Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA509320?nid=2019

<quote>
Specifically, the JFTC found that one manufacturer was forced to agree
to buy 100 percent of its CPUs from Intel; another manufacturer was
forced to curtail its non-Intel purchases to 10 percent or less; Intel
separately conditioned rebates on the exclusive use of Intel CPUs
throughout an entire series of computers sold under a single brand
name in order to exclude AMD CPUs from distribution; and the
mechanisms used to achieve these ends included rebates and marketing
practices that includes the “Intel Inside” program and market
development funds provided through Intel’s corporate parent in the
United States.

The recommendation also notes that Intel imposed these restrictions in
direct response to AMD’s growing market share from 2000 to 2002 and
that as a result of this misconduct, the combined market share of AMD
and a second, much smaller CPU company fell from 24 percent in 2002 to
11 percent in 2003.
</quote>
148 answers Last reply
More about intel found abusing market power japan
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    chrisv wrote:
    > http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA509320?nid=2019

    For some reason, the story started to get a lot of play today, even
    though it broke last week, just before the weekend. I posted a link
    about it too. There's probably hundreds of links in Google about this
    story already.

    Some of the articles even quote European regulators saying that they too
    have an investigation going on about it. Prior to this, it seems like as
    if AMD was whistling into the wind, nobody wanted to hear about it. AMD
    would file a complaint and the regulators would find no evidence. It was
    an ongoing cycle. I think the difference this time was that Japan
    actually raided Intel's offices without warning. Prevented Intel from
    getting rid of evidence, probably.

    Yousuf Khan
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    And there was this posting recently, about historical efforts by Compaq
    to break Intel's power in the past.

    http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21117891

    It's interesting reading the account by this ex-Compaq employee who
    found that Intel was becoming less and less cooperative the more and
    more it was accumulating power. I found the same thing, I used to be
    able to call an Intel 800 number and get all kinds of documentation for
    free from Intel, then it started charging for it.

    Yousuf Khan
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 9 Mar 2005 11:18:14 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

    >And there was this posting recently, about historical efforts by Compaq
    >to break Intel's power in the past.
    >
    >http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21117891
    >
    >It's interesting reading the account by this ex-Compaq employee who
    >found that Intel was becoming less and less cooperative the more and
    >more it was accumulating power. I found the same thing, I used to be
    >able to call an Intel 800 number and get all kinds of documentation for
    >free from Intel, then it started charging for it.
    >

    Is that because you've become powerful enough for Intel to worry about
    you? Let's be friends, Yousuf. ;-).

    RM
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    >>It's interesting reading the account by this ex-Compaq employee who
    >>found that Intel was becoming less and less cooperative the more and
    >>more it was accumulating power. I found the same thing, I used to be
    >>able to call an Intel 800 number and get all kinds of documentation for
    >>free from Intel, then it started charging for it.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Is that because you've become powerful enough for Intel to worry about
    > you? Let's be friends, Yousuf. ;-).

    What, you didn't know? :-)

    But seriously, Intel became a much less friendly company sometime ago.

    Yousuf Khan
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA509320?nid=2019
    >
    >For some reason, the story started to get a lot of play today, even
    >though it broke last week, just before the weekend. I posted a link
    >about it too. There's probably hundreds of links in Google about this
    >story already.
    >
    >Some of the articles even quote European regulators saying that they too
    >have an investigation going on about it. Prior to this, it seems like as
    >if AMD was whistling into the wind, nobody wanted to hear about it. AMD
    >would file a complaint and the regulators would find no evidence. It was
    >an ongoing cycle. I think the difference this time was that Japan
    >actually raided Intel's offices without warning. Prevented Intel from
    >getting rid of evidence, probably.

    Yeah, the mindset of the evil businessman is truly a wonder. Intel
    has so many advantages over AMD, so much more money, and yet they fell
    the need to cheat. Lie, cheat, and steal, and if you don't get
    caught, it's all good.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    > Smoking guns (incriminating docs from high levels) would help
    > prosecution, but aren't absolutely necessary. A widespread
    > pattern would be just as good. US Antitrust law is a scary beast.
    > The burden of proof is "guilty until proven innocent".
    >
    > I agree that Intel isn't that stupid, and most likely this
    > is low-level overzealousness. Intel also plays nice with
    > the DoJ in stark contrast with Microsoft. Charging for
    > dead trees documents doesn't make them nasty.

    I doubt it's just a low-level overzealousness. For example, one of the
    companies, NEC, was required to limit its purchases of non-Intel
    processors based on region of the world it was destined for: 90% within
    Japan, 70% to Europe, and 80% to rest of the world. It's all listed in
    here. How can specifying marketshares throughout the world be
    considered low-level, unless Intel also has marketshares throughout the
    Solar System?

    http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/seminar/2005/Arai_Feb_17.pdf

    I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed to
    mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things at all, or
    that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My feeling is it's
    the latter.

    Yousuf Khan
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    > This time some [brave?] Japanese company probably complained
    > to MITI and produced documents that showed their discount
    > was dependant on %Intel, not just volume Intel.

    Well, that's exactly what it was, on the day that they raided Intel's
    office, they also paid a visit to the offices of about five PC makers,
    NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi. Obviously to get
    corroborating evidence, that perhaps was missing from Intel's own
    offices?

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
    > AMD would file a complaint and the regulators would find no
    > evidence. It was an ongoing cycle. I think the difference this
    > time was that Japan actually raided Intel's offices without
    > warning. Prevented Intel from getting rid of evidence, probably.

    I doubt it. Evidence is very hard to get rid of.
    Most likely AMD's complaints got minimal investigation:
    [Intel to cop]: "Oh no, we would never do that." Case closed.

    This time some [brave?] Japanese company probably complained
    to MITI and produced documents that showed their discount
    was dependant on %Intel, not just volume Intel.

    Japanese law may permit the whistleblower to remain anonymous.
    US law probably wouldn't. I doubt even Dell could risk
    Intel's retaliation. If indeed Intel has gone to the Dark
    Side, and this isn't an isolated bad-saleman case.

    -- Robert
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:51:04 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

    >If indeed Intel has gone to the Dark
    >Side, and this isn't an isolated bad-saleman case.
    >

    [Intel to cop]: "These are the actions of a renegade
    [salesman/manager/flunky]. Intel employees have been repeatedly
    instructed to stay within the law. Here is a memo that we sent to
    everyone on the subject."

    I'll get whacked again for the "everybody does it" mentality, but,
    everybody does it. That's not to say it's okay, but it's hard to get
    excited about it.

    For all that everybody whines and bitches, Intel is not a monopoly and
    probably never will be. People who don't want to buy Intel chips have
    realistic choices, much more so than people who would rather never
    give another nickel to Gates or the co-predators who live in that
    ecosystem (like symantec).

    Even had AMD been forced out of business by Intel, the choices people
    have wouldn't be as good, but they'd still have choices and Intel, for
    all its muscle and meanness, hasn't forced AMD out of business.

    The Japanese nor the European nor anybody else's action is going to
    make a difference unless and until somebody uncovers a pattern of
    behavior complete with smoking guns. I assume Intel just isn't that
    stupid.

    RM
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    > For all that everybody whines and bitches, Intel is not a
    > monopoly and probably never will be. People who don't want
    > to buy Intel chips have realistic choices, much more so than
    > people who would rather never give another nickel to Gates or
    > the co-predators who live in that ecosystem (like symantec).

    The legal definition of monopoly requires "market control",
    not 100%. There is little doubt in my mind that Intel controls
    the market for desktop and laptop CPUs. If they dropped the
    price, everyone else would have to follow. If they raised
    the price, few/none would lag (full fabs).

