AMD files antitrust case against Intel

[JL_Audio_User]

I never stated that they weren't screwed. No, you are playing devil's advocate. You are advocating a state in which one man's work is forcibly turned over to another man.

You are right. Debating me would be utterly pointless because your capacity to reason couldn't match that of a squirrel.

You have to make strong valid points before you can be debated.

I advocate nothing, not welfare not affirmative action...nothing. However when a companys "habits" affect my ability to make fair and reasonable choices for myself then I start having problems.

Play on a level playing field and may the better product win.


P.S. You must know some pretty smart squirels

 

[Elios]

Where were your facts? You haven't provided any that I have retorted.

ok then how do you explane Acer and HP backing out of the AMD A64 launch just befor it when thay had already comitted to it then back out AFTER a phone call or visit from Intel
HELL the CEO of intel at the time PRESONLY talked to the CEO of Acer JUST be for the launch then Acer backed out

that sounds kinda funny to me

then there the what stores carry AMD has to pay to get the OEM systems shelf space
as does intel but with intel giveing HUGE reto-active kickbacks for keeping AMD sales low AMD has to offer MUCH lager encentives up to 3 times as much PER system

 

[logo29a]

You have to make strong valid points before you can be debated.

I advocate nothing, not welfare not affirmative action...nothing. However when a companys "habits" affect my ability to make fair and reasonable choices for myself then I start having problems.

Play on a level playing field and may the better product win.


P.S. You must know some pretty smart squirels

I have made strong valid points. You have made no effort to retort any of these (with exception to your image posting). This only further validated my belief.

You are advocating anti-capitilism by support AMD.

This isn't about the better product. It is about who can sell more of their product. Intel is simply taking advantage of the average person's ignorance. AMD has the freedom to do the same. Or better yet, they can prove to the public that their product is indeed superior. They have not done so. When is the last time that you saw an AMD commercial?

 

[Steel Chicken]

Wouldn't the same go for anyone who formed an opinion for the other side? You wouldn't be biased would you?

Im not biased, but the people saying "I dont see any devidence of wrong doing, show me the facts" would not need to say that if they bothered to read the article. All of the facts and evidence of wrong doing is spelled out in such a way even dumb people can understand it. I am not biased, read my sig, brainiac. I own and use many Intel products.

 

[logo29a]

ok then how do you explane Acer and HP backing out of the AMD A64 launch just befor it when thay had already comitted to it then back out AFTER a phone call or visit from Intel
HELL the CEO of intel at the time PRESONLY talked to the CEO of Acer JUST be for the launch then Acer backed out

that sounds kinda funny to me

then there the what stores carry AMD has to pay to get the OEM systems shelf space
as does intel but with intel giveing HUGE reto-active kickbacks for keeping AMD sales low AMD has to offer MUCH lager encentives up to 3 times as much PER system

Why don't you ask Acer and HP? They were the ones who pulled out. Do you have any proof that they were forced by Intel to do so? Valid sources please.

Amd could do the same. Again, they are not doing this by force. They are offering incentives to resellers. The resellers are the ones taking them up on it.

 

[wtiger]

I know what I'm about too say will probably go right by you and you'll totally disagree, but a monopoly is bad for capitalism it fucks up the model by stifeling innovation and rewarding complacancy. A companies ability to bully isn't what makes it a good and helathy buisness in capitalism it's it's ability to innovate. now quit being a !!!!!!

 

[eno-on]

That does not constitute force. The reseller had a choice. They chose to drop AMD because they'd lose more money than they'd gain.

If you could read, you'd already know that I own AMD. I do not own Intel. How about providing a rational argument instead of resorting to childish name calling?

Lets try this again. Maybe help you understand.
As a consumer in a capitalist society, I should be allowed to make a choice of what I want to buy.
If I want to buy a premade computer, I don't HAVE a choice of what CPU I want in it.
The reason I dont, is that intel has threatened the health of the premade computer companies fiscal future if they build any computers with AMD products inside them.
So, no, you are mistaken that this is how a capatlist system works.
Capitalism promotes growth on the merits of your product and competitive pricing. Intel promotes stagnation and lack of choice through strongarm tactics. This is closer to (practiced) communism than it is to capitalism.
Sounds like you need to take some classes, as capitalism and intels tactics are decidedly at odds.
And for the record, my current rig is an intel.

 

[logo29a]

Im not biased, but the people saying "I dont see any devidence of wrong doing, show me the facts" would not need to say that if they bothered to read the article. All of the facts and evidence of wrong doing is spelled out in such a way even dumb people can understand it. I am not biased, read my sig, brainiac. I own and use many Intel products.

