AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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....
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
>
 
M

mygarbage2000

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2002
126
0
18,680
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...
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
--
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
--
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom