the plaintiff, they still settled. Facts are your friend.

I have to ask, are you in the US?
Click to expand...
Texas. And quotes are your friend. You said they both settled implying both were guilty. That's not applicable when one of the parties settling is the PLAINTIFF, correct? There is zero implied guilt whereas when a defendant settles there is some level of implied guilt, though not automatically proven.
 
swilli89 said:
Texas. And quotes are your friend. You said they both settled implying both were guilty. That's not applicable when one of the parties settling is the PLAINTIFF, correct? There is zero implied guilt whereas when a defendant settles there is some level of implied guilt, though not automatically proven.
Click to expand...
I thought it was already established that settling is nothing more than to reach an agreement between both parties. It has nothing to do with who is paying who, or who is guilty. Intel and AMD settled out of court.
 
bystander36 said:
I thought it was already established that settling is nothing more than to reach an agreement between both parties. It has nothing to do with who is paying who, or who is guilty. Intel and AMD settled out of court.
Click to expand...
Yeah your right at the very bottom of the matter.

Anyhow, I think we live in a day and age very different than that of circa 2004. Consumers are much better informed, and information leaks out more than ever so it would be more challenging for Intel to try to do this again, which I'm sure they know. Back in those days we had at most 10 or so well known review sites whereas today there are dozens in just about every major country. The truth will get out about Ryzen, whether it is bad or good, people will see. As for OEMs its a bit harder to know if anything like this is happening but we will see.. I have no idea where our current administration stands on anti-trusts.
 
swilli89 said:
Yeah your right at the very bottom of the matter.

Anyhow, I think we live in a day and age very different than that of circa 2004. Consumers are much better informed, and information leaks out more than ever so it would be more challenging for Intel to try to do this again, which I'm sure they know. Back in those days we had at most 10 or so well known review sites whereas today there are dozens in just about every major country. The truth will get out about Ryzen, whether it is bad or good, people will see. As for OEMs its a bit harder to know if anything like this is happening but we will see.. I have no idea where our current administration stands on anti-trusts.
Click to expand...
I think Intel just wants to make sure that they get to clear up any possible oversights in a review, or maybe try to add some dialog to show their bright sides. I least that is what I believe atm. The future could change that. I do, however, think Intel will push to the boundaries of what anti-trust law will allow. I don't doubt they have incentive programs, they'll just try not to go too far with them.

It's a shame I had to upgrade 1.5 years ago, but I still think did ok.
 
I cant believe there are still people out there doubting intel was guilty of pretty much killing AMD with anti-competitive measures last decade. This truly seems impossible to me after all the court cases both local and international regarding this issue. I guess some fanboys have some very very strong blinders.

Onto the topic at hand of this thread until this is proven by a more reputable source than the one provided i do not believe this is happening again.... YET. I fully believe that its possible though but we need to wait for some real confirmed sources to say as much and slow down on the calls to tar and feather intel just yet.
 
Rifter said:
I cant believe there are still people out there doubting intel was guilty of pretty much killing AMD with anti-competitive measures last decade. This truly seems impossible to me after all the court cases both local and international regarding this issue. I guess some fanboys have some very very strong blinders.

Onto the topic at hand of this thread until this is proven by a more reputable source than the one provided i do not believe this is happening again.... YET. I fully believe that its possible though but we need to wait for some real confirmed sources to say as much and slow down on the calls to tar and feather intel just yet.
Click to expand...
If you think I'm saying they were not liable, or anyone else in this thread, I think you are misunderstanding the arguments. What was said was many of these activities are not illegal by themselves. It's the size of Intel that made many of them illegal. There may have also been some straight illegal activities too, but creating incentive programs is not normally an illegal activity. Attacking Intel for making deals like this isn't completely fair either, as most (maybe not all) would normally be legal if they were AMD, as an example.

Anyway, Intel was found liable, they mostly know what they can't do now, but anti-trust isn't as straight forward as most types of law.
 
bystander36 said:
There is nothing to sweep under the rug. The article mentioned that Intel contacted them, before the review was released, just as they and every other tech company usually does. They then went on to paint the possibility of them doing what they did when they were found guilty of anti-trust practices.

Nothing has been done, yet.
Click to expand...
Source that it was the same as every other tech company? Remember this isn't an Intel review that they want input into. It's an AMD review.
 
3DVagabond said:
Source that it was the same as every other tech company? Remember this isn't an Intel review that they want input into. It's an AMD review.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? They themselves said it is quite common.

http://wccftech.com/intel-playing-dirty-undercut-amd-ryzen/

It’s not uncustomary for companies to reach out to the press when they’re in the process of reviewing a competing product. Usually to lay out their response, tell their side of the story or to announce price cuts. We have contacted a few members of the press and asked if they received an email from Intel that falls outside of the above context and they’ve all so far denied receiving such an email.

[UPDATED – Feb 26 2017 7:16 PM ET]

The editors-in-chief of two of America’s top PC hardware and technology publications have confirmed to Wccftech that they have indeed been approached by Intel regarding upcoming Ryzen reviews, although both said that it was business as usual. Affirming that Intel’s response following AMD’s Ryzen announcement was what they had expected it to be, they added that nothing was particularly unusual about the emails they received from Intel.
Click to expand...
 
dahorns said:
My point is simple: (1) not every exclusivity arrangement is illegal,
Click to expand...
If they were, wouldn't Coke and Pepsi be sued repeatedly? I mean, most of the time, restaurants have some sort of exclusive deal with one or the other supplier for fountain beverages. OTOH, many small pizza shops have coolers provided and stocked by both. (Sometimes?) Most convenience stores stock both.

