Intel's legal woes...

[Viditor]

I'm sure that everyone knows about Intel's antitrust suits by now...

1. The Japan FTC found them guilty (actually, they plead nolo contendo, but legally theu are the same)

2. Now, the Korean FTC has found them guilty

3. There are numerous rumours this last week about the EU being ready to declare them guilty (that could be a huge one...$Billion in fines as the EU can fine them as much as 10% of their revenue for the period in question)

4. And of course AMD is suing them as well...

Well, now the US FTC has served them with subpoenas as well...
CNet

This means that AMD's chances of a successful and highly lucrative outcome have greatly improved...they will be able to share discovery with the FTC.

 

[taltamir]

f--k AMD, if intel is so guilty just take away the damn x86 copyright already and let other companies compete... imagine how much advances we would see with dozens of companies doing research into CPUs....

If I was a lawmaker anywhere I would have required windows and x86 to be opened up in the interest of both national security, and technological advancement. They are also some of the richest in the world (with bill gates being literally the richest person in the world), having copyright be their friend right now is just silly.

 

[Idontcare]

INTC shareholders should be pissed at Intel management.

No one should be allowed to be so stupid and be a decision maker at the executive management level who expects to flirt with the legal definition of a monopoly and think it is a smart business strategy (i.e. that it maximizes shareholder value).

There is zero upside here for INTC shareholders, you don't bait and invite government snooping inside your books and think you've done your shareholders good by it.

I believe the laymen's phrase here is "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Congratulations Barret, you won the battle and made Andy Grove proud of you but now you've lost the war and doomed the company to the fate of RCA and AT&T.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
INTC shareholders should be pissed at Intel management.

No one should be allowed to be so stupid and be a decision maker at the executive management level who expects to flirt with the legal definition of a monopoly and think it is a smart business strategy (i.e. that it maximizes shareholder value).

There is zero upside here for INTC shareholders, you don't bait and invite government snooping inside your books and think you've done your shareholders good by it.

I believe the laymen's phrase here is "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Congratulations Barret, you won the battle and made Andy Grove proud of you but now you've lost the war and doomed the company to the fate of RCA and AT&T.

I think you've got it in one IDC...
It reminds me of times when I've just kept betting on a bad poker hand because of my emotions. Funny thing, I never win those hands!

 

[Nemesis 1]

What woes . these countries are thievies. AMD gets nothing from them . Except the EU. which hands money over to amd like its candy.

I have heard from the states att. that if the EU finds Intel big money that their will be an investagation into EU ties with AMD . Which would prove very interesting. EU fines Intel . US government fines the EU . Interesting isn't it.

 

[Viditor]

"these countries are thievies"

I assume you mean the US in that as they are now one of "these countries"...

 

[Phynaz]

Yeah, increase AMD's chances when?
I notice that you didn't post anything about the AMD lawsuit getting pushed out another year.
I notice you haven't posted anything in any of the Nehalem threads.
In fact I notice that you never post much at all except to bash Intel lately.

1. No they are not the same thing. But Intel did not plead anything, since there was never a court case.

2. $25m...Big deal, how many minutes of Intel revenue is that?

3. So, unsubstatiated rumors are bad news?

4. Yeah, so? Every large company in the US gets sued every day.

5. This case is two years old. This is just allows the FTC to talk to people other than Intel employees. Basically no big deal.

How about some proof that AMD will be able to use this information. If you state it as fact, back it up.

Whatever, I had thought you had gone to AMDZone or Sharikous blog.

You can once again have the last word.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Yeah, increase AMD's chances when?
I notice that you didn't post anything about the AMD lawsuit getting pushed out another year.

I didn't see the point...pushing the date out was AMD's idea, and hurts Intel...
This means that the success for both the FTC and AMD's case increases because they have a longer period of time to work together...

That's why I think IDC got it right...Intel cannot possibly afford all of this, and somebody over there will (I am confident) wake up very soon and offer a big fat settlement to AMD.
Remember that they have all of that data going back to 2004, and the last thing Intel needs is for the FTC to get their hands on it.

