Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 8:36:19 AM

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

As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
against Intel in a Delaware court.

EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?ar...

AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 11:23:00 AM

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

YKhan wrote:

> As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
> against Intel in a Delaware court.
>
> EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?ar...
>
> AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>

How to win friends and influence people:

<wsj.com>

The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and
customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek
subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk
alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf.

"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said
Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who
isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the
idea."

Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many
Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the
litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on
the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said.

</wsj.com>

I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
expedition through corporate e-mail.

Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
The question is whether they are illegal.

Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
looked over SCO's financials before filing?

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 1:25:27 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
> expedition through corporate e-mail.
>
> Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
> They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
> The question is whether they are illegal.
>
> Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
> looked over SCO's financials before filing?

Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.

Yousuf Khan
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 1:50:38 PM

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

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
> > expedition through corporate e-mail.
> >
> > Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
> > They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
> > The question is whether they are illegal.
> >
> > Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
> > looked over SCO's financials before filing?
>
> Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
> the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
> believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.
>

Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 6:39:28 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> > Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
> > the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
> > believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.
> >
>
> Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?

I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even
want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
response to it.

They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
with his hand in the cookie jar could be.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2005 6:49:52 PM

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

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > > Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
> > > the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
> > > believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.
> > >
> >
> > Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?
>
> I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
> silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
> extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
> don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even
> want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
> executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
> the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
> about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
> Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
> and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
> response to it.
>
> They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
> with his hand in the cookie jar could be.
>

Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't
think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has
not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not
Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages
for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the
record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only
what they have to say to keep investors informed of material
developments.

You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't
understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has
nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else.
That's just the way the world works.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 1:52:08 AM

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

Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> scribed:


>I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
>silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
>extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
>don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively.

I REALLY doubt they're worried.

Based on the MS anti-trust suit, this will be in the Courts for years,
and there won't be nearly enough damages awarded.




--

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 4:11:22 AM

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

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>>>Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
>>>the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
>>>believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.
>>>
>>
>>Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?
>
>
> I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
> silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
> extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
> don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively.

Otellina and other Intel execs are simply a matter of doing what
their expensive lawyers tell them. Par for the course in this
kind of situation. At most I would have expected him to read a
brief statement written by Intel's legal staff. Absent that, a
simple "No comment" or denial is all he really can do right now.

To me, the puzzling thing is that you or anyone else would expect
anything else out of any Intel execs at this point.

> They don't even
> want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
> executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
> the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
> about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
> Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
> and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
> response to it.
>
> They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
> with his hand in the cookie jar could be.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
June 29, 2005 5:20:34 AM

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

On 28 Jun 2005 07:23:00 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com>
wrote:

>YKhan wrote:
>
>> As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
>> against Intel in a Delaware court.
>>
>> EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?ar...
>>
>> AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>>
>
>How to win friends and influence people:
>
><wsj.com>
>
>The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and
>customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek
>subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk
>alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf.
>
>"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said
>Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who
>isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the
>idea."
>
>Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many
>Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the
>litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on
>the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said.
>
></wsj.com>
>
>I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
>expedition through corporate e-mail.
>
>Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
> They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
>The question is whether they are illegal.
>
>Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
>looked over SCO's financials before filing?
>
>RM

It is a fact of the matter that INTC is a monopoly and behaves as
such. Yet establishing this fact legally is not an easy feat,
otherwise it would've been done a decade earlier. If AMD decided to
go forward with the suit now, it probably means they have obtained
some legal ammunition that was not available before. Or they just
think they have...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 5:59:38 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't
> think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has
> not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not
> Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages
> for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the
> record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only
> what they have to say to keep investors informed of material
> developments.

No, but often in the past they'd say that they are studying the lawsuit
and won't have any further comment till later. Not even such an
announcement.

> You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't
> understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has
> nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else.
> That's just the way the world works.

Actually I never said that, you did. But since you bring it up, Wall
Street does seem to understand this one pretty well. From today's action
it seems WS is very pleased with the announcement as AMD's stock price
climbed over 6% in response to it. Intel's went up as well, but it
stayed in line with the rest of the chip group at 2%. There's even some
very conservative analysts who would usually wait till a trial begins
before beginning to forecast outcomes already forecasting them right
now. Wells Fargo, inside Forbes, says it's 75% probable that AMD will
come away with a settlement equal to $8/share. So it looks like Wall
Street is giving AMD the big thumbs up to go ahead with this lawsuit.

'High Degree Of Likelihood' For AMD Win Against Intel - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/06/28/0628automarket...

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 6:02:46 AM

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

Never anonymous Bud wrote:
> I REALLY doubt they're worried.
>
> Based on the MS anti-trust suit, this will be in the Courts for years,
> and there won't be nearly enough damages awarded.

Well there's your big mistake right there, because you can't base this
on the Microsoft case. In this case Intel has already admitted its guilt
once already. That was during the Japanese FTC ruling against it.
Microsoft never once admitted its guilt like Intel has.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 6:32:18 AM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Actually I never said that, you did. But since you bring it up, Wall
> Street does seem to understand this one pretty well. From today's action
> it seems WS is very pleased with the announcement as AMD's stock price
> climbed over 6% in response to it. Intel's went up as well, but it
> stayed in line with the rest of the chip group at 2%. There's even some
> very conservative analysts who would usually wait till a trial begins
> before beginning to forecast outcomes already forecasting them right
> now. Wells Fargo, inside Forbes, says it's 75% probable that AMD will
> come away with a settlement equal to $8/share. So it looks like Wall
> Street is giving AMD the big thumbs up to go ahead with this lawsuit.
>
> 'High Degree Of Likelihood' For AMD Win Against Intel - Forbes.com
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/06/28/0628automarket...
>

Opinions don't matter. What the market discounts as share price does.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 6:50:06 AM

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2005 09:50:38 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >YKhan wrote:
> >> Robert Myers wrote:

> >> > I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
> >> > expedition through corporate e-mail.
>
> Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
> is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
> to be determined.
>
> >> > Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
> >> > They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
> >> > The question is whether they are illegal.
>
> Of course... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
> the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
> the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
> believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
> they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
> optimistic on that.
>
I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

> There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
> goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
> to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
> toe-hold though.
>
The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

> >> > Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
> >> > looked over SCO's financials before filing?
> >>
> >> Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
> >> the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
> >> believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.
> >>
> >
> >Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?
>
> Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.
>
Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 7:40:15 AM

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

On 28 Jun 2005 09:50:38 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>YKhan wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>> > I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
>> > expedition through corporate e-mail.

Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
to be determined.

>> > Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
>> > They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
>> > The question is whether they are illegal.

