AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

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?articleID=164903291

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

Yousuf Khan
141 answers Last reply
More about sues intel antitrust
  1. 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?articleID=164903291
    >
    > 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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....
  7. 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
    >
  8. 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?articleID=164903291
    >>
    >> 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...
  9. 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/2005/06/28/0628automarketscan14.html?partner=yahootix&referrer=

    Yousuf Khan
  10. 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
  11. 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/2005/06/28/0628automarketscan14.html?partner=yahootix&referrer=
    >

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

    RM
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
    --
  16. 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/technology/12013657.htm

    Yousuf Khan
  17. 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
  18. 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
    --
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    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-sales-cz_dw_0629amd.html

    Yousuf Khan
  20. 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-sales-cz_dw_0629amd.html
    >

    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
  21. 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=E447CED9F4C54384AF915BCB4F39C788&siteid=mktw&dist=nbk

    Yousuf Khan
  22. 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-sales-cz_dw_0629amd.html
    >>
    >
    > 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
    >
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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=E447CED9F4C54384AF915BCB4F39C788&siteid=mktw&dist=nbk
    >

    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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
    --
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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?articleID=164903291
    >
    >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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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?articleID=164903291
    >>
    >>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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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/0,15704,1078376,00.html?promoid=email

    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
  49. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Intel AMD