Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

INTEL ASKS JUDGE TO THROW OUT AMD CASE

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
May 4, 2006 2:45:03 PM

Read the full story here:
News.com
May 4, 2006 4:02:47 PM

Related resources
May 7, 2006 9:44:25 AM

Good...I hope the judge does toss the case. Intel "HAS" come up with a

ligitimate argument. These cases are all about who has the better legal

counsel, and i can imagine the lawyers that Intel can afford. I think if

AMD was in the same position as Intel, with the same resources, they

quite likely would have done the same thing.....Hey, they're in the business

to make money, not friends.
May 7, 2006 11:01:46 PM

Actionman?
May 8, 2006 12:09:01 AM

stop being children.... some people might actually want to know something about this..... Ycon... if you have nothing to add, then don't post anything. 1Tanker, did you even read the article? They said "Intel filed a motion on Wednesday asking a federal-court judge to dismiss portions of an antitrust lawsuit brought by its archrival, Advanced Micro Devices." I highlighted, italiced and underlined the key word for you. It doesn't really matter if Intel wins or loses.... they are not going any where..... so everyone stop getting so defensive about this stupid case, it's not like YOU own the company.
May 8, 2006 5:22:50 AM

Quote:
stop being children.... some people might actually want to know something about this..... Ycon... if you have nothing to add, then don't post anything. 1Tanker, did you even read the article? They said "Intel filed a motion on Wednesday asking a federal-court judge to dismiss portions of an antitrust lawsuit brought by its archrival, Advanced Micro Devices." I highlighted, italiced and underlined the key word for you. It doesn't really matter if Intel wins or loses.... they are not going any where..... so everyone stop getting so defensive about this stupid case, it's not like YOU own the company.


I wasn't being defensive, i just think they're smart for bringing up the

jurisdictional arguement. Things like that can turn the outcome of a case

around fairly quickly.
May 8, 2006 5:40:46 AM

Why does AMD keeps suing Intel, what they want? Money? Maybe Intel is bribing the judge with millions of dollars to drop it like it's hot. Oh well, these days we to be careful otherwise be sued for money. Why can't they just get along like friends and drink a cup of coffee.
May 8, 2006 5:45:23 AM

Quote:
Good...I hope the judge does toss the case. Intel "HAS" come up with a

ligitimate argument. These cases are all about who has the better legal

counsel, and i can imagine the lawyers that Intel can afford. I think if

AMD was in the same position as Intel, with the same resources, they

quite likely would have done the same thing.....Hey, they're in the business

to make money, not friends.


Somehow i don't think the in house lawyers in either camp are better or worse than the other...coming up with tiny little details to slip through the cracks in the legal system is pretty much standard issue.

Just because Intel has an argument doesnt mean they will win it.
May 8, 2006 8:18:23 AM

hey 9-inch didnt you hear - your turion x2 got delayed, but you didnt post that did you?

why do i get the feeling 9-inch is just another poster AMD fanboy using the 9-inch account just to post BS?

Quote:
Read the full story here:
News.com
May 8, 2006 12:14:23 PM

Apache.... who the hell cares....
May 8, 2006 12:59:55 PM

AMD case is most likely a joke. Now that their business has swung back and AMD is doing well, they should quit whining and drop it. If it was a publicity ploy, it worked..
May 8, 2006 1:17:14 PM

The whole '10 way skype conference calling ONLY on intels' proves to me that AMD have SOME sort of case
May 8, 2006 1:45:44 PM

Quote:
Read the full story here:
News.com


This is nothing more than Intel posturing and par-for-the course legal procedure...nothing more, don't read to much else into it.

This lawsuit is not silly or stupid, Intel deserved it, not for nothing, but both Dell and Gateway were selling desktops with AMD procs and then the next year, they were not. As soon as I heard that I knew that Intel used there size and influence to have makers and resellers favor them over AMD. Comptetition is what the consumer benefits from. A little legal tussle every now and then can be healthy for the industry. Partially due to the lawsuit Intel actually has to produce something new to keep themselves in the forefront, i.e. Conroe/Core architecture/ViiV, etc...