So you're saying that your conclusion based on the article is the only correct one? How do you know that I haven't read the article. Perhaps I did and I formed a different opinion. Now which one of our opinions lines up more closely with reality? To find out, join in the debate instead of throwing our your red herrings.

 

[JL_Audio_User]

JL_Audio_User:
note how hes not replyed to any of my posts were i state FACTS of intels wrong-doings

read his responses carefuly. Do you notice a pattern? He really isnt saying much of anything.

The facts as they relate to this thread IS the 48 page complaint. He's not arguing the facts just the "fairness" of a court becoming involved. He doesnt need to have command of the "facts" cuz he isnt even debating them.

 

[DejaWiz]

You can't prove a negative. That's like trying to prove that God doesn't exist. That's pricesely why a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It is impossible to prove that you did not commit the crime. Therefore the prosecution has to prove that you did commit the crime.

That perspective can come from both sides. Many people ask other people to prove that any gods do exist. And true, it is written that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, but if this was true the courts wouldn't be half as busy as they are. Example: OJ Simpson had to try and prove his innocence using things like the little glove that didn't fit. Michael Jackson had to prove his innocence that he didn't go around messing with children. So it is very possible that sometimes a person or business has to prove their innocence. With AMD filing a detailed action, intel will have to do just that. And I hope intel fails in doing so.

More so back to the topic: I work for one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world (in the top 2) and I can strongly agree with everything in AMD's argument. It was just within the past few years that my company started to sell AMD inside. When they made that decision, they only offered the lowest end XP processors with very limited available options while providing the full range of intel processors with every option (choice of optical drives, usb devices, hard drives, etc etc etc). There was strong evidence that intel had a hand in this by not letting my company provide a full range of AMD processors thus giving full decision making control to the customer deciding what to get. Here's a direct example: A while ago, there was a mass amount of Itanium2 workstations being produced. Microsoft was just about the only exclusive buyer. When the Itanium2 was fully dubbed as being the biggest piece of overpriced crap 64 bit cpu in the eyes of the customers, all of a sudden my company is engineering a workstation with dual Opterons. Almost 2 years later. Why wasn't this offered at the same time the Itanium2 was being produced? Definitely raised many eyebrows.

 

[logo29a]

I know what I'm about too say will probably go right by you and you'll totally disagree, but a monopoly is bad for capitalism it fucks up the model by stifeling innovation and rewarding complacancy. A companies ability to bully isn't what makes it a good and helathy buisness in capitalism it's it's ability to innovate. now quit being a !!!!!!

Monopolies don't exist in true capitalism. Any time one company rises to the top alone and starts charging out the ass for their product, another individual will see opportunity and offer the same goods or services for cheaper. Or they will offer better goods or services for the same price.

 

[logo29a]

Lets try this again. Maybe help you understand.
As a consumer in a capitalist society, I should be allowed to make a choice of what I want to buy.

No, you want to force someone to provide you with a choice. This renders the rest of your argument useless.

 

[eno-on]

Monopolies don't exist in true capitalism. Any time one company rises to the top alone and starts charging out the ass for their product, another individual will see opportunity and offer the same goods or services for cheaper. Or they will offer better goods or services for the same price.

Not if the company that has risen to the top threatens to bludgeon to death anyone doing business with their competitor.

 

[logo29a]

He really isnt saying much of anything.

And you are?

 

[eno-on]

No, you want to force someone to provide you with a choice. This renders the rest of your argument useless.

Strawman.

And sometimes things do need to be forced. When a system is abused, the abuser needs to be dealt with. Dig?

 

[logo29a]

Not if the company that has risen to the top threatens to bludgeon to death anyone doing business with their competitor.

This is true. However, Intel has not done this.

 

[logo29a]

Strawman.

And sometimes things do need to be forced. When a system is abused, the abuser needs to be dealt with. Dig?

Force is only moral if it prevents force. From what I've seen, Intel hasn't forced anyone into anything. You need to look up the definition of strawman.

 

[wtiger]

Monopolies don't exist in true capitalism. Any time one company rises to the top alone and starts charging out the ass for their product, another individual will see opportunity and offer the same goods or services for cheaper. Or they will offer better goods or services for the same price.

But that model doesn't work all that well if the big buisness is able to keep it's competition off the shelf in the ways stated in the article. If in fact that is what they are doing then they need to be punished for it or at the very lease not allowed to conduct buisness in this way anymore.