Of course... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
optimistic on that.

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

>> > Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
>> > looked over SCO's financials before filing?
>>
>> Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
>> the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
>> believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.
>>
>
>Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 9:37:11 AM

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

Carlos Moreno wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >>Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.
> >
> > Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
> > Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
> > the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
> > that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
> > resources?
>
> Still, some of us are seriously disturbed by the comparison.
>
> SCO's case is not an example of "litigation consumes resources" -- it's
> more like an obvious case of the ultimate unsubstantiated, idle legal
> claims, a huge scam that worked for a while. A grotesque stock market
> fraud for which SCO's directive, like all criminals, should be behind
> bars.
>
> You see, after a year of the initial lawsuit, when they ran out of
> excuses to not show any evidence to sustain their claims, they just
> dropped all of the initial charges, and replaced them with new &
> improved, ever more ridiculous ones, charges that require that IBM
> discloses to SCO all of the code ever written (comical exaggeration
> on this last item, yes). And you know, the charges were so trivial
> to show: "millions of lines of code copy-n-pasted from our code" --
> if the lines were copied, and were made public as part of Linux, why
> would they be shy to show them? They wouldn't be showing any trade-
> secret (not any more, if what they were saying had been true).
>

I don't know about SCO's wild claims, and, if I'd taken them seriously,
I'd be too embarrassed to litigate for damages.

As much as I dislike SCO and the scummy ambulance-chaser fee agreement
it has with its lawyer, I'll actually be surprised if they come up with
*nothing.* Somewhere along the line, IBM code developed for a
derivative Unix work (AIX) has to have slid into its gifts to Linux.
An accident, I am sure, but if it *didn't* happen, it will be a
miracle.

In general, I don't like lawsuits.

> So, the balance: after a few months, SCO shares went from below a
> dollar per share to more than 20 -- based *exclusively* on the
> litigation; and they simply admit (not explicitly, but still) after
> a year that those were all fake charges... I don't know what the
> law says, but raw logic tells me that that's criminal behaviour,
> stock fraud, for which they should go to prison. (yes, I know that
> dropping the charges can be the result of realizing that one is
> unable to prove "the truth" in a court of law... But in this case,
> c'mon, how naive could one be??)
>
> I don't see AMD planning to put its customers in line and start
> suing them one by one as a strategy to bully them into doing
> whatever AMD wants. See, *that* would be a serious killer to
> AMD's finances... Ask SCO if you need evidence/precedent.
>
Maybe not. We'll see how AMD's customers react to the subpoenas
they'll be getting. Not well, I'll wager, and I'll bet some of them
are regretting right now that they ever talked to AMD about Intel. As
long as *they* get as good a deal from Intel as everyone else, there is
no reason for them to resent an Intel monopoly. They make their money
no matter whose chips they're selling... unless someone is getting a
better deal from Intel than they are. So the conversation goes:

"I want the same kind of deal Dell gets."

"Dell is one of our very best customers. Only our very best customers
get that kind of deal."

"Okay, what do I have to do to be one of your very best customers?"

[And what follows may or may not be illegal.]

To go back to the comparison to SCO: On slashdot, someone commented
that Intel Performance Primitives (apparently) don't work with AMD
processors. Intel has the money for that kind of stuff, and they spend
it. AMD doesn't have the money for that kind of stuff, but they do
have the money for lawyers. Such an ordering of priorities invites
comparison with SCO. You don't like that. Oh, er, you are "seriously
disturbed" by it.

As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 12:05:43 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>>Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.
>
> Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
> Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
> the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
> that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
> resources?

Still, some of us are seriously disturbed by the comparison.

SCO's case is not an example of "litigation consumes resources" -- it's
more like an obvious case of the ultimate unsubstantiated, idle legal
claims, a huge scam that worked for a while. A grotesque stock market
fraud for which SCO's directive, like all criminals, should be behind
bars.

You see, after a year of the initial lawsuit, when they ran out of
excuses to not show any evidence to sustain their claims, they just
dropped all of the initial charges, and replaced them with new &
improved, ever more ridiculous ones, charges that require that IBM
discloses to SCO all of the code ever written (comical exaggeration
on this last item, yes). And you know, the charges were so trivial
to show: "millions of lines of code copy-n-pasted from our code" --
if the lines were copied, and were made public as part of Linux, why
would they be shy to show them? They wouldn't be showing any trade-
secret (not any more, if what they were saying had been true).

So, the balance: after a few months, SCO shares went from below a
dollar per share to more than 20 -- based *exclusively* on the
litigation; and they simply admit (not explicitly, but still) after
a year that those were all fake charges... I don't know what the
law says, but raw logic tells me that that's criminal behaviour,
stock fraud, for which they should go to prison. (yes, I know that
dropping the charges can be the result of realizing that one is
unable to prove "the truth" in a court of law... But in this case,
c'mon, how naive could one be??)

I don't see AMD planning to put its customers in line and start
suing them one by one as a strategy to bully them into doing
whatever AMD wants. See, *that* would be a serious killer to
AMD's finances... Ask SCO if you need evidence/precedent.

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 2:54:28 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> Maybe not. We'll see how AMD's customers react to the subpoenas
> they'll be getting. Not well, I'll wager, and I'll bet some of them
> are regretting right now that they ever talked to AMD about Intel.

Or maybe not, according to this Ruiz went ahead with the lawsuit after
asking his customers if he should do it.

"Japan's regulators provided an opening in March when they ruled
against Intel in an antitrust case there. Ruiz said he consulted with
customers and found they wanted AMD to go forward.

``In the end, it was the right thing to do,'' he said. ``The vast
majority of people are thrilled we have put this on the table.''"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/tec...

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 4:01:23 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
> there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
> change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

How would you even begin to get a temporary injunction on secret
practices?

> If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
> There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
> matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
> injunction. Don't hold your breath.

Actually if Dell were to become an AMD customer in the middle of all of
this, then that would probably hurt AMD's case. :-)

> > There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
> > goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
> > to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
> > toe-hold though.
> >
> The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
> happening here are already amd customers.

PR is an integral part of this battle. It looks like AMD has hired a
media relations firm in addition to an outside law firm for this. The
techniques they're using seem to be reminiscent of the recent American
elections as well as various successful high-profile court cases (e.g.
websites, strategic newspaper ads, etc.).

Also looks like they may be able to bring in some heavy-hitter former
CEOs as their witnesses, such as Carly Fiorina and Michael Capellas.
Neither of them are in any kind of business anymore that's got any
substantial business with Intel. So they can't be intimidated.

Possibly they can even bring in Ted Waite of Gateway since he's retired
now too.

> Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
> Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
> the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
> that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
> resources?

Well actually for that matter, neither does Microsoft have that kind of
money.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 5:37:20 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

> As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
> from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about
>
> http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

Something off-topic for this group. I have a variety of interests and
prioirities in what I want for me and for the world -- but we deal with
one thing at a time; when I come to this newsgroup, it is to discuss
things related to computers. I'm not trying to diminish the important
of this [what you pointed us to] or the many many many other crimes
against humanity and against individual human beings; I'm just saying
that this is not what we were talking about (and it would be impolite
to continue talking about it in this newsgroup)

> You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
> ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.

The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
that other things are worse.

If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"

(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2005 10:18:57 PM

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

YKhan wrote:

> Robert I'm sure you'll find this one to your liking:
>
> Did Intel Kill Opteron? - Forbes.com
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/29/amd-opteron...
>

Does it matter whether I like something or not?

If Intel did its homework right, it should have been able to design
volume incentives that would be legal and that would insure that Intel
product is first out the door. You just make the volume target high
enough that the vendor really _has_ to push Intel chips. That will
naturally lead to aggressive discounting, especially on big orders,
like racks and racks of Xeon for a "supercomputer." Then, customers
who might have liked to have had hypertransport and the onboard memory
controller will be just as happy with Xeons, which do hit very decent
SpecFP scores.

Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.

As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 1:23:22 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> If Intel did its homework right, it should have been able to design
> volume incentives that would be legal and that would insure that Intel
> product is first out the door. You just make the volume target high
> enough that the vendor really _has_ to push Intel chips.

Well, there's the problem with free and fair market-driven economics.
If Intel made its volume targets too high, AMD would have to simply
compete by offering the same discounts at lower volumes. Then Intel
would have to retaliate by lowering its volume targets too. Then AMD
would lower its targets farther, etc. Very messy and inconvenient. At
least with monopoly market economics, you can simply tell your
customers to take it or leave it.

> That will
> naturally lead to aggressive discounting, especially on big orders,
> like racks and racks of Xeon for a "supercomputer." Then, customers
> who might have liked to have had hypertransport and the onboard memory
> controller will be just as happy with Xeons, which do hit very decent
> SpecFP scores.

Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
could still have it.

> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.

Oh yeah, it is telling us something, definitely. Guess what it tells
us? :-)

> As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.

John C. Dvorak thinks that this may be the most entertaining anti-trust
case ever. AMD is definitely going for a court of public opinion
verdict more than anything. It's demanded a jury for the trial. Also
it's made its legal brief readable in English rather than in
Lawyer-ian; and it reads more like a series of stories. No doubt these
are as a result of the PR firm that it's hired.

John Dvorak's Second Opinion: The motives behind AMD's suit against
Intel - Computer Hardware - Computer Software - Software - Opinion
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?g=E447CED9F4C...

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 2:25:30 AM

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

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120094337.721210.143210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> YKhan wrote:
>
>> Robert I'm sure you'll find this one to your liking:
>>
>> Did Intel Kill Opteron? - Forbes.com
>> http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/06/29/amd-opteron...
>>
>
> Does it matter whether I like something or not?
>
> If Intel did its homework right, it should have been able to design
> volume incentives that would be legal and that would insure that Intel
> product is first out the door. You just make the volume target high
> enough that the vendor really _has_ to push Intel chips. That will
> naturally lead to aggressive discounting, especially on big orders,
> like racks and racks of Xeon for a "supercomputer." Then, customers
> who might have liked to have had hypertransport and the onboard memory
> controller will be just as happy with Xeons, which do hit very decent
> SpecFP scores.
>
> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> RM

Why would you take a position one way or another? How could you possibly
know? You like Intel and can't imagine they would do something stupid?
Hmmm IBM in the early 50's did and they were pretty smart. ATT did, and
they were too.

del cecchi
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 7:52:33 AM

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

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120094337.721210.143210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
> >
>
> Why would you take a position one way or another? How could you possibly
> know? You like Intel and can't imagine they would do something stupid?
> Hmmm IBM in the early 50's did and they were pretty smart. ATT did, and
> they were too.
>

I didn't think I had taken a position. You want me to believe
something before I see it?

As to my *liking* Intel, I don't know that there's much to like or
dislike, but, speaking of AT&T, the breakup of the Bell System wasn't
necessarily a good thing for technology in the US. AT&T had the money,
IBM has the money, Intel has the money to spend on research. That's
where my bias is. Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.

One more time: I don't know how this lawsuit is going to come out, any
more than I really know how the SCO/IBM lawsuit is going to come out.
The best predictor I know of is what the markets do to the stock
prices.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 8:03:30 AM

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

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
> > from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about
> >
> > http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html
>
> Something off-topic for this group. I have a variety of interests and
> prioirities in what I want for me and for the world -- but we deal with
> one thing at a time; when I come to this newsgroup, it is to discuss
> things related to computers. I'm not trying to diminish the important
> of this [what you pointed us to] or the many many many other crimes
> against humanity and against individual human beings; I'm just saying
> that this is not what we were talking about (and it would be impolite
> to continue talking about it in this newsgroup)
>
> > You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
> > ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.
>
> The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
> that other things are worse.
>
> If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
> like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
> what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"
>
> (where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
> choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)
>

My reference to Mugabe's actions wasn't a defense. I was ridiculing
your use of "seriously disturbed" about a posting in a Usenet group
referring to a civil action to which neither of us is a party.

I had no reason to defend myself. I hadn't attacked you or anyone else
in any way, and now you are making a simile to crushing someone's skull
with a baseball bat.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 8:56:00 AM

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

YKhan wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
> > If Intel did its homework right, it should have been able to design
> > volume incentives that would be legal and that would insure that Intel
> > product is first out the door. You just make the volume target high
> > enough that the vendor really _has_ to push Intel chips.
>
> Well, there's the problem with free and fair market-driven economics.
> If Intel made its volume targets too high, AMD would have to simply
> compete by offering the same discounts at lower volumes. Then Intel
> would have to retaliate by lowering its volume targets too. Then AMD
> would lower its targets farther, etc. Very messy and inconvenient. At
> least with monopoly market economics, you can simply tell your
> customers to take it or leave it.
>

Here's how it works: Sales up to a certain point are at some price
that is okay. At that price, Intel's customers can resell, but
probably not make a profit. If they want to make a profit, they have
to sell above the volume quota, where the price is *so* attractive that
AMD simply cannot compete. As long as Intel hits its target average
selling price, it is happy to have those low price sales above the
volume quota.