    > The Japanese nor the European nor anybody else's action
    > is going to make a difference unless and until somebody
    > uncovers a pattern of behavior complete with smoking guns.
    > I assume Intel just isn't that stupid.

    Smoking guns (incriminating docs from high levels) would help
    prosecution, but aren't absolutely necessary. A widespread
    pattern would be just as good. US Antitrust law is a scary beast.
    The burden of proof is "guilty until proven innocent".

    I agree that Intel isn't that stupid, and most likely this
    is low-level overzealousness. Intel also plays nice with
    the DoJ in stark contrast with Microsoft. Charging for
    dead trees documents doesn't make them nasty.

    -- Robert
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 10 Mar 2005 14:12:09 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:


    >
    >I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed to
    >mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things at all, or
    >that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My feeling is it's
    >the latter.
    >

    A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
    making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
    might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
    difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
    whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
    structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
    something illegal.

    Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
    leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
    RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
    collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
    Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.

    Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
    their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
    kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
    high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.

    Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.

    RM
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
    > making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
    > might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
    > difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
    > whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
    > structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
    > something illegal.

    It's not that difficult to figure out the difference between
    monopolistic business practices and just standard business practices.
    I'm sure Intel would have you believe it's a fine line, hard to tell the
    difference, but it isn't. You give your customers discounts based on the
    _volume_ of Intel they sell, then that's standard practice. You give
    your customers discounts based on _percentage_ of Intel, then that's
    monopolistic practice.

    > Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
    > leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
    > RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
    > collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
    > Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.
    >
    > Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
    > their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
    > kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
    > high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.

    Play devil's advocate with somebody else, it's simply not working.
    Corporate values have not changed -- they've always been like this.
    Enron, Worldcom, etc. are just today's examples of things that have
    happened in the past, and will happen again in the future. The
    anti-trust laws were first put into place over 100 years ago, originally
    to control out-of-control railway barons, who were gobbling each other
    up and leading towards a monopoly railway (and that's also why the game
    of Monopoly is based around railways and land properties). Over the
    years, the robber barons have changed from railway magnates, to oil
    tycoons, to telephone companies, to full-service computer firms, to
    software and chip companies. But their goals have always been exactly
    the same -- complete domination of their own industries.

    Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
    that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
    behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
    been in place for hundreds of years.

    > Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.

    Who cares if Intel is worse than most or not? I don't care if it's
    accumulating its monopoly so that it could feed the hungry children of
    the world. Completely irrelevant. Think carefully about why there is no
    excuse for this behaviour no matter what.

    Yousuf Khan
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I doubt it's just a low-level overzealousness. For example,
    > one of the companies, NEC, was required to limit its purchases
    > of non-Intel processors based on region of the world it was
    > destined for: 90% within Japan, 70% to Europe, and 80% to rest
    > of the world. It's all listed in here. How can specifying
    > marketshares throughout the world be considered low-level,
    > unless Intel also has marketshares throughout the Solar System?

    > http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/seminar/2005/Arai_Feb_17.pdf

    If true, this is extremely severe, at least under US law.
    Japanese law may differ. But the prez of Intel Japan either
    knew, or ought ot have known. And possibly the Intel CEO.

    > I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed
    > to mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things
    > at all, or that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My
    > feeling is it's the latter.

    I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
    No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.

    -- Robert
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Well, that's exactly what it was, on the day that they
    > raided Intel's office, they also paid a visit to the offices
    > of about five PC makers, NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and
    > Hitachi. Obviously to get corroborating evidence, that perhaps
    > was missing from Intel's own offices?

    Corroboration is good from all sources. On something
    as big as this, they'd pull out all the stops.

    -- Robert
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    > YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed
    >>to mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things
    >>at all, or that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My
    >>feeling is it's the latter.
    >
    >
    > I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
    > No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.

    Not doing illegal things doesn't require intelligence, it requires
    morality and ethics. There's no proof that Intel posesses either of
    those things.

    Yousuf Khan
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    > YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I doubt it's just a low-level overzealousness. For example,
    >>one of the companies, NEC, was required to limit its purchases
    >>of non-Intel processors based on region of the world it was
    >>destined for: 90% within Japan, 70% to Europe, and 80% to rest
    >>of the world. It's all listed in here. How can specifying
    >>marketshares throughout the world be considered low-level,
    >>unless Intel also has marketshares throughout the Solar System?
    >
    >
    >>http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/seminar/2005/Arai_Feb_17.pdf
    >
    >
    > If true, this is extremely severe, at least under US law.
    > Japanese law may differ. But the prez of Intel Japan either
    > knew, or ought ot have known. And possibly the Intel CEO.
    >
    >
    >>I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed
    >>to mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things
    >>at all, or that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My
    >>feeling is it's the latter.
    >
    >
    > I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
    > No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.
    >

    I have little doubt that Intel knew exactly what it was doing and
    that they planned to continue until they got caught. They simply
    weighed the benefits against the risk and decided it was worth
    it. And it looks like they were right: when they were finally
    caught all that happened was a finger wagged in there face while
    momma said "bad boy".
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:
    > I have little doubt that Intel knew exactly what it was doing and that
    > they planned to continue until they got caught. They simply weighed
    > the benefits against the risk and decided it was worth it. And it looks
    > like they were right: when they were finally caught all that happened
    > was a finger wagged in there face while momma said "bad boy".

    Whatever fines are levied against it, whether it is $1 or $1 million is
    chicken feed compared to what will come after that. Once Intel has a
    record as a monopolist, AMD is free to sue it and use this record as its
    proof. Intel will be hounded forever after.

    Without sounding too dramatic, make no mistake about it, this is
    probably *the* biggest crisis that Intel faces. It is probably its one
    nightmare scenario, much more important than any Prescott heat
    dissipation problems, fab process problems, Itanium vs. Xeon 64-bit, or
    any of the others. Intel's squeeky clean image will disappear if it
    either admits to it, or fights it in court and loses. That image has
    been what's kept it out of trouble so far -- none of the allegations has
    ever stuck to it. It's a bit like hunting for UFO's, you suspect they're
    there, but you just can't find the proof. After this everything will
    stick to Intel, which is the last thing they wanted to happen.

    Yousuf Khan
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:57:13 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >> A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
    >> making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
    >> might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
    >> difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
    >> whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
    >> structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
    >> something illegal.
    >
    >It's not that difficult to figure out the difference between
    >monopolistic business practices and just standard business practices.
    >I'm sure Intel would have you believe it's a fine line, hard to tell the
    >difference, but it isn't. You give your customers discounts based on the
    >_volume_ of Intel they sell, then that's standard practice. You give
    >your customers discounts based on _percentage_ of Intel, then that's
    >monopolistic practice.
    >
    Right. And you know, human beings being the way they are, that the
    more loyal customers get the better volume discounts. Pricing can be
    wildly arbitrary, and some customers are treated better than others.
    Showing that a pricing strategy is predatory could be _very_ difficult
    if the pricing strategy is structured properly, even though, in fact,
    the strategy is aimed at rewarding loyalty at the expense of a
    competitor. That's just the way it goes. Maybe Intel got careless
    here. We'll have to see.

