AMD files antitrust case against Intel

[SmithyJones]

After reading through this thread, I have to think that a lot of you are arguing the morality of what AMD and Intel either are or are not doing. You are arguing a moot point.

The simple truth is that morality has no place in a law suit. This case should not be decided based upon moral statutes. It should be decided based upon if the accused is in fact guilty of breaking a law, be it a moral or immoral law. Such is the nature of law, if you don't like its morality or lack there of, that doesn't mean one gets away with breaking it, that means it needs changed.

That all being said, from reading the article (published by AMD) I feel that they have very valid accusations, and that if Intel is practicing these tactics, they should be addressed. However, I have not read any retort by Intel, or the other OEM manufacturers listed. Until then I can't say for sure one way or the other, but it would seem to me that most of the claims make sense.

 

[Joker76]

Further to this, I'd like to see whether Alienware or Falcon NW have been leant on by Intel.

On the other hand though, it's unlikely that either of these two shift enough units for Intel to be bothered. My workplace buys A LOT of Dells (standard PCs) and HPs (high powered workstations) and I doubt AW or FNW would be able to supply enough boxes to us and companies like us.

The company I work for also buys alot of Dell computers. I believe there are 1200+ Optiplex P4 desktops in my building alone. But these are low end systems with integrated graphics and only 256MB of Ram. Alienware and FNW cater to the high-end market only whereas large companies are much more inclined to buy budget computers from a retailer like Dell.

BUT ... if Dell were to offer AMD based budget systems at a lower cost, I think alot of larger companies might be inclined to go with the AMD systems to cut costs. Either way, Dell and the consumers all lose if Intel is allowed to continue it's current "strategies"

 

[LstBrunnenG]

A gazillion posts alleging that Intel did nothing morally wrong and AMD is anti-capitalist.

If I were a trillionaire, and I was so angered by your political views that I paid every employer in the US where you could make above minimum wage to NOT let you work for them, would that be immoral? It's capitalism. If I've got the resources, who are you to tell me not to pay off your potential employers?

Believe me, I despise socialism as much as you, but utter lassiez-faire isn't the answer either. Corporations in the wrong hands can and do abuse their power. Your unwavering trust in them is like a communist blindly trusting his state. In an ideal world, neither of you would ever get screwed over, but this is not an ideal world.

 

[ignitionxvi]

If I were a trillionaire, and I was so angered by your political views that I paid every employer in the US where you could make above minimum wage to NOT let you work for them, would that be immoral? It's capitalism. If I've got the resources, who are you to tell me not to pay off your potential employers?

Believe me, I despise socialism as much as you, but utter lassiez-faire isn't the answer either. Corporations in the wrong hands can and do abuse their power. Your unwavering trust in them is like a communist blindly trusting his state. In an ideal world, neither of you would ever get screwed over, but this is not an ideal world.

Good way to get the point across

 

[mikelz85]

Ah, communism at its finest.

I want to know exactly what Intel did that was 'illegal'. Remember folks, just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. This isn't about equal rights or anything along those lines. It's about AMD getting their panties in a wad and trying to disguise forced equality as equal rights. I believe that AMD currently has the better product. However, they have always had a hard time demonstrating this to the public. It is within their power. The ball is in their court. They've simply chosen to ignore it.

Dude, with that attitude you'd have been working for a steel company at the age of 8 to pay for your $10 a loaf bread. Laissez faire isn't about forcing companies to go with your product, again, capitalism only works if the companies are allowed to compete fairly. Twisting someones arm if they go with a cheaper product is the exact opposite of our economic model. Otherwise pretty soon you have vertical and horizontal monopolization, and no one can compete, which seriously hurts the economy. This isn't about right or wrong, this is about economics and the checks and balances that prevent a complete systemic collapse of the whole shabang.

 

[Servant of Shodan]

I think this is going to be very bad for AMD. Yup, I said bad for AMD. This is almost exactly what happened in the Microsoft anti-trust/anti-monopoly case in the US back in mid – late 90’s. The evidence was clear, absolute, and undeniable, but Microsoft prevailed, and the government had to back off because it was costing too much money. Microsoft dragged the case out for years upon years with nothing but more filings and motions in order stall for more time, and unless I am greatly mistaken about Intel’s finances, they have the $cash$ to do the exact same thing. Yes, Intel cheats, threatens, breaks the law, is “unfair” (it doesn’t matter if you yourself are morally and ethically corrupt and can’t see anything wrong with Intel’s behavior [as some in this forum seem to be], it is still wrong), and on top of all that, delivers a currently inferior product -- but none of this will matter, because we are dealing with a system of law that is ultimately ruled by how much money you have, OR how much public support you have. Back in the 80’s Big Tobacco lost big time even though they had more cash at their disposal than most countries, because the vast majority of the US population were strongly against them. Back to Microsoft v. US States, the public didn’t care about that either, they couldn’t understand how Microsoft and Windows were bad. Now think about your average Joe and Jane Six-Pack…they don’t give a shit about AMD, they probably think it’s some kind of sexually transmitted disease or a behavioral disorder. 95% of the population doesn’t care, doesn’t understand, and won’t follow this at all. So, AMD does not have the money and does not have the public support, therefore, they will lose. They will lose the case, and they will lose millions upon millions of dollars in court costs. And they might just earn themselves a counter-suit from Intel. I am very sad about this whole thing, because AMD is going to suffer.