> > That will
> > naturally lead to aggressive discounting, especially on big orders,
> > like racks and racks of Xeon for a "supercomputer." Then, customers
> > who might have liked to have had hypertransport and the onboard memory
> > controller will be just as happy with Xeons, which do hit very decent
> > SpecFP scores.
>
> Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
> discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
> could still have it.
>
AMD can't match Intel on price, and it controls less of the product
than does Intel, which sells everything but the case. For those
*really* big sales, Intel can do things that no one else in the
business can do because its margins are so high and because it controls
so much of the product.

> > Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> > they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> > technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> Oh yeah, it is telling us something, definitely. Guess what it tells
> us? :-)
>
I think we know what you think the answer is. I'll be interested to
see what comes out of this. Mush, probably.

> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> John C. Dvorak thinks that this may be the most entertaining anti-trust
> case ever. AMD is definitely going for a court of public opinion
> verdict more than anything. It's demanded a jury for the trial. Also
> it's made its legal brief readable in English rather than in
> Lawyer-ian; and it reads more like a series of stories. No doubt these
> are as a result of the PR firm that it's hired.
>
> John Dvorak's Second Opinion: The motives behind AMD's suit against
> Intel - Computer Hardware - Computer Software - Software - Opinion
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?g=E447CED9F4C...
>

Well, I read the complaint. AMD accuses Intel of using the exact
strategy I proposed:

"Intel intentionally sets a rebate trigger at a level of purchases
it knows to constitute a dominant percentage of a customer's needs.
It is able to develop discriminatory, customer-by-customer unit or
dollar targets that lock that percentage (without ever referencing it)
because industry publications accurately forecast and track anticipated
sales and because OEM market shares - which industry publications
also report weekly,
monthly and quarterly - do not change significantly quarter to
quarter."

What a surprise. Those who are really interested might find out quite
a good deal about competitive pricing strategies. Most just aren't
going to be that interested.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 9:39:52 AM

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

Carlos Moreno wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >>>You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
> >>>ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.
> >>
> >>The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
> >>that other things are worse.
> >>
> >>If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
> >>like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
> >>what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"
> >>
> >>(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
> >>choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)
> >
> > My reference to Mugabe's actions wasn't a defense. I was ridiculing
> > your use of "seriously disturbed" about a posting in a Usenet group
> > referring to a civil action to which neither of us is a party.
> >
> > I had no reason to defend myself. I hadn't attacked you or anyone else
> > in any way, and now you are making a simile to crushing someone's skull
> > with a baseball bat.
>
> And the irony gets ever thicker... I wonder if we're speaking two
> completely different languages (which would not be surprising -- you
> definitely speak English; I tend to think that I also speak English,
> but since English is a language that I learned after being an adult,
> perhaps I do not really understand it or write it the right way...)
>
> I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're trying to
> say with that "you are making a smile to crushing someone's skull"...
>

Since I don't know where the transformation from "simile" to "smile"
happened, I don't know whether you read my original text correctly or
not.

The word I used was simile:

http://www.answers.com/simile&r=67

<quote>

A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared,
often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in "How like the
winter hath my absence been" or "So are you to my thoughts as food
to life" (Shakespeare).

</quote>

> You complain that I took too seriously/literally your reference to
> Mugabe, as opposed to simply a way to ridicule my comment... And
> then, when I use an example (making use of hyperbole to make it very
> obvious), then, what? You really think that that's something I use
> as standard practice? Or that I would be seriously planning to take
> such action if I could? Either you need help, or I really need to
> learn how to read and write English, to see if I can finally get to
> understand you :-(
>

Maybe it would have been better if I had just said, "Don't you think
describing yourself as 'seriously disturbed' about a comparison between
two lawsuits a little over the top?"

What's happened here is that we have played one-upsmanship with
language: you described yourself as "seriously disturbed" about a
comparison I had made, I replied with an example of something I thought
would warrant being "seriously disturbed" about, and you responded with
an escalation of language that could conceivably be taken the wrong
way.

I'm not worried about you and baseball bats, and I'm not worried about
you and your mastery of English (although I'm not sure how you
interpreted the sentence that used the word 'simile'). I do think your
use of "seriously disturbed" as a reaction to my comparing the AMD
lawsuit to the SCO lawsuit was over the top, especially since I
intended (and stated) the comparison only in the sense of what a drain
on resources a lawsuit can be.

Maybe I am to be faulted twice in this exchange: once for using an
example with imflammatory overtones (the SCO lawsuit), and once for
escalating the rhetoric when I could have defused it. By making the
comparison to SCO, maybe I was, even if subconsciouly, expressing an
opinion about AMD's lawsuit other than that it would be a drain on
resources. As to making the comparison to Mugabe, maybe I could have
found some other way to say that "You are just taking this way too
seriously."

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 11:09:15 AM

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

chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>
> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
> planet.

Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet. So
"everyone" won't be getting a quad core out-of-order widget with SSE7.
So what?

If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
opportunity for Motorola or IBM. Having Power still alive as a viable
consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
of marketing?

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 11:49:27 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>>>You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
>>>ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.
>>
>>The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
>>that other things are worse.
>>
>>If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
>>like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
>>what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"
>>
>>(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
>>choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)
>
> My reference to Mugabe's actions wasn't a defense. I was ridiculing
> your use of "seriously disturbed" about a posting in a Usenet group
> referring to a civil action to which neither of us is a party.
>
> I had no reason to defend myself. I hadn't attacked you or anyone else
> in any way, and now you are making a simile to crushing someone's skull
> with a baseball bat.

And the irony gets ever thicker... I wonder if we're speaking two
completely different languages (which would not be surprising -- you
definitely speak English; I tend to think that I also speak English,
but since English is a language that I learned after being an adult,
perhaps I do not really understand it or write it the right way...)

I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're trying to
say with that "you are making a smile to crushing someone's skull"...

You complain that I took too seriously/literally your reference to
Mugabe, as opposed to simply a way to ridicule my comment... And
then, when I use an example (making use of hyperbole to make it very
obvious), then, what? You really think that that's something I use
as standard practice? Or that I would be seriously planning to take
such action if I could? Either you need help, or I really need to
learn how to read and write English, to see if I can finally get to
understand you :-(

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 12:58:10 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
>the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.

And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
planet.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 1:39:29 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
>> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>>
>> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
>> planet.
>
>Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
>reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet.

Sorry, but your predictions don't mean squat. AMD's presence in the
market has been benefitting the planet for years. Fact.

>So "everyone" won't be getting a quad core out-of-order widget with SSE7.
>So what?

It's your question, you answer it.

>If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
>the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
>opportunity for Motorola or IBM.

Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.