Keyboard and cookie jokes aside, the all caps subject line is a bit much...
May 8, 2006 1:48:49 PM

Quote:
hey 9-inch didnt you hear - your turion x2 got delayed, but you didnt post that did you?

why do i get the feeling 9-inch is just another poster AMD fanboy using the 9-inch account just to post BS?

Read the full story here:
News.com


And your Intel avatar doesn't give the feeling that you're just another Intel fanboy waiting for pro AMD posts so you can dis them?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
May 8, 2006 2:11:24 PM

Quote:
The whole '10 way skype conference calling ONLY on intels' proves to me that AMD have SOME sort of case

Intel has influence, but what Intel did there was perfectly legal. That's just like Pepsi selling Pepsi only at taco-bell and Coke selling Coke only as Mcdonald's.
May 8, 2006 2:44:15 PM

Quote:
The whole '10 way skype conference calling ONLY on intels' proves to me that AMD have SOME sort of case

Intel has influence, but what Intel did there was perfectly legal. That's just like Pepsi selling Pepsi only at taco-bell and Coke selling Coke only as Mcdonald's.

Bad analogy because Taco Bell is owned by PepsiCo...what Intel did is on the fringes of legality and certainly deserving of scrutiny...Dell, Gateway, and the other resellers are not subsidiaries of Intel, they are business partners, Intel is being sued for anti-trust infringement due to them using their influence to steer and control the market...
May 8, 2006 2:48:50 PM

Quote:
The whole '10 way skype conference calling ONLY on intels' proves to me that AMD have SOME sort of case

Intel has influence, but what Intel did there was perfectly legal. That's just like Pepsi selling Pepsi only at taco-bell and Coke selling Coke only as Mcdonald's.

Bad analogy because Taco Bell is owned by PepsiCo...what Intel did was on the fringes of legality but certainly deserving of anti-trust scrutiny...Dell, Gateway, and the other resellers are not subsidiaries of Intel, they are business partners, Intel is being sued over anti-trust infringement and using their influence to steer and control the market...
They have just as much power to buy AMD as they do Intel. Many of them choose Intel because Intel can produce motherboards, chipsets and still provide plenty of chips. AMD has production problems that Intel does not, therefore it would be impossible for AMD to be the primary supplier for all of the above. Also, AMD did this in the heat of last year when they were doing poorly. Let's all take notice that AMD has stopped making a big deal of it now that they are up 70%. Publicity ploy? Maybe. Wishful thinking? Definately.
May 8, 2006 2:55:42 PM

Wannabe-Mod?
May 8, 2006 5:18:34 PM

Quote:
The whole '10 way skype conference calling ONLY on intels' proves to me that AMD have SOME sort of case

Intel has influence, but what Intel did there was perfectly legal. That's just like Pepsi selling Pepsi only at taco-bell and Coke selling Coke only as Mcdonald's.

Bad analogy because Taco Bell is owned by PepsiCo...what Intel did was on the fringes of legality but certainly deserving of anti-trust scrutiny...Dell, Gateway, and the other resellers are not subsidiaries of Intel, they are business partners, Intel is being sued over anti-trust infringement and using their influence to steer and control the market...
They have just as much power to buy AMD as they do Intel. Many of them choose Intel because Intel can produce motherboards, chipsets and still provide plenty of chips. AMD has production problems that Intel does not, therefore it would be impossible for AMD to be the primary supplier for all of the above. Also, AMD did this in the heat of last year when they were doing poorly. Let's all take notice that AMD has stopped making a big deal of it now that they are up 70%. Publicity ploy? Maybe. Wishful thinking? Definately.

Blah, blah, blah, all I read is the apologetic ranting of an Intel fanboy. You are niave if you really believe that Dell, Gateway, and many other reseller casually chose Intel over AMD because "Intel is better".

You also missed the point entirely and apparently do not have any understanding of the basis of the lawsuit; briefly:
Quote:
Advanced Micro Devices has filed a wide-ranging antitrust suit against Intel, accusing it of maintaining its monopoly in the PC processor market by illegally coercing customers around the world into using its products...38 companies on three continents that were allegedly coerced by Intel, including large-scale computer makers, small system builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers...The 48-page complaint alleges that Intel used illegal subsidies to win sales, and in some cases threatened companies with "severe consequences" for using or selling AMD products...Intel has also been investigated by U.S. antitrust regulators, although the charges were different in nature. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against the chip maker in 1998, accusing it of using its market dominance to coerce trade secrets from some of its customers
Read for yourself one of the hundreds of articles found with a simple Google search regarding the lawsuit.