    >> Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
    >> leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
    >> RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
    >> collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
    >> Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.
    >>
    >> Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
    >> their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
    >> kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
    >> high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.
    >
    >Play devil's advocate with somebody else, it's simply not working.
    >Corporate values have not changed -- they've always been like this.
    >Enron, Worldcom, etc. are just today's examples of things that have
    >happened in the past, and will happen again in the future. The
    >anti-trust laws were first put into place over 100 years ago, originally
    >to control out-of-control railway barons, who were gobbling each other
    >up and leading towards a monopoly railway (and that's also why the game
    >of Monopoly is based around railways and land properties). Over the
    >years, the robber barons have changed from railway magnates, to oil
    >tycoons, to telephone companies, to full-service computer firms, to
    >software and chip companies. But their goals have always been exactly
    >the same -- complete domination of their own industries.
    >
    Laws are actually not all that effective, IMHO, in regulating this
    kind of behavior. Market discipline is much more effective. The
    Justice Department went after IBM for years for what really were
    monopolistic practices. By the time the Justice Department got
    anywhere close to enforcement action, one was beginning to wonder
    about the survival of IBM, not about market domination.

    As to the timelessness of what is deemed unacceptable, you're right at
    least that monopolistic practices have a long history of legislation
    and enforcement actions. What I was talking about was the
    timelessness of people trying to get away with whatever they can get
    away with. When something big happens, there is a flurry of activity,
    and then people go back to seeing how far they can bend the rules. In
    this case, the rule-bending is applied to using pricing in creative
    ways that cross over from creative into illegal. No amount of
    legislation or jawboning will ever stop such things.

    >Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
    >that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
    >behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
    >been in place for hundreds of years.
    >
    You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the
    top?

    >> Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.
    >
    >Who cares if Intel is worse than most or not? I don't care if it's
    >accumulating its monopoly so that it could feed the hungry children of
    >the world. Completely irrelevant. Think carefully about why there is no
    >excuse for this behaviour no matter what.
    >
    There are laws, and there are people to enforce the laws, and they
    will do their thing. Sometimes events occur, like the collapse of
    WorldCom, that lead to meaningful action, like Sarbanes-Oxley. I
    suspect that Sarbanes-Oxley is going to prove sufficiently cumbersome
    and annoying to highly-paid directors who are unaccustomed to being
    encumbered with actual responsibility, that it will be duly watered
    down in due course. That's how hard it is to change the way business
    is done with legislation and enforcement. The Intel enforcement
    action would be interesting if it turned into something other than
    isolated enforcement. I'm doubting that it will.

    Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action
    against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun.

    RM
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > Right. And you know, human beings being the way they are, that the
    > more loyal customers get the better volume discounts. Pricing can be
    > wildly arbitrary, and some customers are treated better than others.
    > Showing that a pricing strategy is predatory could be _very_ difficult
    > if the pricing strategy is structured properly, even though, in fact,
    > the strategy is aimed at rewarding loyalty at the expense of a
    > competitor. That's just the way it goes. Maybe Intel got careless
    > here. We'll have to see.

    I don't think they got careless, I think that this time, their
    time-honoured "how to build a monopoly without getting caught" technique
    was not fast enough to prevent damage. I am guessing the raid on their
    offices a year ago caught them off-guard, as it was meant to. Otherwise
    they would've had time to take precautions. My guess is that the
    European and/or American regulators are studying the Japanese technique
    and getting ready to implement it themselves soon. Previous nice-guy
    methods have yielded no evidence, this time it did.

    > As to the timelessness of what is deemed unacceptable, you're right at
    > least that monopolistic practices have a long history of legislation
    > and enforcement actions. What I was talking about was the
    > timelessness of people trying to get away with whatever they can get
    > away with. When something big happens, there is a flurry of activity,
    > and then people go back to seeing how far they can bend the rules. In
    > this case, the rule-bending is applied to using pricing in creative
    > ways that cross over from creative into illegal. No amount of
    > legislation or jawboning will ever stop such things.

    There's nothing wrong with giving discounts based on volume. Based on
    marketshare percentage is another matter. That sort of thing was
    well-known to be illegal long before this case. They are not breaking
    any new ground with Intel.

    >>Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
    >>that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
    >>behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
    >>been in place for hundreds of years.
    >>
    >
    > You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the
    > top?

    Psychopathic is little over the top, sociopathic is right in line.

    > Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action
    > against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun.

    Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?

    Yousuf Khan
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:

    <snip>

    >
    >>>Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
    >>>that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
    >>>behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
    >>>been in place for hundreds of years.
    >>>
    >>
    >> You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the
    >> top?
    >
    >Psychopathic is little over the top, sociopathic is right in line.
    >
    >> Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action
    >> against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun.
    >
    >Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?
    >

    Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron. I just don't understand
    the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed
    player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this.

    I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for
    Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the
    business.

    Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
    absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
    a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
    monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

    We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that
    (security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD
    can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might?
    Show me where anybody is really harmed.

    RM
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    >>Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?
    >>
    >
    >
    > Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron.

    Believe it or not, I work for IBM these days.

    Sun isn't the only one selling AMD stuff though. Mind you, they are the
    only major ones I can think of that are 100% AMD -- they've given up
    their Xeons completely.

    > I just don't understand
    > the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed
    > player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this.

    Not really, I'm just responding to your arguments with equal force.

    > I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for
    > Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the
    > business.

    I have that resentment of Microsoft too. I can't wait for the day when
    Linux becomes as ubiquitous an OS as Windows, such that some games can
    be developed on it.

    But that day hasn't arrived yet. There's still something more that needs
    to be done to finally take Microsoft out.

    > Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
    > absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
    > a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
    > monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

    Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
    Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
    computer revolution. But so what?

    You don't think Intel's monopolistic practices have harmed the market?
    Okay, then let's talk about a company you do think has harmed the market
    -- Microsoft. How has Microsoft's practices hurt the market?

    I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took
    IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for
    them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either.

    > We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that
    > (security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD
    > can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might?
    > Show me where anybody is really harmed.

    AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
    paid attention you'd have known that.

    Yousuf Khan
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:28:41 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:

    >>>Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?
    >>>
    >> Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron.
    >
    >Believe it or not, I work for IBM these days.
    >
    >Sun isn't the only one selling AMD stuff though. Mind you, they are the
    >only major ones I can think of that are 100% AMD -- they've given up
    >their Xeons completely.
    >
    > > I just don't understand
    >> the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed
    >> player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this.
    >
    >Not really, I'm just responding to your arguments with equal force.
    >
    Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf.
    It is not a big deal.

    >> I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for
    >> Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the
    >> business.
    >
    >I have that resentment of Microsoft too. I can't wait for the day when
    >Linux becomes as ubiquitous an OS as Windows, such that some games can
    >be developed on it.
    >
    >But that day hasn't arrived yet. There's still something more that needs
    >to be done to finally take Microsoft out.
    >
    Microsoft isn't going to be taken out in any scenario that will leave
    other players in any kind of familiar arrangement.

    >> Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
    >> absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
    >> a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
    >> monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.
    >
    >Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
    >Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
    >computer revolution. But so what?
    >
    I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them
    out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS.
    Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit
    of the industry.

    >You don't think Intel's monopolistic practices have harmed the market?
    >Okay, then let's talk about a company you do think has harmed the market
    >-- Microsoft. How has Microsoft's practices hurt the market?
    >
    I think I did say how Microsoft has hurt the market: through security
    problems, which were massively exacerbated by the deliberately
    predatory design of Internet Explorer, and by customers fed up with
    buggy software. It's true that Windows XP isn't the disaster that the
    Windows 95 variants were, but it's still clumsy and ugly and simple
    maintenance requires frequent rebooting.

    I don't really think it's possible to overestimate how much
    badly-designed security has cost the industry in lost progress,
    bloated software (layers of fixes), lost good will, and actual money.

    Someone who was bought by Microsoft has described Bill Gates as being
    in the business of turning other people's good ideas into mediocre
    products. I think it's pretty accurate. Microsoft can do it because
    it is a monopoly.

    >I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took
    >IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for
    >them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either.
    >
    I never thought of IBM as evil (if you except its involvement with the
    Third Reich, but that was before my time). And, as I said, the market
    was more effective at dealing with IBM's monopolistic tendencies than
    the Justice Department.