I notice you haven't posted anything in any of the Nehalem threads.

What should I have posted? What do you think I should have said?

In fact I notice that you never post much at all except to bash Intel lately.

I haven't posted anything at all lately because I've spent most of my time in hospital...

1. No they are not the same thing. But Intel did not plead anything, since there was never a court case.

Intel was charged...they plead out. If you read any law at all, you will find that the law sees no difference between the 2.

2. $25m...Big deal, how many minutes of Intel revenue is that?

It's not the amount, it's the judgement...

3. So, unsubstatiated rumors are bad news?

4. Yeah, so? Every large company in the US gets sued every day.

Yes, but not for Billions of dollars...

5. This case is two years old. This is just allows the FTC to talk to people other than Intel employees. Basically no big deal.

"The FTC decided to move forward with the investigation, reversing an earlier decision, after a change in the leadership at the commission, according to a report in the New York Times"

EETimes

The difference is that it has now gone from an informal inquiry to an official investigation...

[/quote]

 

[Nemesis 1]

Viditor Intel is fighting the koren decision . Also If I were Intel . I would start with Korea. And say No we ain't paying the cost of doing business in korea is to high with finds. Intel should just say no and stop doing business in korea. THan watch them koreans cry like babies .
Better Idea lets break intel up . That sounds great . AMD stole intels tech and now they are cring . You heard about Nehalem so now all of AMDS hopes lie in this lawsuite. PURE BS. This will only push Intel harder to prove AMD can't compete . Thats bad for AMD . IF AMD hadn't sued Nehalem wouldn't be coming out in 4th qt. AMD is its own worse enemy not Intel . AT least not until this lawsuite . Intel is just plane going to finish AMD off. Had AMD not bought ATI . they had a chance . AS it is now . Chapter 11 for AMD in 09.

 

[Duvie]

I agree with you on this one Vditor, and always have...no matter what cpu I had in my machine...

IDC is right as well...Shareholders are the ones going to take the hit as INtel will no doubtedly take a write down for a few quarters when they actualy have to pay this monetary damage...

Their tactics were grossly obvious back in the day when they had the inferior product and allowed them to hang on to much of their marketshare to a surging AMD product line. They robbed AMD of years of making in roads with oEM makers, and the money in hindsight they could have used for R&D since their product line is sucking arse with not much hope for the near future...


This is INtel's fualt and they deserve to get their hands slapped...

I actually find it difficult to really assess the true monetary damage this may have had on AMD, AMD shareholders, and other investors....

 

[Duvie]

On the other hand....Vditor....you do noticeably stay away from any of the threads of recent memory showing intel's prowess....and lately (the last 2 years) they have been many....

I know you are an investor, but would it kill you to give INtel some props when they actually produce a line of chips that are an upgrade to the previous one? Unlike IMO the Phenom line....

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor
"these countries are thievies"

I assume you mean the US in that as they are now one of "these countries"...

Not the same at all . AMD is sueing INTEL IN THE usa . bIG DIFFERANCE AND YOU KNOW IT . aLSO WHAT iNTEL DOES OUTSIDE OF us BORDERS HAS NO EFFECT ON THE LAWSUITE.

aLSO THIS WILL BE A JURY TRAIL . wHAT IF ME OR OTHERS LIKE ME ARE ON THE JURY. amd LOSES. Dam caps.

Again Viditor your pushing this for investment reasons. your going to lose. US citizens are use to coke VS. pepsi and its exclusive deals. In the US americans aren't like the rest of the world . We know about exclusive deals and they don't bother us at all.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Viditor Intel is fighting the koren decision . Also If I were Intel . I would start with Korea. And say No we ain't paying the cost of doing business in korea is to high with finds. Intel should just say no and stop doing business in korea. THan watch them koreans cry like babies .
Better Idea lets break intel up . That sounds great . AMD stole intels tech and now they are cring . You heard about Nehalem so now all of AMDS hopes lie in this lawsuite. PURE BS. This will only push Intel harder to prove AMD can't compete . Thats bad for AMD . IF AMD hadn't sued Nehalem wouldn't be coming out in 4th qt. AMD is its own worse enemy not Intel . AT least not until this lawsuite . Intel is just plane going to finish AMD off. Had AMD not bought ATI . they had a chance . AS it is now . Chapter 11 for AMD in 09.

