FTC Sues Intel for 'Anticompetitive Tactics'

Nemesis999 said:
Not too sharp huh.

Please tell me how the "masses will buy it" when Intel actively pays stores and oems NOT TO SELL IT.

Moreso, explain how the average person is going to know the performance characteristics of the dozens of available microprocessors when 99% of the can't even tell you what is in their computer right now.

Do you spew this kind of verbal diarrhea in real life? or do you just like to make yourself feel good on the Internets by spewing uneducated unrealistic crap based solely on your lack of understanding of reality?
Click to expand...

Does the world have to hand you everything on a silver platter? Word of mouth can sell a great product on its own. Remember the internet? Goodness you are a vindictive little bugger when you don't get your way.
 
Nemesis999 said:
I learned they don't work when monopolies suppress them. You apparently learned not much of anything since you seem to have a micro-economics 101 level of understanding.

Here's some reality for you. Despite all the idiotic bullshit you choose to spew, AMD HAD THE BETTER PRODUCT for years and was unable to raise their market share. So obviously you're wrong. Why do people argue theoretical results when they obviously don't match with reality? Are you that delusional that you believe that your theories are right and reality is wrong?
Click to expand...

So Apple has no market share, right?
 
Lollipop said:
Does the world have to hand you everything on a silver platter? Word of mouth can sell a great product on its own. Remember the internet? Goodness you are a vindictive little bugger when you don't get your way.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Welcome to the block list. Grow up kid. You sounds like a teenager determined that they're right against blatant evidence.
 
Lollipop said:
Did Intel use a gun to the retailers? It's strategy. Where do you guys learn about free markets?
Click to expand...

If the allegations are true, then yes, they used a gun, in the sense that if you sold AMD products, then you wouldn't be able to purchase Intel products at steep discounts they were offering.

Intel systems are going to sell simply because they're Intel systems. The AMD brand isn't as recognized in the consumer market and OEMs have to advertise them much more aggressively to get them sold. So when Intel comes along and says "hey, we'll sell you our products for 15% less, (but you have to limit your output of AMD based products)," who's the fool that's going to have his head served to the CEO?
 
BettiePage said:
I would... so if you cant beat em go blow up their factories... anything to win right? Legal or not, who cares right? So long as you dont get caught... bribe steal cheat murder all's fair as long as your making a buck right?

Intel broke the law period. Intel had an inferior product and used their position as market leader to intimidate, blackmail and coerced folks to hold onto market share.

Companies do not have the right to break the law in search of profit.
Click to expand...

Drama Queen? Who blew up a factory?
 
Lollipop said:
So Apple has no market share, right?
Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you even read before you comment? When did Microsoft pay busiensses not to buy Mac? When did Microsoft threaten to withhold Windows licenses to those that use mac? When did Microsoft pay retailers not to sell OSX? Where is the parallel at all? Do you have any comprehension of what the actual complaint is?
 
Lollipop said:
Did Intel use a gun to the retailers? It's strategy. Where do you guys learn about free markets?
Click to expand...

I got my degree at the University of Utah and you are an idiot. Unbelievable that you would post such ignorant crap and then have a quote from JSM in your sig section. Some "strategies" are illegal because the market works better when there is actual free trade. When one company is paying the biggest biggies in the market to actively NOT free trade then they are NOT promoting free trade. Intel was attacking free trade and the free market.

You should quit posting. You just look like an idiot.
 
snowden said:
I got my degree at the University of Utah and you are an idiot. Unbelievable that you would post such ignorant crap and then have a quote from JSM in your sig section. Some "strategies" are illegal because the market works better when there is actual free trade. When one company is paying the biggest biggies in the market to actively NOT free trade then they are NOT promoting free trade. Intel was attacking free trade and the free market.

You should quit posting. You just look like an idiot.
Click to expand...

He's either 12 years old, 20points below average, or just a good old fashioned troll (I'm betting all three), just ignorelist him.
 
ryan_975 said:
If the allegations are true, then yes, they used a gun, in the sense that if you sold AMD products, then you wouldn't be able to purchase Intel products at steep discounts they were offering.

Intel systems are going to sell simply because they're Intel systems. The AMD brand isn't as recognized in the consumer market and OEMs have to advertise them much more aggressively to get them sold. So when Intel comes along and says "hey, we'll sell you our products for 15% less, (but you have to limit your output of AMD based products)," who's the fool that's going to have his head served to the CEO?
Click to expand...