I have yet to read any replies from Intel that provide irrefutable evidence that they did not engage in anti-trust activities. So, as wrong as Intel allegedly is, with enough money and lawyers, they'll probably get away with it; but not without a tarnished business reputation and de-limited market share.
May 8, 2006 6:01:02 PM

Where's action man when u need him?
May 8, 2006 6:02:25 PM

Quote:
Where's action man when u need him?

when do you need action man?
May 8, 2006 6:18:41 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The whole '10 way skype conference calling ONLY on intels' proves to me that AMD have SOME sort of case

Intel has influence, but what Intel did there was perfectly legal.

Blah, blah, blah, all I read is the apologetic ranting of an Intel fanboy. You are niave if you really believe that Dell, Gateway, and many other reseller casually chose Intel over AMD because "Intel is better".

There's alot of naivety in here. I work for a major seat supplier for

General Motors. They are always hounding us about quality, "BUT", they

will "threaten" to take their business elsewhere if we don't cut the price

of a pair of seats by 5%. Now, do you really think that companies only

use products that are "better". Money man, Money.
May 8, 2006 8:18:30 PM

And really..... it's not the fact that Gateway and Dell, sell Intel products.... it is that FACT that they would sell ONLY Intel products..... come on, what would stop them from selling AMD..... they wouldn't have lost money, they only stood to gain money if they sold AMD. I mean come on, they were trying to market machines as gamings machines that could have been solidly outperformed by a midrange AMD machine.... they knew that, they just didn't want to forfeit the dirt cheap Intel chips they were getting.
May 8, 2006 8:22:04 PM

The Master..... If you don't have anything productive to add, don't waste our time..... we all know what the keyboard and slinky look like, don't need to see it again just because you need AM to argue for you..... why don't you edit that post and just say why you think Dell and Gateway aren't being strong armed by Intel.
May 8, 2006 9:54:25 PM

What I would like to see is amd or intel come up with something as creative as the cell proc. I mean 9 cores, 8 vector proc and a normal proc all in one chip that’s crazy awesome. intel and amd are pussyfooting around with 2 or 3 cores while sony, ibm, and toshiba (I think all 3 are in on the cell development) whip out a 9 core proc for a console non the less. They need to stop fighting each other because this cell cpu could show them both up
May 8, 2006 10:22:01 PM

that would be cool, although it is off topic...whatever comes out, the consumer benefits :D 
May 8, 2006 11:56:57 PM

Isn't the main challenge for Cell going to be the programming required to take advantage of it? I am not to sure, that is why I am asking. And is it even possible for Cell to be run on x86?
May 9, 2006 12:12:56 AM

Quote:
What I would like to see is amd or intel come up with something as creative as the cell proc. I mean 9 cores, 8 vector proc and a normal proc all in one chip that’s crazy awesome. intel and amd are pussyfooting around with 2 or 3 cores while sony, ibm, and toshiba (I think all 3 are in on the cell development) whip out a 9 core proc for a console non the less. They need to stop fighting each other because this cell cpu could show them both up

there is plenty of creativity out there, unfortunately it doesnt sell. i highly doubt cell is even the most exotic cpu from ibm, but theres a difference between making a design and mass producing it. i hear in college people scoff at intel for making such weak cpus, but then i say come up with something better and produce a few hundred million of them... sony and ibm are having horrible yield issues with cell, and it has delayed the ps3. cell will not take off, just lke the tons of other radical designs of years past.
May 9, 2006 12:30:38 AM

Quote:
And really..... it's not the fact that Gateway and Dell, sell Intel products.... it is that FACT that they would sell ONLY Intel products..... come on, what would stop them from selling AMD..... they wouldn't have lost money, they only stood to gain money if they sold AMD. I mean come on, they were trying to market machines as gamings machines that could have been solidly outperformed by a midrange AMD machine.... they knew that, they just didn't want to forfeit the dirt cheap Intel chips they were getting.