>Having Power still alive as a viable
>consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
>competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
>of marketing?

You're almost down to the level of trolling, now, Robert.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 1:49:04 PM

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

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120128753.865660.290200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120094337.721210.143210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>> >
>>
>> Why would you take a position one way or another? How could you
>> possibly
>> know? You like Intel and can't imagine they would do something
>> stupid?
>> Hmmm IBM in the early 50's did and they were pretty smart. ATT did,
>> and
>> they were too.
>>
>
> I didn't think I had taken a position. You want me to believe
> something before I see it?

Well, you said ...
"> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> RM"

Which at least has the tone of strongly doubting AMD's case. When
somebody around here says "I'll believe it when I see it" that is
generally considered to only be one step removed from ANFW. But maybe it
is different there.
>
> As to my *liking* Intel, I don't know that there's much to like or
> dislike, but, speaking of AT&T, the breakup of the Bell System wasn't
> necessarily a good thing for technology in the US. AT&T had the money,
> IBM has the money, Intel has the money to spend on research. That's
> where my bias is. Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.

Whether or not it was a good thing, all those companies were pillars of
the business world, had dominant positions, and were either convicted of
or pled out of accusations of unlawful competitive behavior.
>
> One more time: I don't know how this lawsuit is going to come out, any
> more than I really know how the SCO/IBM lawsuit is going to come out.
> The best predictor I know of is what the markets do to the stock
> prices.
>

Unfortunately, the market seems to be at best a short term predictor.
And the lawsuit will have no effect in the short term.
> RM
>
del
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 2:11:34 PM

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

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120128753.865660.290200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Del Cecchi wrote:
> >> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1120094337.721210.143210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why would you take a position one way or another? How could you
> >> possibly
> >> know? You like Intel and can't imagine they would do something
> >> stupid?
> >> Hmmm IBM in the early 50's did and they were pretty smart. ATT did,
> >> and
> >> they were too.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't think I had taken a position. You want me to believe
> > something before I see it?
>
> Well, you said ...
> "> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> > they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> > technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
> >
> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
> >
>
> Which at least has the tone of strongly doubting AMD's case. When
> somebody around here says "I'll believe it when I see it" that is
> generally considered to only be one step removed from ANFW. But maybe it
> is different there.

ANFW?

Let's see. I'd be absolutely amazed if Intel had not engaged in
strongarm tactics similar to those described in the AMD complaint. I
am very skeptical, though, of AMD getting significant monetary relief
from their lawsuit.

IBM and Microsoft came out of their woodshedding for anticompetitive
behavior with barely even a sore butt, and IBM and Microsoft were being
hounded by the US DoJ, backed by the full faith and credit of the US
Treasury. Given that experience, known by all, I'd say a little
skepticism would be in order.

> >
> > As to my *liking* Intel, I don't know that there's much to like or
> > dislike, but, speaking of AT&T, the breakup of the Bell System wasn't
> > necessarily a good thing for technology in the US. AT&T had the money,
> > IBM has the money, Intel has the money to spend on research. That's
> > where my bias is. Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> > the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>
> Whether or not it was a good thing, all those companies were pillars of
> the business world, had dominant positions, and were either convicted of
> or pled out of accusations of unlawful competitive behavior.
> >

Well, let the wheels of so-called justice grind away. The jobs are all
going to Bangalore, anyway.

> > One more time: I don't know how this lawsuit is going to come out, any
> > more than I really know how the SCO/IBM lawsuit is going to come out.
> > The best predictor I know of is what the markets do to the stock
> > prices.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, the market seems to be at best a short term predictor.
> And the lawsuit will have no effect in the short term.

Anyone who believes that they have information that would allow them to
outguess the markets can easily monetize that information by taking an
appropriate long or short position in equities markets. I have no
confidence that I can outguess the markets in this or in any other
matter.

RM
June 30, 2005 3:19:31 PM

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

On 28 Jun 2005 04:36:19 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
>against Intel in a Delaware court.
>
>EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
>http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?ar...
>
>AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>
> Yousuf Khan


If the claims AMD is making against Intel turn out to be true then the
people who made and accepted these deals (at Intel, Sony, NEC, HP, IBM,
etc, etc) should do some jail time,... maybe then these illegal deal
makers will start playing by the rules.

Has anyone ever went to jail over anti-trust or do they just pay their
way out of it?

Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 4:07:59 PM

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

chrisv wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> >> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
> >>
> >> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
> >> planet.
> >
> >Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
> >reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet.
>
> Sorry, but your predictions don't mean squat. AMD's presence in the
> market has been benefitting the planet for years. Fact.
>
You missed the point. The vast majority of people who still need
computers aren't going to need and aren't going to be able to pay for
the performance that AMD and Intel are jockeying over. That's the
market Via is aiming for.

<snip>

> >If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> >the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> >opportunity for Motorola or IBM.
>
> Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
> already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.
>
It's not a question of fear. It's a question of economics. If they
don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
they're competing with.

Now, admittedly, Intel is in a position to keep just about any
competitor off-balance and weak. I don't think this lawsuit is going
to change that.

> >Having Power still alive as a viable
> >consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
> >competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
> >of marketing?
>
> You're almost down to the level of trolling, now, Robert.

When I want to say something sharp, I generally do better than
name-calling. AMD took its best shots: x86-64 and hypertransport.
Those shots moved AMD into profitability, but that's about all. Now
it's filed a lawsuit that is apparently a marketing tool. I'd rather
have Power alive as a viable consumer architecture--about as
hypothetical at this point, I'm afraid, as bringing alpha back from the
dead (counting the game boxes as embedded applications).

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 4:14:05 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> > the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> > opportunity for Motorola or IBM. Having Power still alive as a viable
> > consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
> > competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
> > of marketing?
>
> Well, you're the one who says he's much more impressed at Intel for its
> marketing prowess than its engineering prowess:
>
> > Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> > they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> > technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?
>

Because I don't agree that it's a marketing opportunity. AMD will get
more sympathy where it's always gotten sympathy. No one else will
care.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 4:35:28 PM

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

Ed wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2005 04:36:19 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
>>against Intel in a Delaware court.
>>
>>EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
>>http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?ar...
>>
>>AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
>
> If the claims AMD is making against Intel turn out to be true then the
> people who made and accepted these deals (at Intel, Sony, NEC, HP, IBM,
> etc, etc) should do some jail time,... maybe then these illegal deal
> makers will start playing by the rules.