    >> We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that
    >> (security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD
    >> can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might?
    >> Show me where anybody is really harmed.
    >
    >AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
    >paid attention you'd have known that.
    >

    The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
    technology.

    RM
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    : On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    <snip rather interesting exchange>

    : I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have
    : for Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts
    : the business.

    Oh, ya think? I present to you sir, exhibit A:
    http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

    <more snip>
    j.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf.
    > It is not a big deal.

    And the point is?

    It's already certain that it's not going to get much of a fine. They
    were talking about 3 million yen, which is about US$29,000 -- if it goes
    to trial. But it's not the fine that Intel has to worry about, it's the
    civil lawsuits afterwards.

    AMD is certain to pounce on this and start asking for compensation for
    lost sales, and it will use this indictment as evidence in its civil
    suit. Over several years, that's equal to a few billion greenbacks.

    Then the very same system manufacturers that turned it in may start
    asking for compensation from Intel too, if Intel decides to punish them
    by reducing their discounts.

    On an outside chance, you might even see various chipset manufacturers,
    like VIA, SiS, Nvidia, etc. suing citing lost potential sales from
    AMD-based systems.

    There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford:
    fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or
    fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage.
    Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto
    anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward.

    >>>Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
    >>>absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
    >>>a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
    >>>monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.
    >>
    >>Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
    >>Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
    >>computer revolution. But so what?
    >>
    >
    > I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them
    > out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS.
    > Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit
    > of the industry.

    And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
    companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry
    would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?

    Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the
    exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone
    (dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business,
    etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or
    has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
    Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
    Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
    competition and consumers?

    >>I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took
    >>IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for
    >>them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either.
    >>
    >
    > I never thought of IBM as evil (if you except its involvement with the
    > Third Reich, but that was before my time). And, as I said, the market
    > was more effective at dealing with IBM's monopolistic tendencies than
    > the Justice Department.

    I did, IBM was in bad need of a take down back then (80's). It's now no
    longer evil, just binignly self-interested.

    >>AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
    >>paid attention you'd have known that.
    >>
    >
    >
    > The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
    > technology.

    You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory
    controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will
    be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too. By contrast,
    Intel's most recent attempt at innovation, Itanium, has only one thing
    new going for it: an instruction set, and that's not likely to have much
    of a long-term influence on processor design afterwards.

    Yousuf Khan
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:51:22 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >> Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf.
    >> It is not a big deal.
    >
    >And the point is?
    >
    >It's already certain that it's not going to get much of a fine. They
    >were talking about 3 million yen, which is about US$29,000 -- if it goes
    >to trial. But it's not the fine that Intel has to worry about, it's the
    >civil lawsuits afterwards.
    >
    >AMD is certain to pounce on this and start asking for compensation for
    >lost sales, and it will use this indictment as evidence in its civil
    >suit. Over several years, that's equal to a few billion greenbacks.
    >
    >Then the very same system manufacturers that turned it in may start
    >asking for compensation from Intel too, if Intel decides to punish them
    >by reducing their discounts.
    >
    >On an outside chance, you might even see various chipset manufacturers,
    >like VIA, SiS, Nvidia, etc. suing citing lost potential sales from
    >AMD-based systems.
    >
    >There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford:
    >fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or
    >fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage.
    >Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto
    >anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward.
    >

    I'll be fascinated to see this work itself out.

    >>>>Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
    >>>>absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
    >>>>a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
    >>>>monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.
    >>>
    >>>Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
    >>>Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
    >>>computer revolution. But so what?
    >>>
    >>
    >> I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them
    >> out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS.
    >> Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit
    >> of the industry.
    >
    >And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
    >companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry
    >would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?
    >
    >Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the
    >exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone
    >(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business,
    >etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or
    >has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
    >Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
    >Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
    >competition and consumers?
    >
    You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think of
    myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from
    the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies
    have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of
    Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it
    was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of players.
    There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression.

    Intel, bye-the-bye, needs a credible competitor, and its credible
    competitor for x86 is AMD. Intel has no interest in destroying AMD,
    although Intel surely would like to limit x86 (won't happen, of
    course--the market always wins). Microsoft, on the other hand, simply
    buys up and/or annihilates competition. Microsoft's credible
    competitor now is Linux. It's amazing that Microsoft even got near
    the SCO, but the fact that they did shows just how nuts they are.

    <snip>

    >
    >I did, IBM was in bad need of a take down back then (80's). It's now no
    >longer evil, just binignly self-interested.
    >
    >>>AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
    >>>paid attention you'd have known that.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
    >> technology.
    >
    >You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory
    >controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will
    >be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too.

    AMD invented onboard memory controllers? You're filled with amazing
    insights. Intel copied AMD64? What choice, exactly, did they have?
    That's what AMD's monopolist friend Microsoft dictated. What Intel is
    going to do about interconnect is a little fuzzy to me, but I'll be
    startled to see hypertransport.

    >By contrast,
    >Intel's most recent attempt at innovation, Itanium, has only one thing
    >new going for it: an instruction set, and that's not likely to have much
    >of a long-term influence on processor design afterwards.
    >
    Innovation isn't going to come from the register-file and execution
    unit world of microprocessors. Your comment about my not liking Cell
    and your apparent belief that I think Itanium is just the most
    wonderful thing ever shows that you've paid little attention to what I
    have said already, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

    I'll be interested to see the Itanium drama play itself out, but the
    drama of Itanium at this point has to do with business issues, not
    technology.

    RM
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > >There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford:

    > >fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or

    > >fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term
    damage.
    > >Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto
    > >anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward.
    > >
    >
    > I'll be fascinated to see this work itself out.

    This story has already died down. It seems to play itself out in
    distinct intervals, and then the mainstream press seems to forget about
    it. It started 11 months ago with the raid, it reawakened last week
    with the indictment. And likely the next event will be the court trial
    itself. Then after that, will be all of the civil trials.

    >
    > >>>>Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
    > >>>>absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have
    had
    > >>>>a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
    > >>>>monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

    > >>>
    > >>>Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern
    deeds.
    > >>>Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
    > >>>computer revolution. But so what?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take
    them
    > >> out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent
    DOS.
    > >> Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the
    benefit
    > >> of the industry.
    > >
    > >And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
    > >companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the
    industry
    > >would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?
    > >
    > >Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the

    > >exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now
    gone
    > >(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86
    business,
    > >etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill
    or
    > >has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
    > >Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
    > >Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
    > >competition and consumers?
    > >
    > You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think
    of
    > myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from
    > the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies
    > have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of
    > Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it
    > was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of
    players.
    > There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression.

    If the auto industry is the model for this industry, then your
    characterization of that industry is inaccurate. Not only is the auto
    industry not shrinking down to a small number of players, it
    continuously gets new players. At one time it was believed that the
    only companies left standing would be the Detroit Big Three, especially
    GM which had well over 50% of the worldwide marketshare. Now GM is down
    around 30% worldwide, and some minor players have grown into major
    world players over the past 30 years -- first the Japanese, and then
    later the Koreans. Basically the auto industry seems to go in cycles of
    consolidation followed by reinvigoration.

    Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
    it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
    players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
    this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
    TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
    the truck makers are to the auto industry.

    > Intel, bye-the-bye, needs a credible competitor, and its credible
    > competitor for x86 is AMD. Intel has no interest in destroying AMD,
    > although Intel surely would like to limit x86 (won't happen, of
    > course--the market always wins). Microsoft, on the other hand,
    simply
    > buys up and/or annihilates competition. Microsoft's credible
    > competitor now is Linux. It's amazing that Microsoft even got near
    > the SCO, but the fact that they did shows just how nuts they are.