 

[mikelz85]

fortunately joe 6 pack isn't a supreme court justice.

 

[perplex]

maybe AMD should concentrate on securing their future in the CPU industry rather than handbag attack their competitor? it's not like they can afford to fuck about - or is this their way of getting one up on their competitor?

 

[Steel Chicken]

I think this is going to be very bad for AMD. Yup, I said bad for AMD. This is almost exactly what happened in the Microsoft anti-trust/anti-monopoly case in the US back in mid – late 90’s. The evidence was clear, absolute, and undeniable, but Microsoft prevailed, and the government had to back off because it was costing too much money. .

No, the government backed off because MS agreed to give more than $1B USD to fund the No child left behind act of 2001. This was never made public.

 

[eno-on]

maybe AMD should concentrate on securing their future in the CPU industry rather than handbag attack their competitor? it's not like they can afford to fuck about - or is this their way of getting one up on their competitor?

Kinda difficult to secure your spot in the industry when the industry leader is (allegedly) threatening to beat your potential clients senseless with a giant money-stick if they even look your direction.
That's the point of their lawsuit...

 

[fuelvolts]

maybe AMD should concentrate on securing their future in the CPU industry rather than handbag attack their competitor? it's not like they can afford to fuck about - or is this their way of getting one up on their competitor?

Riiiiiight - read a book and learn something - 10 bucks says you havnt even read the complaint

 

[mikelz85]

don't you see that this is about trying to secure their future in the industry? When your competitor goes around and offers bribes/threats to OEMs if they go with your product, how are you supposed to do business? Read the outline, if big name OEM CEOs are quoted with words like "gun to my head" and "guacamole", I think AMD may have a point. Given how much AMD server chips, and even desktop chips cost, Dell would stand to make good money, why haven't they gone AMD? Why doesn't sony even carry AMD? This isn't a matter of one or the other, this is "you go with AMD, you can forget about your next shipment of Intel processors", this really isn't very legal.

 

[mikelz85]

No, the government backed off because MS agreed to give more than $1B USD to fund the No child left behind act of 2001. This was never made public.

In cash or software? Link?

 

[fuelvolts]

don't you see that this is about trying to secure their future in the industry? When your competitor goes around and offers bribes/threats to OEMs if they go with your product, how are you supposed to do business? Read the outline, if big name OEM CEOs are quoted with words like "gun to my head" and "guacamole", I think AMD may have a point. Given how much AMD server chips, and even desktop chips cost, Dell would stand to make good money, why haven't they gone AMD? Why doesn't sony even carry AMD? This isn't a matter of one or the other, this is "you go with AMD, you can forget about your next shipment of Intel processors", this really isn't very legal.

Off topic:

Hey mikelz85 - hope you dont mind I quoted you in my sig from the other day, funny stuff - good to hear from you in this post!


On topic for all the rest:
THIS IS NOT SOCIALIST!

/registered republican
//please dont make this into flamebait as it is not what it was meant to be
///glad AMD is doing this and hope they win
////slash

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

I'm with the company who spends its money on making me better CPU's rather than the one spends a bunch of money bullying stores into selling their crappy CPUs. Competition should be done by trying to provide the consumer the better product, not by forcing stores to sell your protect exclusively.

 

[Dillusion]

I still enjoy my intel rig Not everyone at intel is a two-faced bad man who wants AMD to crumble, though in the 'higher levels' of intel im sure thats the general feeling. The engineers and R&D workers that intel employs are honest workers that do what they're told, just as if they'd work for AMD. I think intel has some honest accomplishments in and out of technology, but some of those higher level authorities are infact- the assholes.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Now think about your average Joe and Jane Six-Pack…they don’t give a shit about AMD, they probably think it’s some kind of sexually transmitted disease or a behavioral disorder. 95% of the population doesn’t care, doesn’t understand, and won’t follow this at all.

and how does that effect the judges and jury (?) that will be the ones that end up making the decision?