 

[Elios]

Monopolies don't exist in true capitalism. Any time one company rises to the top alone and starts charging out the ass for their product, another individual will see opportunity and offer the same goods or services for cheaper. Or they will offer better goods or services for the same price.

thats the problem here AND WHY WE HAVE ANTI-TRUST LAWs
thats to easy to beat its far far more effective to under cut every one else from the top
AMD DID try and do that and intel stoped it by forceing there way in

 

[pxc]

Those are many of the same arguments as AMD filed with the FTC complaint 4 years ago. The FTC dropped AMD's last complaint almost 2 years ago: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-09-16-intel_x.htm

IMO, the FTC isn't going to seriously pursue this again. The current FTC is very pro-big business.

 

[eno-on]

This is true. However, Intel has not done this.

Dude, you are clueless. I'ma capitalist. I think socialism stinks and promotes mediocrity.
I also think that people and institutions that abuse their positions, and have the money to and weight to get away with it, need to be dealt with. Anytime you have a system that allows an entity to do as well as intel has, you must have, and must use safeguards to keep them from ABUSING that system.
Intel has threatened to harm these companies fiscal fuure for dealing with their competitor. Thats not capitalism. Thats mafioso style 'business'.

 

[wtiger]

No, you want to force someone to provide you with a choice. This renders the rest of your argument useless.

Aah but if the paper is correct the companies do want to present choice, but intel uses their overwhelming marketshare to preent them from doing it.

 

[Elios]

Those are many of the same arguments as AMD filed with the FTC complaint 4 years ago. The FTC dropped AMD's last complaint almost 2 years ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-09-16-intel_x.htm

IMO, the FTC isn't going to seriously pursue this again. The current FTC is pro-big business.

true but with the ruleings in Japan thay can just sweep this one under the rug that and when the rest of the tech press get ahold of this its going to be ulgy for intel

 

[logo29a]

I have a meeting that I'm going to be late for so I have to run for the time being. Also, keep in mind that I have like 10 people replying to my posts right now as well. I will try my best to pick this one back up later.

Look, if Intel truely forced resellers and retailers to stock their product over AMD, that is immoral. I totally agree. However, I haven't seen anything in the article that supports this claim. If you want to convince me of something then discuss it with me. Provide facts to support your case. Don't sit here, call me names, and claim that I am ignoring the facts when you haven't presented me with any.

 

[JL_Audio_User]

I have made strong valid points. You have made no effort to retort any of these ///////////. AMD has the freedom to do the same.

1. Retort what

2. AMD does not have the freedom to do so as a result of Intels tactics. And as a result of their reduced market share their ability to "fight back" is dwindiling.


seriously though....your kinda dumb, you dont see a problem with Intel withholding chips unless a manufacturer agrees to reduce a competitors share. That is racketeering not capitalism. They dont use baseball bats like the mob. They use money, but the end result is the same.

 

[logo29a]

Aah but if the paper is correct the companies do want to present choice, but intel uses their overwhelming marketshare to preent them from doing it.

Again, this is choice, not force. Intel has every right to user the marketshare. They earned it. They didn't forcibly take it from anyone.

 

[Steel Chicken]

Monopolies don't exist in true capitalism. Any time one company rises to the top alone and starts charging out the ass for their product, another individual will see opportunity and offer the same goods or services for cheaper. Or they will offer better goods or services for the same price.

Dont read history much...do you?

 

[eno-on]

Force is only moral if it prevents force. From what I've seen, Intel hasn't forced anyone into anything. You need to look up the definition of strawman.

OK, now you are just being dumb. Read previous posts concerning Intels strongarm tactics.
And yes, your argument was a strawman argument. You didnt agree with one part of my post (because you are apparently incapable of objective thinking processes), so discounted other points. So yeah, carry on.
I cant have an intelligent conversation with a brick wall. Have fun.

 

[Steel Chicken]

I have a meeting that I'm going to be late for so I have to run for the time being. Also, keep in mind that I have like 10 people replying to my posts right now as well. I will try my best to pick this one back up later.

Look, if Intel truely forced resellers and retailers to stock their product over AMD, that is immoral. I totally agree. However, I haven't seen anything in the article that supports this claim. If you want to convince me of something then discuss it with me. Provide facts to support your case. Don't sit here, call me names, and claim that I am ignoring the facts when you haven't presented me with any.

*Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.