Then don't buy the product. If the retailer thought AMD had a more profitable and superior product they wouldn't have chosen Intel. A product's appeal doesn't immaculately conceive in a market.
 
You know, as long as they keep producing products as good as they do, I could care less.
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't follow this stuff enough but what "tactics" are they refering to? it seem to me that others just arent keeping up. AMD holds a completely different position as the "budget" brand. Is that somehow Intels fault?
Click to expand...

I think some people don't understand the full scope of this. This is EXACTLY what intel or any other monopoly wants. To put themselves in a position where customers keep buying their stuff because it is "Superior" and be willing to pay more money + loyalty. What you fail to realize is that the reason they have "Superior" product is because they prevented other companies from competing by stifling their efforts. In the long run this means Intel makes more money and gains reputation + other companies lose money and reputation.

NOW tell me, if I made more money on selling the same product that you did (just to keep the example simple - I know this is unrealistic), maybe 2x or 3x, and I have a better reputation therefore people are willing to pay more for said product, that you would be able to dump just as much money as I could into R&D??? That is what the huge problem when people say "oh it's ok, intel makes better product".


If this bullshit wasn't going on, where would we be now? Maybe our processors etc. would be faster + better? Who knows? But to turn a blind eye is what allows companies to do this kind of stuff.

If I stole from someone that you didn't know, you couldn't probably care less - because it doesn't affect you (or at least you don't think it does). But if I stole from you - you'd be very upset. I feel like intel has robbed us, not directly but in essence the same affect.

That's right, because a company SHOULD help the competition more than itself.
Click to expand...

NO-ONE is asking for that.

Recently Intel paid billions to the EU for the same practices. As stated earlier it was rather clear. The point is if that Intel ran a business without anti competitive practices then AMD would be farther ahead innovation wise and we would possibly see cpus (and other parts for that matter) that are more technologically advanced due to a level playing field.
Click to expand...

+1
 
snowden said:
I got my degree at the University of Utah and you are an idiot. Unbelievable that you would post such ignorant crap and then have a quote from JSM in your sig section. Some "strategies" are illegal because the market works better when there is actual free trade. When one company is paying the biggest biggies in the market to actively NOT free trade then they are NOT promoting free trade. Intel was attacking free trade and the free market.

You should quit posting. You just look like an idiot.
Click to expand...

You girls really get nasty when you're cornered don't you. :rolleyes:
 
Lollipop said:
Drama Queen? Who blew up a factory?
Click to expand...

So you don't disagree that Intel broke the law by using their position as market leader to intimidate, blackmail and coerced folks to hold onto market share?

Thanks.

Must be hard to have the FTC go after Intel and not say it's just some EU government looking for a quick shakedown of a US company huh?
 
Nemesis999 said:
He's either 12 years old, 20points below average, or just a good old fashioned troll (I'm betting all three), just ignorelist him.
Click to expand...

Heh, this thread looks ridiculous after blocking Lollipop the "genius". Makes you wonder who everyone is arguing with. Everyone should ignore the "genius" so we could try to have a real discussion. And definitely a troll, and a stupid troll at that. :)
 
snowden said:
Heh, this thread looks ridiculous after blocking Lollipop the "genius". Makes you wonder who everyone is arguing with. Everyone should ignore the "genius" so we could try to have a real discussion. And definitely a troll, and a stupid troll at that. :)
Click to expand...

At least he thinks he's special!

The most amusing part is the fact that he's not even arguing with competing theories. He's arguing that his theory is right, and that the actual results of the actions in question are wrong. It takes a special kind of stupid to argue with historical fact.
 
snowden said:
Heh, this thread looks ridiculous after blocking Lollipop the "genius". Makes you wonder who everyone is arguing with. Everyone should ignore the "genius" so we could try to have a real discussion. And definitely a troll, and a stupid troll at that. :)
Click to expand...

U of U? Cause the Mormons know all about "free markets"!
 
MrLonghair said:
Eagerly looking forward to seeing how Intel ends up in a few years after this is done.
Click to expand...

How did Microsoft end up for doing the same thing? Intel will end up the same.

Most likely levied a shit ton of fines to be overturned by a future president that does not really care about a company that has broken clear, basic, text book examples of anti-trust laws, and then gets away with a slap on the wrist.
 
Many great comedians have died in the last few years but I'm happy we've got Intel ready to unleash kneeslappers like this on us.

"Intel has competed fairly and lawfully. Its actions have benefitted consumers."