Trust me Intel doesn't want to finish AMD off....they would have even more fed scrutiny....

Plus ATI is a big maker of Nehalem based chipsets coming out....

Intel will pay its reduced "dues" and life will go on....Most ppl probably wont even hear about the "guilty" verdicts and nothing will really harm Intel outside of the bottom line....


AMD's demise will only be back to budget processors, IMO...I think that AMD is more ripe to merge, split off ATI again, or be bought by another...


PS.... Not to be the spelling police.... "lawsuit" not lawsuite

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I agree with you on this one Vditor, and always have...no matter what cpu I had in my machine...

IDC is right as well...Shareholders are the ones going to take the hit as INtel will no doubtedly take a write down for a few quarters when they actualy have to pay this monetary damage...

Their tactics were grossly obvious back in the day when they had the inferior product and allowed them to hang on to much of their marketshare to a surging AMD product line. They robbed AMD of years of making in roads with oEM makers, and the money in hindsight they could have used for R&D since their product line is sucking arse with not much hope for the near future...


This is INtel's fualt and they deserve to get their hands slapped...

I actually find it difficult to really assess the true monetary damage this may have had on AMD, AMD shareholders, and other investors....

I know this is usually used as an argument that Intel held back AMD during the years that AMD had a great product line, but didn't AMD sell all the processors they had during those years?

If they were already capacity constrained then there would be no way any of the really big OEMs would spend the money to make a product line based on AMD chips w/o guarantees delivery. In any case, why would AMD want to do this, big OEMs usually ask for a discount for their large volume so AMD would have actually made less money this way. Same number of chips sold, less profit per chip.

Remember when AMD finally landed Dell? Dell had a great supply of AMD chips (which they probably got at a great price) but everyone else in the channel was starved. This was really bad timing for AMD since this was about the same time Core2 started coming out.

 

[Phynaz]

Funny, but the news of this has actually had a larger negative impact on AMD's stock price. As a matter of fact, AMD's stock price has been in a nose dive since 1:00PM, while Intels has remained flat over that time.

I wonder how that could be, isn't this great news for AMD?

Oh wait, what's that? AMD was subpoenaed too! I wonder why the money people think that is a bad thng. What do they think AMD has been hiding?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Plus ATI is a big maker of Nehalem based chipsets coming out....

Does anyone think this is why Intel is prohibiting nVidia from releasing its own chipsets? Perhaps giving ATI an exclusive on the Nehalem front will allow them and AMD to stay afloat.

 

[Phynaz]

I know this is usually used as an argument that Intel held back AMD during the years that AMD had a great product line, but didn't AMD sell all the processors they had during those years?

And the other half of the argument is the consumer was harmed and had to pay higher prices becuase Intel was offering lower prices on their chips.

Seriously, that's what the AMD complaint says.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
Funny, but the news of this has actually had a larger negative impact on AMD's stock price. As a matter of fact, AMD's stock price has been in a nose dive since 1:00PM, while Intels has remained flat over that time.

I wonder how that could be, isn't this great news for AMD?

Oh wait, what's that? AMD was subpoenaed too! I wonder why the money people think that is a bad thng. What do they think AMD has been hiding?

its simple.

When something like this happens, and theres over competition also the chance one of the companys will go under, stock for the entire sector drops while it settles down.

Anyhow, this is big news. Sorry its even hit my area of the financial sector. Anyhow i dont think Intel will ever go under, the past years revenues will most likely offset any capital loss they have.

I think all the other countries are just trying to reap money from intel.


Also about cutting business to korea. Yea thats smart. Just who do you think supplies the world with LCD's SamSung, and LG (Lucky Goldstar) ring a bell? Last time i checked those were Korean.