This makes about as much sense as making the victims of recketiring
responsible for the "protection money" they were forced to pay to the
recketiers under treat of burning down their shop, or making a bulgary
victim responsible of paying a "bribe" to the bulglar for not killing
him.
The whole beauty of this law-suit is that it is as much on behalf of
the companies being intimidated into submistion by Intel as it is on
behalf of AMD itself. Except the first once of cause are afraid to talk
about it.

Regards,
Evgenij
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 5:16:09 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> > So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?
> >
>
> Because I don't agree that it's a marketing opportunity. AMD will get
> more sympathy where it's always gotten sympathy. No one else will
> care.

Well, it looks like the marketing is being targetted at congressmen and
federal civil servants and members of the high-tech communities in
Austin and Silicon Valley. Very specific communities, not exactly the
everyman, who probably wouldn't care.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 5:31:43 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> opportunity for Motorola or IBM. Having Power still alive as a viable
> consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
> competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
> of marketing?

Well, you're the one who says he's much more impressed at Intel for its
marketing prowess than its engineering prowess:

> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.

So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 6:30:15 PM

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

chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:

> >> Robert Myers wrote:

<snip>

>
> I missed nothing. I'm just sticking to the issue of your claim that
> "Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed the enthusiasms of
> Usenet groups." Note that your statement uses the word "don't", as in
> present tense, not "won't", which would be future tense.
>
> I gave an example of something that AMD does besides "feed the
> enthusiasms of Usenet groups", proving your statement wrong.
>

Computing is *not* inexpensive because of AMD. Computing is
inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.

Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
has done so.

AMD probably has pushed Intel along, but we don't know whether the net
effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
effect has been bad, but I'll concede that someone else could easily
think differently.

But as to microprocessors being inexpensive, thank the greedy
executives and marketeers at Intel you so dearly love to loathe for
that blessing, not AMD.

<snip>

> >> >If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> >> >the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> >> >opportunity for Motorola or IBM.
> >>
> >> Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
> >> already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.
> >>
> >It's not a question of fear. It's a question of economics.
>
> So, you are reduced to a silly semantic argument. Bottom line, they
> don't want to try competing with Intel.
>
> >If they
> >don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
> >they're competing with.
>
> How does this rebute my point about IBM and Mot not wanting to compete
> with Intel?
>
*If* Intel started price-gouging, making it economically more
attractive for competition, the competition would appear. Intel's
business model is to sell lots of chips for a relatively low price--low
enough to discourage competitors. That happens with or without AMD.

RM
June 30, 2005 6:50:54 PM

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

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:35:28 -0500, Evgenij Barsukov
<evgenij_b_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> If the claims AMD is making against Intel turn out to be true then the
>> people who made and accepted these deals (at Intel, Sony, NEC, HP, IBM,
>> etc, etc) should do some jail time,... maybe then these illegal deal
>> makers will start playing by the rules.
>
>This makes about as much sense as making the victims of recketiring
>responsible for the "protection money" they were forced to pay to the
>recketiers under treat of burning down their shop, or making a bulgary
>victim responsible of paying a "bribe" to the bulglar for not killing
>him.

OK, well if Intel is found guilty then their deal makers should get some
jail time. ;p

Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 7:33:29 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> >chrisv wrote:
>> >
>> >> Robert Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
>> >> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>> >>
>> >> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
>> >> planet.
>> >
>> >Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
>> >reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet.
>>
>> Sorry, but your predictions don't mean squat. AMD's presence in the
>> market has been benefitting the planet for years. Fact.
>>
>You missed the point.

I missed nothing. I'm just sticking to the issue of your claim that
"Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed the enthusiasms of
Usenet groups." Note that your statement uses the word "don't", as in
present tense, not "won't", which would be future tense.

I gave an example of something that AMD does besides "feed the
enthusiasms of Usenet groups", proving your statement wrong.

>The vast majority of people who still need
>computers aren't going to need and aren't going to be able to pay for
>the performance that AMD and Intel are jockeying over.

Conjecture, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>That's the market Via is aiming for.

I wish them luck.

>> >If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
>> >the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
>> >opportunity for Motorola or IBM.
>>
>> Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
>> already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.
>>
>It's not a question of fear. It's a question of economics.

So, you are reduced to a silly semantic argument. Bottom line, they
don't want to try competing with Intel.

>If they
>don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
>they're competing with.

How does this rebute my point about IBM and Mot not wanting to compete
with Intel?

>Now, admittedly, Intel is in a position to keep just about any
>competitor off-balance and weak. I don't think this lawsuit is going
>to change that.

More conjecture.

>> >Having Power still alive as a viable
>> >consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
>> >competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
>> >of marketing?
>>
>> You're almost down to the level of trolling, now, Robert.
>
>When I want to say something sharp, I generally do better than
>name-calling. AMD took its best shots: x86-64 and hypertransport.
>Those shots moved AMD into profitability, but that's about all. Now
>it's filed a lawsuit that is apparently a marketing tool.

What it appears to you is not necessarily the reality of the
situation.

>I'd rather
>have Power alive as a viable consumer architecture--about as
>hypothetical at this point, I'm afraid, as bringing alpha back from the
>dead (counting the game boxes as embedded applications).

Irrelevant.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 7:50:43 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> Here's how it works: Sales up to a certain point are at some price
> that is okay. At that price, Intel's customers can resell, but
> probably not make a profit. If they want to make a profit, they have
> to sell above the volume quota, where the price is *so* attractive that
> AMD simply cannot compete. As long as Intel hits its target average
> selling price, it is happy to have those low price sales above the
> volume quota.

Great in theory, but ever since I can remember, ever since AMD was the
value-price seller, there wasn't a price that it couldn't match of
Intel's. The only difference was that Intel was able to front-end load
the price, while AMD back-end loads it (i.e. we'll give you the discount
*after* you've already sold that volume of product). Just because now
it's the high-performance seller doesn't mean that it doesn't know how
to maximize the volume discounts anymore.

>>Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
>>discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
>>could still have it.
>>
>
> AMD can't match Intel on price, and it controls less of the product
> than does Intel, which sells everything but the case. For those
> *really* big sales, Intel can do things that no one else in the
> business can do because its margins are so high and because it controls
> so much of the product.

Did you read the story where AMD offered to give HP /1 million/
processors for *free*, and HP was still not able to accept it? Can't see
how you can get much more "*really* big sales" than that.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 8:07:51 PM

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

chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>

> >Computing is
> >inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
> >commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
> >to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.
>
> Nope. Intel is not playing it the way they would prefer, they way
> they could if not for AMD. Not only would post-Athlon x86 performance
> and price have been significantly worse, Intel would be moving the
> market into Itanic right now, if they could. That's hardly choosing
> the path of the "commodity" product, is it now?
>
> >Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
> >corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
> >has done so.
>
> Your point is they want to make money? That we can agree on.
>
No, Chris. There is more than one way to make lots of money. You can
sell modest numbers at very high prices: the IBM business model. Or
you can sell huge numbers at much lower prices: the Intel business
model. There are vestiges of the IBM business model hanging on (the
mainframe business), but it's a threatened species.