If these exclusivity arrangements were per se illegal, (of which I agree with dahorns here, I don't think that they necessarily are in all cases), then how are Pepsi and Coke still in business?
 
3DVagabond said:
Source that it was the same as every other tech company? Remember this isn't an Intel review that they want input into. It's an AMD review.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We all know the long history of intel's dirty and illegal market tactics. Even having the slightest bit of muckery in independent reviews raises serious suspicions and concerns. They have no one to blame but themselves for that. For example, I suspect they will be throwing wads of cash at a few reviewers to skew things their way.
 
People are posting based on wccftech's sleazy clickbat headline and ignoring what they actually could dig up about current dirty tricks:

----------
"It’s not uncustomary for companies to reach out to the press when they’re in the process of reviewing a competing product. Usually to lay out their response, tell their side of the story or to announce price cuts. We have contacted a few members of the press and asked if they received an email from Intel that falls outside of the above context and they’ve all so far denied receiving such an email.

[ UPDATED – Feb 26 2017 7:16 PM ET ]

The editors-in-chief of two of America’s top PC hardware and technology publications have confirmed to Wccftech that they have indeed been approached by Intel regarding upcoming Ryzen reviews, although both said that it was business as usual. Affirming that Intel’s response following AMD’s Ryzen announcement was what they had expected it to be, they added that nothing was particularly unusual about the emails they received from Intel.
--------------

People need to get a grip and stop overreacting to clickbait. Either that or use that One Weird Trick to restore sanity that's Taking GNC By Storm!
 
DaveSimmons said:
Three problems with all of these appeals to the 2005 lawsuit are:

- That was 12 years ago
- intel was convicted and forced to pay over a billion dollars.
- If they engaged in the same behavior again the penalties might be much steeper for a repeat offender even during a Trump administration.

Companies change. Microsoft engaged in similar abusive behavior last century but now is more open, standard-compliant and willing to work with other operating systems.

I'm hoping for Ryzen to succeed, but I'm not going to blindly accept wild rumors of new secret deals with OEMs and vendors.
Click to expand...
Except that they were never found guilty in the US, semantics & all, so this would be their first time. Looking at how Trump paraded Kraznich in his first month at office, just to show how great he was at creating jobs, I doubt any arm of the US govt would go after Intel unless they commit the proverbial murder.

Does anyone remember MS' AT verdict, weren't they supposed to be split up as well, what happened to that? You're also forgeting the recent contra revenues, if that isn't anti competition I don't know what is, though to be fair the laws are generally weak when it comes to handling such issues which need immediate addressing.
 
Sorry, but my browser won't insert quotes ATM.

Bystander, I accept that you have a source. It's WCCFTech, but it's at least a source. I do my best not to patronize them and the title of the article and the substance difference reinforces my lack of appreciation for them.

To those who for some reason think that Intel did nothing wrong? It must be real dark with your head buried in the sand like that. They would not have paid $1.5B if they had done nothing wrong.

Arrangements with Coke or Pepsi are different. They simply do not allow you to use the competitors products in their dispensers. That is why they supply them for free. So they don't technically belong to the seller and they can dictate the use. I have seen businesses sell both if they have the need and/or desire. Intel said I will charge you extra if you use AMD processors. Don't use AMD and we'll offer you a deal. That's completely different.
 
3DVagabond said:
Arrangements with Coke or Pepsi are different. They simply do not allow you to use the competitors products in their dispensers. That is why they supply them for free. So they don't technically belong to the seller and they can dictate the use. I have seen businesses sell both if they have the need and/or desire. Intel said I will charge you extra if you use AMD processors. Don't use AMD and we'll offer you a deal. That's completely different.
Click to expand...

It was more like "don't use AMD or I give you less money and give it to the shop next door instead" ... see Dell case.
 
R0H1T said:
Except that they were never found guilty in the US, semantics & all, so this would be their first time. Looking at how Trump paraded Kraznich in his first month at office, just to show how great he was at creating jobs, I doubt any arm of the US govt would go after Intel unless they commit the proverbial murder.

Does anyone remember MS' AT verdict, weren't they supposed to be split up as well, what happened to that? You're also forgeting the recent contra revenues, if that isn't anti competition I don't know what is, though to be fair the laws are generally weak when it comes to handling such issues which need immediate addressing.
Click to expand...

If they were found guilty in other jurisdictions why is the lack of a US decision of more importance?
 
bystander36 said:
If you think I'm saying they were not liable, or anyone else in this thread, I think you are misunderstanding the arguments. What was said was many of these activities are not illegal by themselves. It's the size of Intel that made many of them illegal. There may have also been some straight illegal activities too, but creating incentive programs is not normally an illegal activity. Attacking Intel for making deals like this isn't completely fair either, as most (maybe not all) would normally be legal if they were AMD, as an example.

Anyway, Intel was found liable, they mostly know what they can't do now, but anti-trust isn't as straight forward as most types of law.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top