Also with IC Chips?

I dont agree with Korea's Suit, however, you cant just brush them off in the Technology world as them being just another country. If anything Korea is more vital to technology then EU can hope for right now.

Imagine this, Samsung says FU to the US, does 100% deals with EU. And has EU ship the monitors to US.

Great, now we got a middle man and most likely 25% + (watever inflation is at on the $ vs euro) addition for our nice blingy monitors.

Remember theres always a BIGGER picture to everything. You should see what i tell people who are so stuck up on the EU dollar vs US Dollar.

Without US Dollar, to buy stuff from EU, who cares about EU Dollar. US is a Universal Consumer. We Gobble everything from everyone. Imagine if we stopped. The worlds inventory can not be consumed without the US.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Duvie
I agree with you on this one Vditor, and always have...no matter what cpu I had in my machine...

IDC is right as well...Shareholders are the ones going to take the hit as INtel will no doubtedly take a write down for a few quarters when they actualy have to pay this monetary damage...

Their tactics were grossly obvious back in the day when they had the inferior product and allowed them to hang on to much of their marketshare to a surging AMD product line. They robbed AMD of years of making in roads with oEM makers, and the money in hindsight they could have used for R&D since their product line is sucking arse with not much hope for the near future...


This is INtel's fualt and they deserve to get their hands slapped...

I actually find it difficult to really assess the true monetary damage this may have had on AMD, AMD shareholders, and other investors....

I know this is usually used as an argument that Intel held back AMD during the years that AMD had a great product line, but didn't AMD sell all the processors they had during those years?

If they were already capacity constrained then there would be no way any of the really big OEMs would spend the money to make a product line based on AMD chips w/o guarantees delivery. In any case, why would AMD want to do this, big OEMs usually ask for a discount for their large volume so AMD would have actually made less money this way. Same number of chips sold, less profit per chip.

Remember when AMD finally landed Dell? Dell had a great supply of AMD chips (which they probably got at a great price) but everyone else in the channel was starved. This was really bad timing for AMD since this was about the same time Core2 started coming out.

Well there is some truth in that...however looking at it in a more economy 101 way...intel effectively choked demand for a chip that rightfully so should have sold for more based on its performance. Companies were being strong armed into running an inferior line. ....Everyone knows high demand low supply would equal higher price....I think AMD had some other avenues if needed to get out more supply if needed. Don't just take the assumption because reportedly they sold everything they made as being they couldn't have made anymore through fab efficiencies, older fab conversions, renting fab space from companies (and oh yes there are some around the world that do this)

Intel was dumping its cpu in a price war to the OEM makers and thus AMD had to follow suit and drop prices as well to sell on the non-oem market. This effectively robbed AMD on the return of their investment. Returns that most companies use to feed the R&D pipeline. Effectively this tactic in a small dollar per cpu cost was huge amount in terms of R&D capital thus stiffling future product line development.

Now I disagree the consumer was screwed by higher prices...THEN......I think it was the other way around. The consumers benefitted from the cutthroat market. They bought Dells and why they mosty likely bought an inferior product they paid less for it then it could have been. However one could make a case that todays prices associated with AMDs inability to compete is resulting in higher consumer prices. Something I attribute in part to INtels monopolistic tactics of the time....

 

[bryanW1995]

I guess they're still at it. $179 for a q6600 sound expensive to you?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Now I disagree the consumer was screwed by higher prices...THEN......I think it was the other way around. The consumers benefitted from the cutthroat market. They bought Dells and why they mosty likely bought an inferior product they paid less for it then it could have been. However one could make a case that todays prices associated with AMDs inability to compete is resulting in higher consumer prices. Something I attribute in part to INtels monopolistic tactics of the time....

+1 Duvie. Couldnt agree with this statement anymore.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I guess they're still at it. $179 for a q6600 sound expensive to you?

Yeah but after the suit, if they have to pay out, they will have a justifiable reason to charge double that.