 

[fuelvolts]

I still enjoy my intel rig Not everyone at intel is a two-faced bad man who wants AMD to crumble, though in the 'higher levels' of intel im sure thats the general feeling. The engineers and R&D workers that intel employs are honest workers that do what they're told, just as if they'd work for AMD. I think intel has some honest accomplishments in and out of technology, but some of those higher level authorities are infact- the assholes.

That is a good statement - this is not the honest, hard working individuals at Intels fault. This is, allegedly, the intel corporate a-holes being bullies. We are not saying that Mary in accounting is to blame.

 

[logo29a]

Dude, with that attitude you'd have been working for a steel company at the age of 8 to pay for your $10 a loaf bread. Laissez faire isn't about forcing companies to go with your product, again, capitalism only works if the companies are allowed to compete fairly. Twisting someones arm if they go with a cheaper product is the exact opposite of our economic model. Otherwise pretty soon you have vertical and horizontal monopolization, and no one can compete, which seriously hurts the economy. This isn't about right or wrong, this is about economics and the checks and balances that prevent a complete systemic collapse of the whole shabang.

I agree. However, I don't believe that Intel is forcing anyone to go with their product. This is pivotal to the entire argument. If Intel is physically forcing someone to go with their product, then I agree.

But, this is about right and wrong. There are absolute principles that when abided by make an individual or group effective in whatever they are trying to accomplish. Some of these principles are self-evident. Others are very difficult to know. Because of this we create values as maps to these principles. The more closely our values match those unchanging principles the more effective we become (the more closely the map relates to the territory, the better you will find your way). This is the basis of morality. And effectiveness stems from this. These principles are unchanging. They are the same for everyone. They are same for the Christian and non-Christian as they relate to effectiveness.

 

[logo29a]

If I were a trillionaire, and I was so angered by your political views that I paid every employer in the US where you could make above minimum wage to NOT let you work for them, would that be immoral? It's capitalism. If I've got the resources, who are you to tell me not to pay off your potential employers?

Believe me, I despise socialism as much as you, but utter lassiez-faire isn't the answer either. Corporations in the wrong hands can and do abuse their power. Your unwavering trust in them is like a communist blindly trusting his state. In an ideal world, neither of you would ever get screwed over, but this is not an ideal world.

Here's the thing. If you were so impotent that you saw me as that big of a threat, I highly doubt that you'd have the power to accomplish such a task. If I were better then you in whatever area, it would be likely that I would be better at reversing the tide as well.

 

[fuelvolts]

I agree. However, I don't believe that Intel is forcing anyone to go with their product. This is pivotal to the entire argument. If Intel is physically forcing someone to go with their product, then I agree.

But, this is about right and wrong. There are absolute principles that when abided by make an individual or group effective in whatever they are trying to accomplish. Some of these principles are self-evident. Others are very difficult to know. Because of this we create values as maps to these principles. The more closely our values match those unchanging principles the more effective we become (the more closely the map relates to the territory, the better you will find your way). This is the basis of morality. And effectiveness stems from this. These principles are unchanging. They are the same for everyone. They are same for the Christian and non-Christian as they relate to effectiveness.

I respectfully disagree

This is about legal/illegal not right and wrong. You said so yourself in an earlier post. If intel did something illegal, no matter what the morality or correctness, and the law is deemed just by the courts and executive branch, then the consequences must dealt to intel. The amount should be a fair representation of lost profits and legal fees.

off topic - you are a clear and concise writer, I respect that

 

[logo29a]

I respectfully disagree

This is about legal/illegal not right and wrong. You said so yourself in an earlier post. If intel did something illegal, no matter what the morality or correctness, and the law is deemed just by the courts and executive branch, then the consequences must dealt to intel. The amount should be a fair representation of lost profits and legal fees.

What you forget is that the laws are there to protect right and punish wrong.

Of course, I have already agreed with your point that the laws do not always do so. The laws in those cases should be abolished.

 

[fuelvolts]

What you forget is that the laws are there to protect right and punish wrong.

Of course, I have already agreed with your point that the laws do not always do so. The laws in those cases should be abolished.

I concur with your statement

 

[logo29a]

off topic - you are a clear and concise writer, I respect that

Thank you. I try to be. Many people forget the importance of this. If you want to argue a point you need those who are listening to know exactly what you are talking about. I still working on my effectiveness. It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes so that you can better get your point across.

 

[eno-on]

I agree. However, I don't believe that Intel is forcing anyone to go with their product. This is pivotal to the entire argument. If Intel is physically forcing someone to go with their product, then I agree.