Now, the real blame for cracking the IBM business model (and taking DEC
down in the process) might properly go to Compaq, not to Intel.
Probably does, in fact. But Intel wasted no time figuring it out and
cashing in. The microprocessor revolution is predicated on selling at
commodity prices. No commodity pricing, and we're still buying DEC's
with alpha microprocessors as the best alternative to IBM's exorbitant
pricing. Intel is limping along and AMD is out of business in that
scenario.

> >AMD probably has pushed Intel along,
>
> Probably? Guffaw.
>
> >but we don't know whether the net
> >effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
> >effect has been bad,
>
> Mind boggling.
>
There's a whole series of arguments I've had, and I just don't want to
have them again. If you think the best of all worlds is a series of
incremental improvements of x86 driven by competition between Intel and
AMD, then AMD has been a good thing. If you don't think that's the
best of all worlds, and I don't, you're not particularly admiring of
AMD's contribution to civilization.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 8:11:37 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > Here's how it works: Sales up to a certain point are at some price
> > that is okay. At that price, Intel's customers can resell, but
> > probably not make a profit. If they want to make a profit, they have
> > to sell above the volume quota, where the price is *so* attractive that
> > AMD simply cannot compete. As long as Intel hits its target average
> > selling price, it is happy to have those low price sales above the
> > volume quota.
>
> Great in theory, but ever since I can remember, ever since AMD was the
> value-price seller, there wasn't a price that it couldn't match of
> Intel's. The only difference was that Intel was able to front-end load
> the price, while AMD back-end loads it (i.e. we'll give you the discount
> *after* you've already sold that volume of product). Just because now
> it's the high-performance seller doesn't mean that it doesn't know how
> to maximize the volume discounts anymore.
>
Why are you arguing with me? AMD's complaint alleges exactly what I
described.

> >>Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
> >>discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
> >>could still have it.
> >>
> >
> > AMD can't match Intel on price, and it controls less of the product
> > than does Intel, which sells everything but the case. For those
> > *really* big sales, Intel can do things that no one else in the
> > business can do because its margins are so high and because it controls
> > so much of the product.
>
> Did you read the story where AMD offered to give HP /1 million/
> processors for *free*, and HP was still not able to accept it? Can't see
> how you can get much more "*really* big sales" than that.
>
No.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 8:33:43 PM

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

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > > So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?
> > >
> >
> > Because I don't agree that it's a marketing opportunity. AMD will get
> > more sympathy where it's always gotten sympathy. No one else will
> > care.
>
> Well, it looks like the marketing is being targetted at congressmen and
> federal civil servants and members of the high-tech communities in
> Austin and Silicon Valley. Very specific communities, not exactly the
> everyman, who probably wouldn't care.
>

Frankly, Yousuf, this is beyond me. Intel has a presence in the
marketplace that just boggles the imagination. With so much money
flowing through Intel's hands, I have a hard time imagining that AMD is
anything but naive to think that it can mount a marketing, advertising,
PR, political, or any other kind of campaign against Intel. The odds
are just stacked so heavily against it. AMD is a *nit*. So many
players are so utterly dependent on Intel. Why would anybody risk
their livelihood for a slightly less expensive x86?

That's it. That's the bottom line. I can't imagine that *anybody*
really wants to play. That's where my mind just stops dead in its
tracks. Why would anybody want to mess with a good thing, and what
could AMD possibly say to them to persuade them that it is a good
thing?

As to congressmen and what not, I don't pay attention to what Intel
does with its political contributions, but it's a safe bet that Intel
makes them. Sure, if AMD can nail Intel in court, no amount of
political influence will save Intel. But you're arguing that AMD is
waging a campaign of political influence with an expectation of
winning. Not in the industry. Not in the world of finance. Not in
the world of politics. And certainly not among consumers, because they
just don't care.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 8:46:42 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>> I gave an example of something that AMD does besides "feed the
>> enthusiasms of Usenet groups", proving your statement wrong.
>
>Computing is *not* inexpensive because of AMD.

I didn't say it was. I said that the AMD presence in the market has
significantly reduced the cost of computing.

>Computing is
>inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
>commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
>to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.

Nope. Intel is not playing it the way they would prefer, they way
they could if not for AMD. Not only would post-Athlon x86 performance
and price have been significantly worse, Intel would be moving the
market into Itanic right now, if they could. That's hardly choosing
the path of the "commodity" product, is it now?

>Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
>corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
>has done so.

Your point is they want to make money? That we can agree on.

>AMD probably has pushed Intel along,

Probably? Guffaw.

>but we don't know whether the net
>effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
>effect has been bad,

Mind boggling.

>but I'll concede that someone else could easily
>think differently.
>
>But as to microprocessors being inexpensive, thank the greedy
>executives and marketeers at Intel you so dearly love to loathe for
>that blessing, not AMD.

Please provide substantiation for your implication that I feel any
different toward Intel executives than I do toward AMD executives.

>> >If they
>> >don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
>> >they're competing with.
>>
>> How does this rebute my point about IBM and Mot not wanting to compete
>> with Intel?
>>
>*If* Intel started price-gouging, making it economically more
>attractive for competition, the competition would appear.

Yeah, like AMD. NOT the big computer companies like IBM and Mot.

> Intel's
>business model is to sell lots of chips for a relatively low price--low
>enough to discourage competitors.

Didn't discourage AMD. But, as I said, the big computer companies
sure don't want to challange Intel, as I've already explained.

>That happens with or without AMD.