    Don't know if you remember this, but Microsoft has actually invested
    money into Apple and Corel in the past, after almost killing both of
    them. It just woke up one day and figured if these guys go down,
    they'll have no defence against the government calling them a monopoly.
    I don't think Intel operates any differently, it in no way is helping
    AMD, and it is usually just trying to pound AMD into the ground most of
    the time. That's because Intel doesn't need to aid AMD, like Microsoft
    need to aid Apple and Corel. However, if AMD got so badly pounded one
    day, then Intel would have to come to the realization that it may need
    to directly help AMD. But it hasn't come down to that yet.

    Up until now, AMD has been bravely doing the "up by your own
    bootstraps" method to compete against Intel. However, that'll only go
    so far before Intel starts feeling threatened. This anti-trust case may
    be the final push needed to get AMD on equal footing with Intel.
    Everything balances out eventually.


    > >> The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
    > >> technology.
    > >
    > >You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory
    > >controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it
    will
    > >be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too.
    >
    > AMD invented onboard memory controllers? You're filled with amazing
    > insights. Intel copied AMD64? What choice, exactly, did they have?
    > That's what AMD's monopolist friend Microsoft dictated. What Intel
    is
    > going to do about interconnect is a little fuzzy to me, but I'll be
    > startled to see hypertransport.

    Who said invented? We were talking about innovation. And an onboard
    memory controller is certainly an innovation that we have never seen
    any other PC processor company try before.

    Of course Intel copied AMD64, doesn't matter what their reason was.

    Intel is trying to create CSI, which is a Hypertransport work-alike.


    > I'll be interested to see the Itanium drama play itself out, but the
    > drama of Itanium at this point has to do with business issues, not
    > technology.

    All of their business issues were as a result of a rejection of their
    technology.

    Yousuf Khan
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:

    <snip>

    >> >
    >> >And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
    >> >companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the
    >industry
    >> >would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?
    >> >
    >> >Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the
    >
    >> >exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now
    >gone
    >> >(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86
    >business,
    >> >etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill
    >or
    >> >has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
    >> >Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
    >> >Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
    >> >competition and consumers?
    >> >
    >> You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think
    >of
    >> myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from
    >> the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies
    >> have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of
    >> Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it
    >> was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of
    >players.
    >> There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression.
    >
    >If the auto industry is the model for this industry, then your
    >characterization of that industry is inaccurate. Not only is the auto
    >industry not shrinking down to a small number of players, it
    >continuously gets new players. At one time it was believed that the
    >only companies left standing would be the Detroit Big Three, especially
    >GM which had well over 50% of the worldwide marketshare. Now GM is down
    >around 30% worldwide, and some minor players have grown into major
    >world players over the past 30 years -- first the Japanese, and then
    >later the Koreans. Basically the auto industry seems to go in cycles of
    >consolidation followed by reinvigoration.
    >
    The appearance of new global players is a completely different
    phenomenon, IMHO. As an industry matures, it consolidates. In the
    new world order, as an industry hyper-matures (the auto industry) it
    goes through a completely new global expansion phase that in some ways
    recapitulates the original growth phase of the industry. This
    particular phenomenon (globalization) may never happen again, as
    larger and larger parts of the world compete on a more level playing
    field. It doesn't, in any case, have anything to say about the
    effects of Intel's business practices on markets in industrialized
    countries.


    >Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
    >it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
    >players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
    >this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
    >TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
    >the truck makers are to the auto industry.
    >

    It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?

    RM
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

    >>Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
    >>it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
    >>players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
    >>this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
    >>TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
    >>the truck makers are to the auto industry.
    >>
    >
    >It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    >fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    >AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    >all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    >though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    >Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    >Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?

    What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the
    memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while
    back.

    As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
    Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
    actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
    x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
    course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
    taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who
    knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
    http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
    might contain about legal actions?

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:41 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
    >>>it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
    >>>players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
    >>>this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
    >>>TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
    >>>the truck makers are to the auto industry.
    >>>
    >>
    >>It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    >>fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    >>AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    >>all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    >>though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    >>Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    >>Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?
    >
    >What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the
    >memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while
    >back.
    >
    Did we completely dispense with China? I don't remember the thread
    and I can't find it.

    >As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
    >Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
    >actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
    >x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
    >course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
    >taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who
    >knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
    >http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
    >might contain about legal actions?

    Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel
    in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago
    gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal,
    especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did?
    AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect
    that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty
    unattractive customer.

    But speaking of dividing turf, I see that Via is still at it with
    Esther, now due out fourth quarter this year, with IBM, apparently,
    doing the fab. Via has, apparently, been doing well in the chipset
    business at Intel's expense, and not entirely with AMD processors.
    That makes it sound a little less crazy that Via would want to stay in
    the processor business, even though, as far as I can tell, their
    recent offerings have been uncompetitive for western markets.

    I mean, _who_ is going to outfit the world with PC's? Not Dell,
    surely. The margins are going to be miserable, and Intel-style
    marketing probably won't do it.

    The only really pressing requirement for performance will be
    throughput, something that Via has been able to deliever on. In this
    brave new world, no one will care how fast a processor compiles the
    linux kernel. We may miss most of this action, because it will be
    taking place in other markets, but it's hard to believe that the
    effects won't eventually wash up on the shores of North America and
    Western Europe.

    RM
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    > As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the
    > symbiotic relationship: Intel is now in the strange,
    > never before seen, situation that they actually,
    > crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive
    > in the new x86 world - absolutely no question of living
    > without it. AMD has, of course, just as much need
    > and I wonder if they would even think about taking
    > civil legal action against Intel for their marketing
    > sins. Who knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
    > http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
    > might contain about legal actions?

    So you think there might be a kiss'n'make-up Socket U
    that will run both AMD & Intel CPUs?

    The importance of X-licence isn't new. For many years,
    nobody would design something without a second-source of
    all parts. Why has Dell (et al) never learned?

    Now there just may be a new reason for X-lic.

    -- Robert
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:59:28 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:41 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
    >>>>it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
    >>>>players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
    >>>>this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
    >>>>TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
    >>>>the truck makers are to the auto industry.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    >>>fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    >>>AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    >>>all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    >>>though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    >>>Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    >>>Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?
    >>
    >>What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the
    >>memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while
    >>back.
    >>
    >Did we completely dispense with China? I don't remember the thread
    >and I can't find it.

    To do with cultural, social, economic err, immaturity?... an "adolescent"
    society is what I seem to recall you used - no? At any rate I don't see
    them as a big threat - they've been put in their place on their Wi-Fi rogue
    "standard"... fortunately for them in the long run. Basically they've
    shown themsleves to be pretty adept at buggering up a good thing with weird
    socio-political moves. I don't want to rouse sleeping dogs here, but I
    just wish to hell they'd get on with oil exploration & production, instead
    of keeping in in the bank.... err, ground.

    >>As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
    >>Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
    >>actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
    >>x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
    >>course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
    >>taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who
    >>knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
    >>http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
    >>might contain about legal actions?
    >
    >Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel
    >in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago
    >gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal,
    >especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did?
    >AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect
    >that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty
    >unattractive customer.

    I agree - a court case would be a horrible affair with only losers,
    financially and morally, in the end.