So what are you saying, that Intel should increase its prices to be competitive? And, by the way, note the key customer of these companies: the average joe who will pay next to nothing for his PC. Do you really think AMD can keep up with that demand? AMD just can not produce the kinds of quantities Intel can. And until it does-it should not expect to hold center stage, even if it seriously outperforms Intel like it has recently done.
May 9, 2006 12:32:35 AM

Quote:
Isn't the main challenge for Cell going to be the programming required to take advantage of it? I am not to sure, that is why I am asking. And is it even possible for Cell to be run on x86?

I highly doubt Cell will be x86 capable. But yes, it will be very challenging to produce software to match the hugely parallelized cores. However, it will EASILY outperform anything else if it has the right software developed. Parallelization has shown to be a lot more effective than clockspeed lately.
May 9, 2006 12:38:28 AM

Ak.... do you understand.... it is anti competitive.... how is AMD supposed to be able to be cometitive if it is not able to sell enough cpu's to build new fabs? Makes sense? And keep in mind, if Dell were making AMD desktops, they would still be selling Intel, and I think AMD could make enough because all Dell has to to is price them so that Intel would sell more..... there are ways to work the deal where AMD could get some business..... it's really not that hard. If Dell wanted to, they could use AMD and make money off of AMD, but they choose not to, for reasons which will be uncovered in the future... why are you seemingly protecting Intel? Does it really matter if they lose the suit? Are they going to go bankrupt?
May 9, 2006 1:26:39 AM

Quote:
Ak.... do you understand.... it is anti competitive.... how is AMD supposed to be able to be cometitive if it is not able to sell enough cpu's to build new fabs? Makes sense? And keep in mind, if Dell were making AMD desktops, they would still be selling Intel, and I think AMD could make enough because all Dell has to to is price them so that Intel would sell more..... there are ways to work the deal where AMD could get some business..... it's really not that hard. If Dell wanted to, they could use AMD and make money off of AMD, but they choose not to, for reasons which will be uncovered in the future... why are you seemingly protecting Intel? Does it really matter if they lose the suit? Are they going to go bankrupt?

AMD should be making the necessary loans and focusing on newer CPU production types (65nm) a lot more on fab's. No, it doesn't matter if Intel loses the suit or wins the suit. I think it's silly and childish to be whiny about a company that has a deal with your competitor. Lots of computer manufacturers are starting to sell AMD processes anyway, and Dell has never totally thrown out the idea of AMD cpu's in their desktops. Lenovo has already pledged allegiance, as well as HP and several other massive builders.
May 9, 2006 1:36:33 AM

How many of these companies were doing this prior to the suit? And it doesn't matter if "rumors" about Dell using AMD hit the street.... did they ever use AMD? Are they the largest PC seller? If you owned a company, on the verge of bankruptcy(as they were a few years back) do you think you would be mad that the best shot you have to salavaging your company would not even consider selling your product.... as if it would hurt there business? Come on.... give me a break.... it seems fairly obvious that Intel gave Dell special prices to keep them using Intel only.... why would they want AMD to grow? How much more money would Intel make if they were the sole supplier of X-86 cpus???? Think about it..... stop protecting Intel.... not saying don't buy there CPU's.... but don't protect them when they do wrong.... and why not let the courts decide it anyway, I mean, I am sure they will come to the correct decision either way it goes.
May 9, 2006 1:38:01 AM

Also.... I am sure they owe alot of money.... probably more than you think..... and keep in mind, you have to have financial stability to take out loans.... I don't think a bank would give a company a loan if they thought it was going to go bankrupt or the income was to low.... it's not magic.
May 9, 2006 1:46:11 AM

Like the story said, they both agree to appear in court on 2008......if Intel wins, AMD will appeal; if AMD wins, Intel will appeal............
Either side will take this thing as far as it can go!!
Which means a actual final ruling will probably be made by 2010??
I am not familiar with how long these process takes but it seems like 2010 is a minimum!