Evidence, please.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2005 11:08:47 PM

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

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120172871.411159.227740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>
>> >Computing is
>> >inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
>> >commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel
>> >chose
>> >to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.
>>
>> Nope. Intel is not playing it the way they would prefer, they way
>> they could if not for AMD. Not only would post-Athlon x86 performance
>> and price have been significantly worse, Intel would be moving the
>> market into Itanic right now, if they could. That's hardly choosing
>> the path of the "commodity" product, is it now?
>>
>> >Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
>> >corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and
>> >it
>> >has done so.
>>
>> Your point is they want to make money? That we can agree on.
>>
> No, Chris. There is more than one way to make lots of money. You can
> sell modest numbers at very high prices: the IBM business model. Or
> you can sell huge numbers at much lower prices: the Intel business
> model. There are vestiges of the IBM business model hanging on (the
> mainframe business), but it's a threatened species.
>
> Now, the real blame for cracking the IBM business model (and taking DEC
> down in the process) might properly go to Compaq, not to Intel.
> Probably does, in fact. But Intel wasted no time figuring it out and
> cashing in. The microprocessor revolution is predicated on selling at
> commodity prices. No commodity pricing, and we're still buying DEC's
> with alpha microprocessors as the best alternative to IBM's exorbitant
> pricing. Intel is limping along and AMD is out of business in that
> scenario.
>
>> >AMD probably has pushed Intel along,
>>
>> Probably? Guffaw.
>>
>> >but we don't know whether the net
>> >effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
>> >effect has been bad,
>>
>> Mind boggling.
>>
> There's a whole series of arguments I've had, and I just don't want to
> have them again. If you think the best of all worlds is a series of
> incremental improvements of x86 driven by competition between Intel and
> AMD, then AMD has been a good thing. If you don't think that's the
> best of all worlds, and I don't, you're not particularly admiring of
> AMD's contribution to civilization.
>
> RM
>
Actually IBM saved Intel's bacon long about the time they were "figuring
it out". And Intel wants high margin business, that's why they allegedly
abused their market power. And don't forget to cogitate on why Intel
switched from x86 to Itanium (well, tried to), too many cross licenses
laying around from back in the day. If Intel could get the same revenue
with 1/3 the capital expenditure, don't you think they would? What
prevents Intel from charging double the current price list?

Clearly Intel has a dominant position and exercises its market power to
preserve it. The question is are those actions a violation of US law?
The Sherman Act?

For example " Robinson-Patman Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1936 to
supplement the Clayton Antitrust Act. The act, advanced by Congressman
Wright Patman, forbade any person or firm engaged in interstate commerce
to discriminate in price to different purchasers of the same commodity
when the effect would be to lessen competition or to create a monopoly."

del cecchi
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2005 1:30:12 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> Frankly, Yousuf, this is beyond me. Intel has a presence in the
> marketplace that just boggles the imagination. With so much money
> flowing through Intel's hands, I have a hard time imagining that AMD is
> anything but naive to think that it can mount a marketing, advertising,
> PR, political, or any other kind of campaign against Intel. The odds
> are just stacked so heavily against it. AMD is a *nit*. So many
> players are so utterly dependent on Intel. Why would anybody risk
> their livelihood for a slightly less expensive x86?
>
> That's it. That's the bottom line. I can't imagine that *anybody*
> really wants to play. That's where my mind just stops dead in its
> tracks. Why would anybody want to mess with a good thing, and what
> could AMD possibly say to them to persuade them that it is a good
> thing?

Well there's not much I can do to improve *your* imagination. :-)

But quite obviously they're not messing with a good thing, because this
is definitely not a good thing. Since when is it ever a good thing when
one of your suppliers can just reduce your allocation of a component
for your product and get away with it with absolutely no repercussions.
These guys are used to being able to play off suppliers against each
other in every other component, except one, which is processors; with
processors its the supplier that plays off the OEMs against each other.
If they keep trying to play Intel's game any longer they will all be
bankrupt, all of their profits siphoned off by Intel and given over to
Dell.

> As to congressmen and what not, I don't pay attention to what Intel
> does with its political contributions, but it's a safe bet that Intel
> makes them. Sure, if AMD can nail Intel in court, no amount of
> political influence will save Intel. But you're arguing that AMD is
> waging a campaign of political influence with an expectation of
> winning. Not in the industry. Not in the world of finance. Not in
> the world of politics. And certainly not among consumers, because they
> just don't care.

Actually, you'd be surprised how much influence these sort of tactics
have. There's a group of PR firms out there specializing in this sort
of public flogging. The last US election was an example of the success
of these sorts of campaigns.

AMD and Intel both contributed to the Republicans (and Democrats)
during the last several elections. Neither company really derives much
assistance out of congress for their particular industry (think oil and
defence industries, that's where politicians make their money). The
semiconductor industry for the most part operates on its own without
much thought from congress. In fact, recently Craig Barrett complained
loudly about education and immigration policies in the USA regarding
foreign workers, and it got heard as loudly as a mouse by congress. For
the most part, the semiconductor industry doesn't do a lot of lobbying.


Anyways, enough of politics. Here's another couple of interesting
articles about the lawsuit:

David Kirkpatrick - AMD's Suit Against Intel: The First Punch - FORTUNE
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,1078...

Tom Yager
http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/2005/06/29.html

Kirkpatrick observes that "So far, industry reaction seems moderately
pro-AMD." Though most of the OEMs are still afraid to give their names
out.

Yager observes, "So much of what AMD claims is patently obvious."

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2005 2:00:03 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> Computing is *not* inexpensive because of AMD. Computing is
> inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
> commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
> to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.

This is where your true colors come out -- Intel blue all the way. Only
an ignorant fool would think Intel decided to reduce prices of its
processors on its own. The fact of the matter is that AMD and Cyrix
pushed down prices so drastically in the early 1990's that we wouldn't
have ever gotten to a $500 PC without them. I remember being happy to
pay /only/ $1500 for a PC-XT compatible back in 1988.

> Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
> corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
> has done so.

This is the most idiotic thing I've heard from you, and I've heard a
lot of idiotic things from you. Intel saw a way to "become a money
factory"? Intel was already a money factory prior to the advent of
competition from AMD & Cyrix. It was already comfortable being a
high-price per unit medium-volume money factory, until these two came
in and forced it to change to a medium-priced high-volume money
factory.

>
> AMD probably has pushed Intel along, but we don't know whether the net
> effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
> effect has been bad, but I'll concede that someone else could easily
> think differently.

You think AMD's pushing Intel along was a bad thing, but you're willing
to accept somebody else's different opinion? How big of you. You're the
only person that's going to have that opinion! What do you mean you'll
accept somebody else's different opinion? It's like having the opinion
that the Earth is flat, but accepting that other people believe it's
round.

> But as to microprocessors being inexpensive, thank the greedy
> executives and marketeers at Intel you so dearly love to loathe for
> that blessing, not AMD.

ROFL. I'm going to have to start thinking of you as our local resident
insane dancing mental patient. That's the only way to rationally
explain and accept your opinions from now on.

> *If* Intel started price-gouging, making it economically more
> attractive for competition, the competition would appear. Intel's
> business model is to sell lots of chips for a relatively low price--low
> enough to discourage competitors. That happens with or without AMD.

The competition is already here, therefore Intel is price-gouging.
You've answered your own question.

Yousuf Khan
!