Take them down, FTC :cool:
 
What ever happened to the assumption of innocence? I say they will settle out of court and it will never reach trial.
 
Could the same argument not be applied against Windows?

Just askin'. I love Win7 :)
 
TechLarry said:
Could the same argument not be applied against Windows?

Just askin'. I love Win7 :)
Click to expand...

If Apple has proof that MS was paying Dell, HP/Compaq, etc... bribes and/or threatening them with higher prices and delayed shipments (which is usually worse then higher prices) if they sold Macs then yes, the same argument could be applied. Also if Microsoft was deliberately making software that would bork Macs then you might have something. So go find that proof and I betcha Apple will love you for it.
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
What ever happened to the assumption of innocence? I say they will settle out of court and it will never reach trial.
Click to expand...

They've been found guilty in Japan, Korea, and the EU. They also settled their civil suit with AMD with a $1.25B payout and acceptance of AMD's plan to spin off x86 production to a different company (GF). Intel is well past the point of presumed innocence.
 
TechLarry said:
Could the same argument not be applied against Windows?

Just askin'. I love Win7 :)
Click to expand...

Apple is the one limiting their own market share. Jobs has always been the greedy one. Apple went for the $500/purchase margin by forcing hardware restrictions. MS went for the $50/purchase margin and captured almost the entire market.
 
Nemesis999 said:
They've been found guilty in Japan, Korea, and the EU. They also settled their civil suit with AMD with a $1.25B payout and acceptance of AMD's plan to spin off x86 production to a different company (GF). Intel is well past the point of presumed innocence.
Click to expand...

You fail at how American laws work as well.
 
I've got no love for big business,but when does this stop being a pursuit of fair trade and become a vendetta? Everyone loves to kick the big kid when he's down.How about an investigation of the EU and their tactics and true aims?
 
Modred189 said:
You know, as long as they keep producing products as good as they do, I could care less.
Click to expand...

And just think how much better our products would be if Intel didn't stifle AMD or any other competitor. Remember how Intel was trying to hold back innovation and declaring that 64 bit was a total waste of time and Amd went on and produced 32 and 64 bit chips.
 
michael.pa2 said:
I've got no love for big business,but when does this stop being a pursuit of fair trade and become a vendetta? Everyone loves to kick the big kid when he's down.How about an investigation of the EU and their tactics and true aims?
Click to expand...

Right, the best defense is to deflect.
 
now my thing is if amd was in a fair fight with intel back in the k8 vs netburst amd would prob still own its fabs and be doing exactly what atac is doing with global foundries
 
snowden said:
If Apple has proof that MS was paying Dell, HP/Compaq, etc... bribes and/or threatening them with higher prices and delayed shipments (which is usually worse then higher prices) if they sold Macs then yes, the same argument could be applied. Also if Microsoft was deliberately making software that would bork Macs then you might have something. So go find that proof and I betcha Apple will love you for it.
Click to expand...

So Apple and Microsoft don't compete?
 
I wonder where was the ROTW (rest of the world) when AMD were competitive and Intel were sucking Donkeys b*&^%s..yet they bought a Intel P4 just cuz of Intel's illegal marketing practices....

I say sue them (without blinking an eye..)..
 
Kenworth said:
Recently Intel paid billions to the EU for the same practices. As stated earlier it was rather clear. The point is if that Intel ran a business without anti competitive practices then AMD would be farther ahead innovation wise and we would possibly see cpus (and other parts for that matter) that are more technologically advanced due to a level playing field.
Click to expand...

And what do you do when AMD goes belly up completely and you are only left with Intel? Then what?
 
tomiboy59 said:
Oh and monopolies are okay too right?
Click to expand...

In the natural scheme of things, yes, monopolies are okay. You deal with them everyday already? Utilities are monopolies, no? What is the point of being in business then? Do you think business is a charity? That it should extend a helping hand to it's competition? No. It's to crush competition, maximize profit, be #1 in your market, and capture the largest customer base possible. If you have a better idea of how to run a business I'd like to hear it. If you have a different business model I'd like to hear or see that too.
 
Methadras said:
In the natural scheme of things, yes, monopolies are okay. You deal with them everyday already? Utilities are monopolies, no? What is the point of being in business then? Do you think business is a charity? That it should extend a helping hand to it's competition? No. It's to crush competition, maximize profit, be #1 in your market, and capture the largest customer base possible. If you have a better idea of how to run a business I'd like to hear it. If you have a different business model I'd like to hear or see that too.
Click to expand...

Get ready to duck! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top