 

[logo29a]

1. Retort what

2. AMD does not have the freedom to do so as a result of Intels tactics. And as a result of their reduced market share their ability to "fight back" is dwindiling.


seriously though....your kinda dumb, you dont see a problem with Intel withholding chips unless a manufacturer agrees to reduce a competitors share. That is racketeering not capitalism. They dont use baseball bats like the mob. They use money, but the end result is the same.

This is the last post for the time being.

1) this is akin to the picture you posted earlier

2) Why don't they have the same freedom? Who is stopping them? The absolutely do have the same freedom. They can prove to the public that their product is superior as Intel has done. Then the resellers will stock AMD because it is in their own best interested. Why would a retailer stock a product that the consumer felt was mediocre?

 

[Elios]

Again, this is choice, not force. Intel has every right to user the marketshare. They earned it. They didn't forcibly take it from anyone.

soo not delviering CPUs isnt force making contracts that give LARGE kick backs for NOT sellling AMD isnt force?

 

[eno-on]

This is the last post for the time being.

1) this is akin to the picture you posted earlier

2) Why don't they have the same freedom? Who is stopping them? The absolutely do have the same freedom. They can prove to the public that their product is superior as Intel has done. Then the resellers will stock AMD because it is in their own best interested. Why would a retailer stock a product that the consumer felt was mediocre?

dude...

*Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.

Are you fkin braindead?

 

[logo29a]

OK, now you are just being dumb. Read previous posts concerning Intels strongarm tactics.
And yes, your argument was a strawman argument. You didnt agree with one part of my post (because you are apparently incapable of objective thinking processes), so discounted other points. So yeah, carry on.
I cant have an intelligent conversation with a brick wall. Have fun.

The other parts of your argument were dependant on the first.

 

[logo29a]

*Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.

If the goods were payed for, this is immoral. If they were not, Intel had every right. It is THEIR product until they recieve payment for it (unless of course they had a contract with the reseller).

 

[JL_Audio_User]

Look, if Intel truely forced resellers and retailers to stock their product over AMD, that is immoral. I totally agree. However, I haven't seen anything in the article that supports this claim.

WTF are you reading?




Im bored, your dumb, and a pic is worth a 1000 words

 

[logo29a]

dude...



Are you fkin braindead?

Don't get your panties in a wad. I have 10 of you goons replying to my post. It is a bit overwhelming.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, I have a meeting. I hope you guys can survive without me.

 

[mohammedtaha]

ok, logo29a. You have proven your point. You can not logically debate and enjoy pissing people off.

This case is not that of an innocent until proven guilty case. Intel has been proven guilty before and are being proven guilty some more. Therefore, Intel is guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.

I'm sure AMD just wants people to choose the better CPU, rather than be forced to buy something. This however is impossible. Can you prove it possible ? Can you provide me with a big company that sells AMD in huge numbers ? Alienware is one of the only companies that sells both and if you check how they market their products, you will notice that AMD holds every performance crown except for notebooks and workstations.

The only benchmark Intel can win is the market benchmark until they're found guilty and forced to cancel all contracts they have with all companies.

 

[Steel Chicken]

If the goods were payed for, this is immoral. If they were not, Intel had every right. It is THEIR product until they recieve payment for it (unless of course they had a contract with the reseller).

I suppose the word of a major companies CEO aint good enough. You want us to provide with you the contract Intel and Compaq had at the time for more "proof"? Keeping asking for more and more levels of proof until its impossible for anyone to provide it, then you claim victory "see I told you, you couldnot prove it"

and that was just ONE example. there are many more in the article.

 

[Shakezilla]

Force is only moral if it prevents force. From what I've seen, Intel hasn't forced anyone into anything. You need to look up the definition of strawman.

Did you eat to many paint chips dude?

By forcing companies to do things and denieing anohter company to compete intel is doing something illegal(NO YOU DO NOT MAKE THE LAW!!!! THANK GOD) so since they are doing something illegal they deserve to get whats coming to them. There is no arguement.

 

[fuelvolts]

Don't get your panties in a wad. I have 10 of you goons replying to my post. It is a bit overwhelming.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, I have a meeting. I hope you guys can survive without me.

I quote from the complaint:

Page 19 Reason 50 regarding Gaetway:

"50. Gateway. After Gateway’s 2004 merger with eMachines, AMD attempted to
revive the relationship it had enjoyed with Gateway until 2001, but experienced extremely
limited success. While Gateway built one AMD-powered desktop model at the request of
Circuit City, AMD remains locked out entirely of Gateway's direct internet sales, its
commercial offerings and its server line. According to Gateway executives, their Company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has beaten them into “guacamole” in retaliation."

Take that with 100 other reasoons - Intel is in trouble