If the new Intel chips will do actually what they say it will do and cost what they say it will cost........I will get one!!
May 9, 2006 1:50:12 AM

Quote:
stop being children.... some people might actually want to know something about this..... Ycon... if you have nothing to add, then don't post anything. 1Tanker, did you even read the article? They said "Intel filed a motion on Wednesday asking a federal-court judge to dismiss portions of an antitrust lawsuit brought by its archrival, Advanced Micro Devices." I highlighted, italiced and underlined the key word for you. It doesn't really matter if Intel wins or loses.... they are not going any where..... so everyone stop getting so defensive about this stupid case, it's not like YOU own the company.
Geez i posted on a dead thread and this sh!t starts all over agian. :roll:
May 9, 2006 1:50:48 AM

Quote:
Wannabe-Mod?
Leave him alone you really piss me off ycon.
May 9, 2006 1:52:42 AM

Quote:
Where's action man when u need him?
Thats what i'm asking.

Quote:
Where's action man when u need him?

when do you need action man? When we have an intel fanboy and an amd fanboy on the same thread. :lol: 
May 9, 2006 1:58:15 AM

Quote:
How many of these companies were doing this prior to the suit? And it doesn't matter if "rumors" about Dell using AMD hit the street.... did they ever use AMD? Are they the largest PC seller? If you owned a company, on the verge of bankruptcy(as they were a few years back) do you think you would be mad that the best shot you have to salavaging your company would not even consider selling your product.... as if it would hurt there business? Come on.... give me a break.... it seems fairly obvious that Intel gave Dell special prices to keep them using Intel only.... why would they want AMD to grow? How much more money would Intel make if they were the sole supplier of X-86 cpus???? Think about it..... stop protecting Intel.... not saying don't buy there CPU's.... but don't protect them when they do wrong.... and why not let the courts decide it anyway, I mean, I am sure they will come to the correct decision either way it goes.

Special prices? Dude, that's absolutely fair and absolutely competitive. I know Intel woud love to snuff out AMD, but that just isn't going to happen. AMD would also love to do the same to Intel. Rather, it is Intel on the verge of bankrupty today as AMD gains more and more market share by the day and as Intel, although still profitable, loses more of the market.
May 9, 2006 1:59:34 AM

I am not a wannabe moderator.... it is just that the same repetitive crap gets old after a while.... some people come here to see things other than Slinkies and cookies and Das keyboard.... I admit.... it is funny from time to time.... but not even comedians can get away with telling the same joke over and over and over..... it's just no funny after a while.... and it seems that almost every thread that CAN be of some value turns to garbage because of stuff like that.... or people that just plain attack the other person because they disagree..... so why not just make educated posts.... and why can't we just not personally attack someone because they have a different view point? I think it is called growing up. Whole point is, it would make this Forum much more relevant.... and people that are wrong and disagree with you, might acutally learn something when they understand what you are saying, and realize that you are possibly correct..... make any sense?
May 9, 2006 2:04:20 AM

Yeah, special prices are fair.... but if the rule is you can only buy from me, and if you buy from someone else you will be punished..... then it's not fair.... especially when you are talking about the single largest PC maker.... Intel is not on the verge of bankruptcy.... so profits have decreased.... but if that makes the huge corp. more efficient with the restructering.... then it was a necessary thing. It is actually healthy for most corps to do things like that. They tend to get bloated. None the less, Intel is fine, profits have decreased.... but they are still in the red by far..... just compare the bankroll difference between the two companies, it is quite substantial.
May 9, 2006 2:13:50 AM

Quote:
Yeah, special prices are fair.... but if the rule is you can only buy from me, and if you buy from someone else you will be punished..... then it's not fair.... especially when you are talking about the single largest PC maker.... Intel is not on the verge of bankruptcy.... so profits have decreased.... but if that makes the huge corp. more efficient with the restructering.... then it was a necessary thing. It is actually healthy for most corps to do things like that. They tend to get bloated. None the less, Intel is fine, profits have decreased.... but they are still in the red by far..... just compare the bankroll difference between the two companies, it is quite substantial.