The CEOs of large OEM computer manufacturers are seemingly implying that this IS the case...

But, this is about right and wrong. There are absolute principles that when abided by make an individual or group effective in whatever they are trying to accomplish. Some of these principles are self-evident. Others are very difficult to know. Because of this we create values as maps to these principles. The more closely our values match those unchanging principles the more effective we become (the more closely the map relates to the territory, the better you will find your way). This is the basis of morality. And effectiveness stems from this. These principles are unchanging. They are the same for everyone. They are same for the Christian and non-Christian as they relate to effectiveness.

I'm not going to argue the relative values of one society or religion against another, or whether they are true for every society/religion (let's just say I disagree and leave it at that).
If what AMD and the aforementioned manufacturers are stating are indeed true, intel must be brought to heel in their unfair practices.

 

[logo29a]

Here's another point I'd like to make.

While I believe that it is perfectly within Intel's right to use the economic leverage they have earned to their own advantage, I do not believe that this would be good for them in the long run. They would essentially be making themselves slaves to the weaknesses and dependance of others. Sooner or later someone would exploit this dependance and do Intel in. This too would be completely within the realm of right.

 

[logo29a]

The CEOs of large OEM computer manufacturers are seemingly implying that this IS the case...

I'm not going to argue the relative values of one society or religion against another, or whether they are true for every society/religion (let's just say I disagree and leave it at that).
If what AMD and the aforementioned manufacturers are stating are indeed true, intel must be brought to heel in their unfair practices.

I am not arguing relatives. I am aruing absolutes. In either case, I agree with you. If they are guilty of forcing their product on someone, they should pay the price. The verdict isn't in yet and I would like to see more evidence all around. I've just seen this sort of thing too many times. The mediocre always likes to point their finger at the successful (in this case, sales). Envy is the true root of all evil.

 

[LeviathanV]

Can I just say...I was reading the thread until I got bored and tired of people arguing with logo29a ... This guy is ignorant and stubborn...just leave it at that...he probably owns shares of intel...im not gonna say anything on the subject matter cause its probably been said before...

 

[eno-on]

I am not arguing relatives. I am aruing absolutes. In either case, I agree with you. If they are guilty of forcing their product on someone, they should pay the price. The verdict isn't in yet and I would like to see more evidence all around. I've just seen this sort of thing too many times. The mediocre always likes to point their finger at the successful (in this case, sales). Envy is the true root of all evil.

You see absolutes, where there is no such thing. All things are relative, the human psyche being one of the most elusive, malleable and slippery among them.
And it is humans which control both AMD and Intel.

If the allegations made by AMD were complete fiction, do you suppose the executives of such major multibillion dollar companies could be quoted in the fashion they were?
In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out, and what information comes to light.

 

[logo29a]

You see absolutes, where there is no such thing. All things are relative, the human psyche being one of the most elusive, malleable and slippery among them.
And it is humans which control both AMD and Intel.

Let's see here. The speed of light is an absolute. The fact that I exist is an absolute.

What's really humorous is that you pragmatists contradict yourselves with the very statement "there are no absolutes". Do you not understand how silly that statement is?

 

[mikelz85]

Here's another point I'd like to make.

While I believe that it is perfectly within Intel's right to use the economic leverage they have earned to their own advantage, I do not believe that this would be good for them in the long run. They would essentially be making themselves slaves to the weaknesses and dependance of others. Sooner or later someone would exploit this dependance and do Intel in. This too would be completely within the realm of right.

Well, it's a good thing you weren't the one deciding antitrust law in the early 20th century. A basic econ 100 class and a little bit of analytical thinking might change your mind. Or if you've already had the facts, and this is your conclusion about the global economy, then I'm glad you aren't anywhere near the guys who make policy. Without the checks and balances (like antitrust) I could go ahead and buy up a good chunk of the worlds food supply and then hold it ransom. Why do you think oil prices fluctuate so much? OPEC. Cartels and monopolies are bad for business all around, that's why we have laws against them. Look what happened in the early 1900s, it wasn't good, one guy at one point had $.25 of every dollar, do you know what that kind of control allows you to do? Capitalism only works if there are laws to keep people from seriously fubaring the whole deal.

Capitalism works because the supply and demand model works. If intel goes and skews that by not allowing people to buy another product, then the whole system gets out of balance. Pretty soon AMD goes under, not because they didn't offer a competitive product at a competive price, but because Intel went and threw their 90% market share weight around. Now you have only Intel, which means no competition, which in turn means they can offer any product they want, at any price they want. The market will have to bear it because their is no other option. This is BAD.