    >But speaking of dividing turf, I see that Via is still at it with
    >Esther, now due out fourth quarter this year, with IBM, apparently,
    >doing the fab. Via has, apparently, been doing well in the chipset
    >business at Intel's expense, and not entirely with AMD processors.
    >That makes it sound a little less crazy that Via would want to stay in
    >the processor business, even though, as far as I can tell, their
    >recent offerings have been uncompetitive for western markets.
    >
    >I mean, _who_ is going to outfit the world with PC's? Not Dell,
    >surely. The margins are going to be miserable, and Intel-style
    >marketing probably won't do it.
    >
    >The only really pressing requirement for performance will be
    >throughput, something that Via has been able to deliever on. In this
    >brave new world, no one will care how fast a processor compiles the
    >linux kernel. We may miss most of this action, because it will be
    >taking place in other markets, but it's hard to believe that the
    >effects won't eventually wash up on the shores of North America and
    >Western Europe.

    I'm sure VIA has found a niche in the developing economies but as for
    China, I'd think their processors would lack the oomph required to do
    Chinese caharacter sets. I've seen this in action and even a "text"
    document drags the CPU down horribly... not sure how it all works out.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:55:01 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

    >George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >> As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the
    >> symbiotic relationship: Intel is now in the strange,
    >> never before seen, situation that they actually,
    >> crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive
    >> in the new x86 world - absolutely no question of living
    >> without it. AMD has, of course, just as much need
    >> and I wonder if they would even think about taking
    >> civil legal action against Intel for their marketing
    >> sins. Who knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
    >> http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
    >> might contain about legal actions?
    >
    >So you think there might be a kiss'n'make-up Socket U
    >that will run both AMD & Intel CPUs?

    Intriguing thought but the "hidden" sections are hard to even guess at.
    Could the Intel FSB, or CSI, be ruled out?<shrug> I'd sure like to know
    what the royalty levels are that AMD is paying Intel though.

    >The importance of X-licence isn't new. For many years,
    >nobody would design something without a second-source of
    >all parts. Why has Dell (et al) never learned?

    Well so far Dell is not suffering... are the others so incompetent? The
    new AMD notebook chips could be the key... if they're any good. I am
    absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for "platformization" based on
    the "Centrino success" is a total misread. People don't buy notebooks
    because of Centrino.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald wrote:
    > As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
    > Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
    > actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
    > x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
    > course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
    > taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins.

    Why does Intel absolutely need the cross-licensing agreement? The only
    thing I can think of is that they'll need it for the access to the
    x86-64, but what else?

    Yousuf Khan
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    > fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    > AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    > all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    > though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    > Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    > Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?

    Yeah, exactly what my point was, the auto industry got reinvigorated
    with globalization, and I expect that the next CPU powerhouse will be
    from outside the US as well. My bets are on China producing the next
    one. However the Europeans have some established chip companies that may
    be able to grow depending on European government support. The Chinese
    one will also require government support.

    Oh another example from another industry. Boeing was headed for a global
    passenger plane monopoly (Lockheed, MD, all got consolidated out), until
    Airbus got some long-term European government support and took it on.

    Yousuf Khan
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald wrote:
    >>The importance of X-licence isn't new. For many years,
    >>nobody would design something without a second-source of
    >>all parts. Why has Dell (et al) never learned?
    >
    >
    > Well so far Dell is not suffering... are the others so incompetent?

    Yeah, the second-source model is a relic of ancient times, when silicon
    output was a relative trickle compared to now. The mass production era
    of IC production was barely underway when IBM decided that Intel needed
    an AMD second source. Dell is operating from an era when IC's were
    already commodity and their manufacturing process had become fairly well
    understood.

    > The
    > new AMD notebook chips could be the key... if they're any good. I am
    > absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for "platformization" based on
    > the "Centrino success" is a total misread. People don't buy notebooks
    > because of Centrino.

    Intel is enthusiastic about the platform because it gets to bundle sales
    of chipsets with processors together.

    Yousuf Khan
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    > I'd sure like to know what the royalty levels are that AMD
    > is paying Intel though.

    Who says the money is flowing in that direction? :)

    AMD is probably paying Intel royalties on the EV [Alpha] bus.
    AFAIK, full-design royalties run 4% of sales, partial usage
    much less. I'd expect AMD to be paying 1% or less.

    > Well so far Dell is not suffering... are the others so incompetent?

    Dell hasn't suffered so far because Intel has been nice to them.

    > The new AMD notebook chips could be the key... if they're any
    > good. I am absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for
    > "platformization" based on the "Centrino success" is a total
    > misread. People don't buy notebooks because of Centrino.

    Well, Centrino probably has been a marketing success. Is your
    corp-speak to English translator broken? "Centrino success"
    means "mobile Pentium4 cratered". And the PentiumM CPU of
    Centrino is a P6, much closer to an Athlon than a Pentium4.
    I suspect that AMD has a few tricks [patents] Intel wants.

    -- Robert
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:19 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:59:28 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:41 -0500, George Macdonald
    >><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>

    <snip>

    >>>>
    >>>>It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    >>>>fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    >>>>AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    >>>>all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    >>>>though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    >>>>Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    >>>>Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?
    >>>
    >>>What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the
    >>>memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while
    >>>back.
    >>>
    >>Did we completely dispense with China? I don't remember the thread
    >>and I can't find it.
    >
    >To do with cultural, social, economic err, immaturity?... an "adolescent"
    >society is what I seem to recall you used - no?

    That sounds right. American society was adolescent, too, when it grew
    and innovated its way into being an industrial and technological
    giant. Didn't have the huge population and poverty of China, though.

    >At any rate I don't see
    >them as a big threat - they've been put in their place on their Wi-Fi rogue
    >"standard"... fortunately for them in the long run. Basically they've
    >shown themsleves to be pretty adept at buggering up a good thing with weird
    >socio-political moves.

    It is really hard to imagine how China manages to maintain stability,
    but I wouldn't rule out nationalism and militarism as forces that
    could drive a successful technology push.

    >I don't want to rouse sleeping dogs here, but I
    >just wish to hell they'd get on with oil exploration & production, instead
    >of keeping in in the bank.... err, ground.
    >
    Another thing the energy modelers left off in the early going: the
    cost of capital to exploit resources that are available. ;-)

    <snip>

    >>
    >>I mean, _who_ is going to outfit the world with PC's? Not Dell,
    >>surely. The margins are going to be miserable, and Intel-style
    >>marketing probably won't do it.
    >>
    >>The only really pressing requirement for performance will be
    >>throughput, something that Via has been able to deliever on. In this
    >>brave new world, no one will care how fast a processor compiles the
    >>linux kernel. We may miss most of this action, because it will be
    >>taking place in other markets, but it's hard to believe that the
    >>effects won't eventually wash up on the shores of North America and
    >>Western Europe.
    >
    >I'm sure VIA has found a niche in the developing economies but as for
    >China, I'd think their processors would lack the oomph required to do
    >Chinese caharacter sets. I've seen this in action and even a "text"
    >document drags the CPU down horribly... not sure how it all works out.

    Taiwan and Japan seem to cope somehow. Back to the cost of capital
    issue, building a microprocessor industry doesn't seem like a wise
    investment for China, except to satisfy their miliary ambitions, which
    they do have.

    RM
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:33:26 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >> It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
    >> fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
    >> AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
    >> all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
    >> though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
    >> Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
    >> Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?
    >
    >Yeah, exactly what my point was, the auto industry got reinvigorated
    >with globalization, and I expect that the next CPU powerhouse will be
    >from outside the US as well. My bets are on China producing the next
    >one. However the Europeans have some established chip companies that may
    >be able to grow depending on European government support. The Chinese
    >one will also require government support.
    >
    But the challenges there are mind-bending.

