Antitrust: Microsoft haunts Intel

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

I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."

Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
much more difficult to defend.

> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>
> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.

"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.

> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>
> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
11 answers Last reply
More about antitrust microsoft haunts intel
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:

    >I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
    >Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
    >"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
    >
    >Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
    > much more difficult to defend.
    >
    >> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
    >>
    >> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
    >
    >"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
    >improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
    >
    >> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
    >>
    >> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
    We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
    sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
    making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
    years and years...
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

    > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
    >>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
    >>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
    >>
    >>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
    >> much more difficult to defend.
    >>
    >>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
    >>>
    >>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
    >>
    >>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
    >>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
    >>
    >>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
    >>>
    >>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
    > We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
    > sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
    > making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
    > years and years...

    Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
    trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
    surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.

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

    On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:19:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
    >>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
    >>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
    >>>
    >>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
    >>> much more difficult to defend.
    >>>
    >>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
    >>>>
    >>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
    >>>
    >>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
    >>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
    >>>
    >>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
    >>>>
    >>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
    >> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
    >> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
    >> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
    >> years and years...
    >
    >Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
    >trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
    >surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.

    I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
    hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
    it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
    be Intel.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:26:44 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

    > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:19:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
    >>>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
    >>>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
    >>>>
    >>>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
    >>>> much more difficult to defend.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
    >>>>
    >>>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
    >>>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
    >>> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
    >>> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
    >>> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
    >>> years and years...
    >>
    >>Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
    >>trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
    >>surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.
    >
    > I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
    > hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
    > it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
    > be Intel.

    Of course they may appeal, but anyone who thinks SCotUS will take this up
    (based on what's known today) is, frankly, nuts.

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

    keith wrote:
    >>I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
    >>hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
    >>it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
    >>be Intel.
    >
    >
    > Of course they may appeal, but anyone who thinks SCotUS will take this up
    > (based on what's known today) is, frankly, nuts.
    >

    I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada, if you lose one
    round of appeals, it doesn't go any further up the chain.

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

    > I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada, if you lose
    one
    > round of appeals, it doesn't go any further up the chain.

    Yousuf, _one_ side of an appeal _always_ loses. Unless there's a tie
    and they cut the baby in half.

    This being the case, it follows from your premise that there is no
    need for further apellate courts since, one side having lost, the case
    never goes further up the chain. Is that correct? You obviously know
    more about Canuckistan jurisprudence than I do! ;-)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Well, of course what I meant was if the losing side also loses on
    appeal, it goes no further up the line. Basically it's always the
    losing side that appeals something, even in a middling decision where
    one side wins a few points and the other side wins a few of their own,
    each side can appeal the points that they lost.

    Anyways, if one side wins on appeal, that makes the other side the
    losing side of course. So those guys can then appeal one more level up.
    If they fail on the second appeal then there are no more appeals.

    Basically, two losses in a row and you're out.

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

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:26:44 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
    <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:19:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
    >>>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
    >>>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
    >>>>
    >>>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
    >>>> much more difficult to defend.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
    >>>>
    >>>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
    >>>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
    >>> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
    >>> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
    >>> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
    >>> years and years...
    >>
    >>Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
    >>trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
    >>surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.
    >
    >I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
    >hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
    >it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
    >be Intel.

    I think the PR value, negative or positive for either player, is going to
    rule when it comes time to go forward with the umpteenth appeal or not. It
    *is* going to be interesting.

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

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:15:36 -0700, YKhan wrote:

    > Well, of course what I meant was if the losing side also loses on
    > appeal, it goes no further up the line. Basically it's always the
    > losing side that appeals something, even in a middling decision where
    > one side wins a few points and the other side wins a few of their own,
    > each side can appeal the points that they lost.
    >
    > Anyways, if one side wins on appeal, that makes the other side the
    > losing side of course. So those guys can then appeal one more level up.
    > If they fail on the second appeal then there are no more appeals.
    >
    > Basically, two losses in a row and you're out.

    South of the borDER, one can appeal right up the chain, unitl one gets
    teruned down. There are only a few instances that can be appealed
    directly to SCotUS, but a pair of losses up the chain is not an automatic
    loss. A case can conceiveably be appealed five times (not
    counting and remanding to lower courts).

    However, upper courts tend to go with the findings of fact from the lower
    courts. Most appeals are on procedural aspects of the cases.

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

    keith wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:15:36 -0700, YKhan wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Well, of course what I meant was if the losing side also loses on
    >>appeal, it goes no further up the line. Basically it's always the
    >>losing side that appeals something, even in a middling decision where
    >>one side wins a few points and the other side wins a few of their own,
    >>each side can appeal the points that they lost.
    >>
    >>Anyways, if one side wins on appeal, that makes the other side the
    >>losing side of course. So those guys can then appeal one more level up.
    >>If they fail on the second appeal then there are no more appeals.
    >>
    >>Basically, two losses in a row and you're out.
    >
    >
    > South of the borDER, one can appeal right up the chain, unitl one gets
    > teruned down.

    That is much the way it is in Canada too: Yousuf is wrong. You
    can appeal up the chain until you hit a court that refuses to
    hear your appeal. Losing an appeal does not mean you are done:
    you *can* appeal to a higher court on the same grounds or you
    can appeal to the same court on different grounds.

    > There are only a few instances that can be appealed
    > directly to SCotUS,

    Ditto for "SCotCan".

    > but a pair of losses up the chain is not an automatic loss.

    It is *not* that way in Canada. If an appeal is heard and ruled
    on, then either side can appeal that ruling to a higher court,
    unless, of course, you are already at the highest court. And if
    one court refuses to hear your appeal, chances are overwhelming
    that a higher court will also refuse, but it is not a
    rubber-stamp process.

    You can appeal as often as you can convince an appeals court at
    any level that you have valid grounds for your appeal and your
    appeal deserves to be heard. You could, for example, lose an
    appeal of a criminal conviction in the Supreme Court and then
    have a successful appeal years later if new evidence turns up
    that gives your fresh grounds for a new appeal.


    > A case can conceiveably be appealed five times (not
    > counting and remanding to lower courts).

    I thought it was much the same in the US as in Canada: no limit
    on the number of times you could appeal - you just have to
    convince an appeals court that they should let you present your
    case. Indeed, from what I have read, American appeals courts
    seem to spend a lot more time than Canadian courts on deciding
    which appeals they will hear.

    >
    > However, upper courts tend to go with the findings of fact from the lower
    > courts. Most appeals are on procedural aspects of the cases.
    >

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

    Rob Stow wrote:
    >> South of the borDER, one can appeal right up the chain, unitl one gets
    >> teruned down.
    >
    >
    > That is much the way it is in Canada too: Yousuf is wrong. You can
    > appeal up the chain until you hit a court that refuses to hear your
    > appeal. Losing an appeal does not mean you are done: you *can* appeal
    > to a higher court on the same grounds or you can appeal to the same
    > court on different grounds.

    It's been a long time since I took law in school, but that is one of the
    things I think I heard about back then.

    Yousuf Khan
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Cases Intel Microsoft Product