Compare growth of the two companies, and market share versus 3 years ago.
May 9, 2006 2:23:49 AM

How long do you think AMD has been working on this lawsuit? I am aware that AMD has an increasing market share... that is good... but Intel is going no where... doesn't matter what AMD does..... Intel is huge, they have the money and the structure.... can't uproot Intel.... and with the pending release of Conroe.... if it all goes as planned, they will pick up steam again. I just hope AMD doesn't lose steam, very dangerous ground they are on. They are expanding with the growing business..... would be a shame if they found themselves unable to pay the bills because of a sudden drop in revenues... loan defaults.... etc.... I think AMD is doing as much as they can while they are in the position to do it.... it is just a dangerous game.
May 9, 2006 2:30:54 AM

btw.... thanks.
May 9, 2006 2:39:27 AM

Quote:
btw.... thanks.
Welcome. Atleast someone else here hates him as much as me
May 9, 2006 3:08:30 AM

Quote:
Yeah, special prices are fair.... but if the rule is you can only buy from me, and if you buy from someone else you will be punished..... then it's not fair.... especially when you are talking about the single largest PC maker.... Intel is not on the verge of bankruptcy.... so profits have decreased.... but if that makes the huge corp. more efficient with the restructering.... then it was a necessary thing. It is actually healthy for most corps to do things like that. They tend to get bloated. None the less, Intel is fine, profits have decreased.... but they are still in the red by far..... just compare the bankroll difference between the two companies, it is quite substantial.

Compare growth of the two companies, and market share versus 3 years ago.I mayy be an engineer but I remember three cases that pretty well settled the issues here. The first was United States vs. Xerox when Xerox tied the sale of copiers to purchase of xerox brand copy paper. Intel's problem is the advertising program "intel inside" where you get one reimbursement rate for sellers who sell only your product and significantly less reimbursement for selling someone else's product also. That is called violating the the Robinson Patman Act. The second case is United States vs. IBM. This is in the days where there were no PC's and everything was mainframe. IBM's activites gave them a market share in excess of the Herfingdale (I think that I spelled that right)index. If you exceed the herfingdale index then your conduct is subject to review under the monoply per se rules. your competitors health doesn't matter. The questions are how big you are and what did you do to get that way. That raises issues under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which is monopoly per se. The premier case on monopoly per se is United States vs Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. Back about 1903. Intel appears to claim that jurisdiction over what it did outside the United States doesn't count. It uses cases where one party is trying to sue a foreign company who has never done business in the United States as a basis for lack of jurisdiction. . Intel and AMD are registered in the US stock exchanges so that blows that argument. Looks to me like Intel is trying to get the district court to overrule the US Supreme Court. Once you work for Big Blue you get this hammered into you until you can recite it in your sleep.
May 9, 2006 3:19:11 AM

Quote:
And really..... it's not the fact that Gateway and Dell, sell Intel products.... it is that FACT that they would sell ONLY Intel products..... come on, what would stop them from selling AMD..... they wouldn't have lost money, they only stood to gain money if they sold AMD. I mean come on, they were trying to market machines as gamings machines that could have been solidly outperformed by a midrange AMD machine.... they knew that, they just didn't want to forfeit the dirt cheap Intel chips they were getting.

So what are you saying, that Intel should increase its prices to be competitive? And, by the way, note the key customer of these companies: the average joe who will pay next to nothing for his PC. Do you really think AMD can keep up with that demand? AMD just can not produce the kinds of quantities Intel can. And until it does-it should not expect to hold center stage, even if it seriously outperforms Intel like it has recently done.

My poor AK...how misguided and foolish you are...you just seem to keep missing the point...you seem to not understand the concept of anti-trust...here's a link to Wikipedia Anti-Trust definition so you can intelligently participate in this discussion.
May 9, 2006 9:31:16 AM

can't say I hate him, I just dislike that type of attitude.... and also the whole monkey see monkey do aspect of the cookie.... AM lite? I haven't even been posting here that long, but the constant useless posting, and personal attacks are getting old fast.... just seems like stuff people did way back in highschool, but then again, that might explain alot...
May 9, 2006 4:14:49 PM

Quote:
.... just seems like stuff people did way back in highschool, but then again, that might explain alot...


Yeah I know ak is under 18 bc he mentioned in another thread he can't buy M rated games so keep that in mind when you talk with him.(unless he lives somewhere that you have to be older than 18 to buy them)

No offence intended ak but I used to be that age once and I thought I knew a lot about computers and other things but now I’m older and realize I was a Godd@mn idiot. Also since realizing how dumb I was then, I assume that when somebody tells me something 180 from what I think I know we are usually both wrong. I check into it, most of the time neither I nor the other person was completely right or wrong, but we each had parts right and wrong.
!