    >Oh another example from another industry. Boeing was headed for a global
    >passenger plane monopoly (Lockheed, MD, all got consolidated out), until
    >Airbus got some long-term European government support and took it on.
    >

    There is no free market in aerospace. The Europeans claim that the US
    susidizes its aerospace industry with military procurement (true) and
    the US aerospace industry claims that Airbus Industrie is subsidized
    in ways that are not available to, say, Boeing (also true). On top of
    that, there is a documented history of industrial spying, bribes, and
    influence peddling that make the alleged Intel pecadilloes seem
    insignificant by comparison. And the US government picks winners and
    losers. The semiconductor business is remarkable for having been
    _relatively_ free of all that nonsense, certainly as compared to
    aerospace.

    RM
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    >>Yeah, exactly what my point was, the auto industry got reinvigorated
    >>with globalization, and I expect that the next CPU powerhouse will be
    >
    >>from outside the US as well. My bets are on China producing the next
    >
    >>one. However the Europeans have some established chip companies that may
    >>be able to grow depending on European government support. The Chinese
    >>one will also require government support.
    >>
    >
    > But the challenges there are mind-bending.

    A lot of the brain-power has already been exported out to the US and
    other countries. They can just as easily re-import them, with some
    incentives. For example, Stephen Chen who was Seymour Cray's protege and
    then eventually his rival, is now back in China working on supercomputer
    designs for them.

    >>Oh another example from another industry. Boeing was headed for a global
    >>passenger plane monopoly (Lockheed, MD, all got consolidated out), until
    >>Airbus got some long-term European government support and took it on.
    >>
    >
    >
    > There is no free market in aerospace. The Europeans claim that the US
    > susidizes its aerospace industry with military procurement (true) and
    > the US aerospace industry claims that Airbus Industrie is subsidized
    > in ways that are not available to, say, Boeing (also true). On top of
    > that, there is a documented history of industrial spying, bribes, and
    > influence peddling that make the alleged Intel pecadilloes seem
    > insignificant by comparison. And the US government picks winners and
    > losers. The semiconductor business is remarkable for having been
    > _relatively_ free of all that nonsense, certainly as compared to
    > aerospace.

    Yes, so far, the US government hasn't overtly preferential in the CPU
    business, it tries from time to time to give contracts to AMD-based
    hardware too (e.g. supercomputing). But of course the US gov is in the
    same boat as every other business that needs to buy PCs, in that it's
    dependent on purchasing whatever models of computers that manufacturers
    offer, which is usually only Intel-based.

    Yousuf Khan
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:

    >There are some really sharp people in Brazil, but
    >this guy talked about the fact that the government doesn't really have
    >control of large parts of Rio de Janeiro. He wanted advice on getting
    >his car bulletproofed.

    Check out the movie "City of God" sometime.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel
    > in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago
    > gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal,
    > especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did?
    > AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect
    > that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty
    > unattractive customer.

    I'm not sure why you think AMD is now in a comfortable position
    vis-a-vis Intel. Intel certainly isn't conceding any marketshare to
    AMD, it's always trying to grab as much of it as possible. I absolutely
    expect AMD to sue Intel after this, and I would be bug-eyed to find out
    that they aren't going to sue them. We haven't seen a good Intel-AMD
    lawsuit in a number of years, mainly because they called a ceasefire --
    not peace.

    Intel Caught With Its Chips Down
    http://www.arabnews.com/?page=11&section=0&article=60455&d=15&m=3&y=2005

    This interview makes it clear that AMD isn't ruling out a lawsuit
    against Intel.

    Yousuf Khan
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 15 Mar 2005 13:42:23 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >> Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel
    >> in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago
    >> gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal,
    >> especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did?
    >> AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect
    >> that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty
    >> unattractive customer.
    >
    >I'm not sure why you think AMD is now in a comfortable position
    >vis-a-vis Intel. Intel certainly isn't conceding any marketshare to
    >AMD, it's always trying to grab as much of it as possible. I absolutely
    >expect AMD to sue Intel after this, and I would be bug-eyed to find out
    >that they aren't going to sue them. We haven't seen a good Intel-AMD
    >lawsuit in a number of years, mainly because they called a ceasefire --
    >not peace.
    >
    >Intel Caught With Its Chips Down
    >http://www.arabnews.com/?page=11&section=0&article=60455&d=15&m=3&y=2005
    >
    >This interview makes it clear that AMD isn't ruling out a lawsuit
    >against Intel.
    >

    The rhetoric is certainly bellicose. I'm not a lawyer. If I ever
    wanted to be a lawyer, it certainly was not to be involved in messes
    like this one...

    There are no spoils of war to divide up. Opteron didn't open up any
    new vistas. The business is in a period of decline and consolidation.

    Were I AMD, I would use this situation to reposition myself vis-a-vis
    Intel by way of some agreements cut on the sly in some out-of-the-way
    place, not by going to court. That's what I would do. What AMD does,
    of course, is completely independet of my guess as to what they should
    do.

    RM
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    > The rhetoric is certainly bellicose. I'm not a lawyer. If I ever
    > wanted to be a lawyer, it certainly was not to be involved in messes
    > like this one...
    >
    > There are no spoils of war to divide up. Opteron didn't open up any
    > new vistas. The business is in a period of decline and consolidation.

    Huh? Since when? This is the biggest and most profitable end of the
    semiconductor industry, of course there's spoils of war to divide up
    here -- lots of it. Of course, it's all AMD's to gain and all Intel's to
    lose.

    Besides, the dividing of the spoils of war analogy also doesn't work
    here. Dividing spoils of war involves two or more allies defeating an
    enemy and dividing the enemy's territory amongst themselves. AMD and
    Intel aren't an allied force going up against a common enemy; they are
    each other's enemy, and in this case the territory all belongs to Intel
    and it is defending itself against an invading AMD.

    > Were I AMD, I would use this situation to reposition myself vis-a-vis
    > Intel by way of some agreements cut on the sly in some out-of-the-way
    > place, not by going to court. That's what I would do. What AMD does,
    > of course, is completely independet of my guess as to what they should
    > do.

    That's also illegal. It also falls into the same anti-trust laws, it's
    collusion. It's no different than if AMD and Intel decided to one day
    start pricing their processors exactly the same as each other at exactly
    the same time -- this would be price-fixing. The other thing would be
    marketshare-fixing.

    Yousuf Khan
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:36:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >> The rhetoric is certainly bellicose. I'm not a lawyer. If I ever
    >> wanted to be a lawyer, it certainly was not to be involved in messes
    >> like this one...
    >>
    >> There are no spoils of war to divide up. Opteron didn't open up any
    >> new vistas. The business is in a period of decline and consolidation.
    >
    >Huh? Since when? This is the biggest and most profitable end of the
    >semiconductor industry, of course there's spoils of war to divide up
    >here -- lots of it. Of course, it's all AMD's to gain and all Intel's to
    >lose.
    >

    Tell that to Wall Street. Don't waste your time with me.

    The high tech sector may take decades to get back to where it was
    pre-bust. These are _not_ good times.

    There's this thing called efficient market theory. You think you got
    the landscape scoped better than the market, go make yourself rich.

    >Besides, the dividing of the spoils of war analogy also doesn't work
    >here. Dividing spoils of war involves two or more allies defeating an
    >enemy and dividing the enemy's territory amongst themselves. AMD and
    >Intel aren't an allied force going up against a common enemy; they are
    >each other's enemy, and in this case the territory all belongs to Intel
    >and it is defending itself against an invading AMD.
    >
    >> Were I AMD, I would use this situation to reposition myself vis-a-vis
    >> Intel by way of some agreements cut on the sly in some out-of-the-way
    >> place, not by going to court. That's what I would do. What AMD does,
    >> of course, is completely independet of my guess as to what they should
    >> do.
    >
    >That's also illegal. It also falls into the same anti-trust laws, it's
    >collusion. It's no different than if AMD and Intel decided to one day
    >start pricing their processors exactly the same as each other at exactly
    >the same time -- this would be price-fixing. The other thing would be
    >marketshare-fixing.
    >

    That's how your mind works, apparently. AMD can sue Intel (not smart,
    in my opinion), or it can come to some kind of agreement about the
    rules of engagement. Such a thing could be a consent decree
    supervised by a judge. It doesn't have to be public and it doesn't
    have to be illegal. AMD and Intel would be colluding to keep, say,
    Via out? I'd hope they wouldn't be so stupid.

    RM
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:17:25 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:19 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >>To do with cultural, social, economic err, immaturity?... an "adolescent"
    >>society is what I seem to recall you used - no?
    >
    >That sounds right. American society was adolescent, too, when it grew
    >and innovated its way into being an industrial and technological
    >giant. Didn't have the huge population and poverty of China, though.

    No comparison - the ingrained socio-political system is at opposite poles.

    >>At any rate I don't see
    >>them as a big threat - they've been put in their place on their Wi-Fi rogue
    >>"standard"... fortunately for them in the long run. Basically they've
    >>shown themsleves to be pretty adept at buggering up a good thing with weird
    >>socio-political moves.
    >
    >It is really hard to imagine how China manages to maintain stability,
    >but I wouldn't rule out nationalism and militarism as forces that
    >could drive a successful technology push.

    We've already seen how that works... time and time again. Hell those
    systems have a hard time getting the supply of basics [food, clothing &
    shelter] working.

    >>I don't want to rouse sleeping dogs here, but I
    >>just wish to hell they'd get on with oil exploration & production, instead
    >>of keeping in in the bank.... err, ground.
    >>
    >Another thing the energy modelers left off in the early going: the
    >cost of capital to exploit resources that are available. ;-)

    What?... no pork barrel in China? Hard to believe! No, this is an oil
    banking scheme IMO - IOW live off the Western-style established
    infrastructure until the strain is palpable.

    >>>
    >>>I mean, _who_ is going to outfit the world with PC's? Not Dell,
    >>>surely. The margins are going to be miserable, and Intel-style
    >>>marketing probably won't do it.
    >>>
    >>>The only really pressing requirement for performance will be
    >>>throughput, something that Via has been able to deliever on. In this
    >>>brave new world, no one will care how fast a processor compiles the
    >>>linux kernel. We may miss most of this action, because it will be
    >>>taking place in other markets, but it's hard to believe that the
    >>>effects won't eventually wash up on the shores of North America and
    >>>Western Europe.
    >>
    >>I'm sure VIA has found a niche in the developing economies but as for
    >>China, I'd think their processors would lack the oomph required to do
    >>Chinese caharacter sets. I've seen this in action and even a "text"
    >>document drags the CPU down horribly... not sure how it all works out.
    >
    >Taiwan and Japan seem to cope somehow. Back to the cost of capital
    >issue, building a microprocessor industry doesn't seem like a wise
    >investment for China, except to satisfy their miliary ambitions, which
    >they do have.

    I was talking about the relative power of current VIA CPUs and their
    ability to handle the job... which drags an Athlon XP 2500+ down pretty
    badly. IOW I don't see how VIA satisfies the reqts for even the basics of
    word processing, browsing etc. in Chinese chgaracters.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:56:11 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

    >George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >> I'd sure like to know what the royalty levels are that AMD
    >> is paying Intel though.
    >
    >Who says the money is flowing in that direction? :)
    >
    >AMD is probably paying Intel royalties on the EV [Alpha] bus.
    >AFAIK, full-design royalties run 4% of sales, partial usage
    >much less. I'd expect AMD to be paying 1% or less.

    It's in the agreement - see the URL I gave. AMD pays Intel a royalty per
    CPU, on a sliding scale, for access to Intel's x86 technology's patent
    portfolio.

    >> Well so far Dell is not suffering... are the others so incompetent?
    >
    >Dell hasn't suffered so far because Intel has been nice to them.
    >
    >> The new AMD notebook chips could be the key... if they're any
    >> good. I am absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for
    >> "platformization" based on the "Centrino success" is a total
    >> misread. People don't buy notebooks because of Centrino.
    >
    >Well, Centrino probably has been a marketing success. Is your
    >corp-speak to English translator broken? "Centrino success"
    >means "mobile Pentium4 cratered". And the PentiumM CPU of
    >Centrino is a P6, much closer to an Athlon than a Pentium4.
    >I suspect that AMD has a few tricks [patents] Intel wants.

    The way I read it, Intel's marketroids are convinced their Centrino moniker
    was a stroke of genius, which made *all* the difference in the Pentium-M
    success... to the extent that "Desktrino" (apparently the internal name) is
    in the works. My translator is not broken but I disagree strongly...
    Intel's corporate culture is certainly broken though but we'll see.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:57:48 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >George Macdonald wrote:
    >>>The importance of X-licence isn't new. For many years,
    >>>nobody would design something without a second-source of
    >>>all parts. Why has Dell (et al) never learned?
    >>
    >>
    >> Well so far Dell is not suffering... are the others so incompetent?
    >
    >Yeah, the second-source model is a relic of ancient times, when silicon
    >output was a relative trickle compared to now. The mass production era
    >of IC production was barely underway when IBM decided that Intel needed
    >an AMD second source. Dell is operating from an era when IC's were
    >already commodity and their manufacturing process had become fairly well
    >understood.

    I thought it was the U.S. military that insisted on the 2nd source for
    x86s?

    > > The
    >> new AMD notebook chips could be the key... if they're any good. I am
    >> absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for "platformization" based on
    >> the "Centrino success" is a total misread. People don't buy notebooks
    >> because of Centrino.
    >
    >Intel is enthusiastic about the platform because it gets to bundle sales
    >of chipsets with processors together.

    Intel has always been the principal suppiler of chipsets into the notebook
    market almost without exception. How many non-Intel chipsets are in
    notebooks with an Intel CPU? The NIC is pennies-worth to them. Note that
    they resisted the hubris of including Extreme Graphics as part of the deal.
    Everything I read indicates that Intel's marketroids see it as a grand
    marketing coup of brand/name recognition... nothing of the sort IMO.

    Personally I've bought 5 Centrino notebooks and Centrino had nothing to do
    with the purchasing decision; in fact if a similar system had had a Cisco
    NIC it would have been neither here nor there to me. If there had been a
    notebook with similar *features* in a well designed case with an AMD CPU
    I'd have bought that. Specifically, AMD just didn't have the battery life
    or come in a quality case and with the vendor cachet for overall design or
    support.

    If I lived in Europe I'd have taken a serious look at the Fujitsu-Siemens
    AMD systems but they are not an option in the U.S.... possibly because of
    the Intel rules/incentives (choose one)?? Things *are* changing though:
    until recently, it was difficult to get a WinXP Pro system with an AMD
    notebook.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:25:57 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >George Macdonald wrote:
    >> As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
    >> Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
    >> actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
    >> x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
    >> course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
    >> taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins.
    >
    >Why does Intel absolutely need the cross-licensing agreement? The only
    >thing I can think of is that they'll need it for the access to the
    >x86-64, but what else?

    Isn't that enough? I didn't think you'd be the one to need convincing
    about x86-64 as a necessary component of future PCs. Beyond that I'm not
    sure but I'm pretty sure that AMD has some other patents which might be of
    interest, e.g. large L1 cache efficiency.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:02:19 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >absolutely convinced that Intel's enthusiasm for "platformization" based on
    >the "Centrino success" is a total misread. People don't buy notebooks
    >because of Centrino.

    Do you mean people buying notebooks in general or people specifically
    buying Centrino when they buy a notebook?

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Product