And guess what, people will still buy it, why?

Because it owns AMD. Simple as that.

How does that help us any? It doesnt, means if we want the nice stuff, we need to pay MORE to get it.
And now Intel has a justifable reason to Charge an ARM and a LEG for it.

Which i think is what this whole thread was getting to, In the end, WE are the ones that will get SCREWED. Not Intel.

:[

 

[bryanW1995]

oh, don't get me wrong, I think that intel is stupid for pricing the q6600 so low. they've been going harder after market share than profit recently. probably b/c they want to hit amd with a death blow, though that makes absolutey zero sense for intel in the long run.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
oh, don't get me wrong, I think that intel is stupid for pricing the q6600 so low. they've been going harder after market share than profit recently. probably b/c they want to hit amd with a death blow, though that makes absolutey zero sense for intel in the long run.

it doesnt... which is why ive been telling people. Were gonna get RAPED at the end of this.

Nice way to Botch everyone's cheap hardware dreams.

 

[golem]

Well there is some truth in that...however looking at it in a more economy 101 way...intel effectively choked demand for a chip that rightfully so should have sold for more based on its performance. Companies were being strong armed into running an inferior line. ....Everyone knows high demand low supply would equal higher price....I think AMD had some other avenues if needed to get out more supply if needed. Don't just take the assumption because reportedly they sold everything they made as being they couldn't have made anymore through fab efficiencies, older fab conversions, renting fab space from companies (and oh yes there are some around the world that do this)

I don't really see this at all. The channels where you can make the most profit per chip from are not the OEMs if you are capacity constrained. They are willing to pay the least because of they expect a volume discount. Since AMD was selling all they could, they would have to divert chips from the more profitable open market to the more steady, but less profitable OEMs.

The might have been able to convert older fabs, but weren't they already doing this at Dresden? Even at their most profitable years, it was a financial stress to convert 1 fab, and that was with generous subsidies from the German government. Would they have been able to convert another one with less profit from OEM sales?

Generally the CPU companies have the most advanced Fabs. AMD is currently farming out chip production to some outside foundries, but isn't this with the less advanced X2 chips? They are producing all Phenoms in house.

So, If they were selling all they could make in the most profitable channel they could, how would introducing demand from a less profitable channel work?

Prices are not higher today, because Intel wants to set an effective ceiling on what AMD can charge by pricing their low to mid end chips at around 200 to 300. AMD cannot go above this level because thier best chips don't beat Intels mid level chips. This was not the case back then when both companies priced their best chips 900+, only intel can do that now.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Duvie

Now I disagree the consumer was screwed by higher prices...THEN......I think it was the other way around. The consumers benefitted from the cutthroat market. They bought Dells and why they mosty likely bought an inferior product they paid less for it then it could have been. However one could make a case that todays prices associated with AMDs inability to compete is resulting in higher consumer prices. Something I attribute in part to INtels monopolistic tactics of the time....

+1 Duvie. Couldnt agree with this statement anymore.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I guess they're still at it. $179 for a q6600 sound expensive to you?

Yeah but after the suit, if they have to pay out, they will have a justifiable reason to charge double that.

And guess what, people will still buy it, why?

Because it owns AMD. Simple as that.

How does that help us any? It doesnt, means if we want the nice stuff, we need to pay MORE to get it.
And now Intel has a justifable reason to Charge an ARM and a LEG for it.

Which i think is what this whole thread was getting to, In the end, WE are the ones that will get SCREWED. Not Intel.

:[

No you're wrong. We are not getting screwed with high prices NOW. We are benefiting from Intel wanting to put a ceiling on what AMD can charge and keeping them cash starved.

If you are talking about the future, then yes, that might and probably will come about. But now, no way.

Intel might be fined and probably will be by all the government probes. But whether AMD will win a huge settlement is still up in the air. If Intel can show that AMD's troubles are just as much a fault of management incompetance (botched Phenom launch, paying more for ATI than the combined company is now worth) then the AMD's court settlements might be small and symbolic more than anything else.