 

[logo29a]

Well, it's a good thing you weren't the one deciding antitrust law in the early 20th century. A basic econ 100 class and a little bit of analytical thinking might change your mind. Or if you've already had the facts, and this is your conclusion about the global economy, then I'm glad you aren't anywhere near the guys who make policy. Without the checks and balances (like antitrust) I could go ahead and buy up a good chunk of the worlds food supply and then hold it ransom. Why do you think oil prices fluctuate so much? OPEC. Cartels and monopolies are bad for business all around, that's why we have laws against them. Look what happened in the early 1900s, it wasn't good, one guy at one point had $.25 of every dollar, do you know what that kind of control allows you to do? Capitalism only works if there are laws to keep people from seriously fubaring the whole deal.

Mikelz, the fundamental flaw isn't with the people who would buy up all of the world's food supply or groups like OPEC. It is with the people who make themselves slaves to those goods. Anyone can produce food, but few have learned how. There are means of propulsion other than gasoline.

 

[freeloader1969]

"Let's see here. The speed of light is an absolute. The fact that I exist is an absolute."

Nothing is an "absolute". The speed of light can be altered. Are you sure you exist? Are you sure any of us exist?....blah...blah..blah...philosophical questions that have no answers. Heck, am I even having this conversation with you?

Anyhow, it appears Intel has done some serious wrong doing and is possibly going to pay the price for it. I have a feeling that Intel will pay AMD compensation and from that point on, Intel may choose not to allow AMD the right to license X86 technology in return. It's a no win situation for AMD. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[logo29a]

Mike,

Another point I'd like to make is that people who have made billions honestly wouldn't do such things. Groups like OPEC don't operate under capitalism.

 

[mikelz85]

Not when the entire industy is built around it. The point is, the economy will always have dependencies on something, so laws are there to protect businesses from drastically abusing them. OPEC does operate in a free market economy. They influence NGOs, and nations in a free market economy. Meh, this is getting OT anyways, I'm not really here to argue economic philosophy, but monopolies=bad is a pretty simple rule of thumb in capitalism.

 

[logo29a]

Capitalism works because the supply and demand model works. If intel goes and skews that by not allowing people to buy another product, then the whole system gets out of balance. Pretty soon AMD goes under, not because they didn't offer a competitive product at a competive price, but because Intel went and threw their 90% market share weight around. Now you have only Intel, which means no competition, which in turn means they can offer any product they want, at any price they want. The market will have to bear it because their is no other option. This is BAD.

I didn't see this bit, but I agree with you. However, I still don't fully believe that Intel is doing this. If they are, they are wrong.

Also keep in mind that our government does this all the time. Take the most recent supreme court ruling regarding eminent domain. Take governement subsidies. I could go on and on. But I'm sure that you already knew this.

 

[logo29a]

Not when the entire industy is built around it. The point is, the economy will always have dependencies on something, so laws are there to protect businesses from drastically abusing them. Meh, this is getting OT anyways, I'm not really here to argue economic philosophy, but monopolies=bad is a pretty simple rule of thumb in capitalism.

Mike, again I agree. However, in true capitalism monopolies are short lived, and few and far between.

 

[eno-on]

Let's see here. The speed of light is an absolute. The fact that I exist is an absolute.

What's really humorous is that you pragmatists contradict yourselves with the very statement "there are no absolutes". Do you not understand how silly that statement is?

I'm not surprised you try to draw attention away from your inability to argue the point at hand with any form of reason.
If you look at what I was saying in context, you'd realise I wasnt talking physics. Actually, I'm sure you were aware of that, but not having an intelligent reply to the topic at hand, you attempted to draw attention to something taken out of context.
You aren't very good at this. You should quit while you are behind.

(and by the way, neither of the instances you stated are in fact, absolute.)

 

[bored-sarcasm]

i see more AMD in the future, lots more.

 

[logo29a]

I'm not surprised you try to draw attention away from your inability to argue the point at hand with any form of reason.
If you look at what I was saying in context, you'd realise I wasnt talking physics. Actually, I'm sure you were aware of that, but not having an intelligent reply to the topic at hand, you attempted to draw attention to something taken out of context.
You aren't very good at this. You should quit while you are behind.

(and by the way, neither of the instances you stated are in fact, absolute.)

What I said applies more to philosophy than it does physics. I guess you simply don't see the utter absurdity of your assertion in the first place. Your statement that there are "no absolutes" is in itself an absolute. You contradicted yourself in one simple statement.

Show me, then, how the speed of light is not absolute.

You were the one who went down this road. Not I. My original statement had context in the arguement. Your emotionally charged rant did not.