Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel allegedly paid DELL over 1 BIL not to use AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 2, 2007 8:09:44 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37386

The Inq is pointing to a WALL STREET Journal article that states INTEL has been paying off DELL to not use AMD

Alledgedly

Intel denies any wrong doing
Intel fans state that INTEL would never pay anyone not use AMD...

I think is obvious DELL was getting kickbacks to not use AMD...when the kick backs stopped...they started using AMD.

I wonder how much INTEL is going to have to pay AMD in damages when its all said and done?

FREE fab for AMD on INTEL?
February 2, 2007 8:14:47 AM

Its not a secret at all about intel extra rebates for exlusive rights. Was its 1 billion to Dell or whatever (we dont and WONT know, class action wont help to find it out IMO), but the fact remains.
February 2, 2007 9:06:01 AM

Why would Intel fans say that Intel would never pay anyone to not use their competitor? I'm quite certain they did.
I doubt we're talking fab-level damage costs, if anything eventuates from the courts at all.
Related resources
February 2, 2007 9:14:55 AM

another BS from the_INQ
February 2, 2007 9:15:20 AM

Why do Morons post theinquirer crap. Most of it False, lies and half truths. Basicly useless JUNK INFO.

I dont care if you are a AMD fanboy or INTEL fanboy. STOP posting from theinquirer. Learn from 9inch mistakes. I beleave he was ban for posting theinquirer. Which served him right.
February 2, 2007 9:38:13 AM

I know about the inq. but this IS a legit case, from the wall street journal. Brought on by Dell shareholders against Dell, but including Intel. Could be interesting
February 2, 2007 9:47:28 AM

Quote:
another BS from the_INQ

Quote:
Why do Morons post theinquirer crap. Most of it False, lies and half truths. Basicly useless JUNK INFO.

I dont care if you are a AMD fanboy or INTEL fanboy. STOP posting from theinquirer. Learn from 9inch mistakes. I beleave he was ban for posting theinquirer. Which served him right.


http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070202/dell_lawsuit.html?.v=3
See before you post anything.
February 2, 2007 10:46:17 AM

Maybe in Macedonia it is BS, but in the USA and other Countrys that is serious.

Quote from the Wall Street Journal:

"The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas"

This is BS to you?
February 2, 2007 11:22:17 AM

Here the thing If you post a fud site how many people will look at it. I say Out of 10 people 2 people on Tomhardware look as fact. Can we post 9inch the theinquirer fan boy.

Here what people do. When they see theinquirer They close the website or look at it for fun due to LIES.

Like The post the AMD 4x4 was going to be faster then the Quad core from Intel.

People On the forums dont Like sites that LIE.

And here a saying for the people who worship theinquirer.

Stupidty is not a crime So your free to go.
February 2, 2007 11:29:35 AM

AtolSammeek, I hate to say this, but people who worship OR hate INQ are the two sides of the same coin :wink: Inquirer is the site of rumours, etc., sometimes they wrong, sometimes they are right, but often ahead of other portals. IMO its best described as yellow journalism.
February 2, 2007 11:49:50 AM

A better quote is here (hemscott.com)

They called it "exception to corporate average pricing"

IMHO, the only way it can be illegal is if it is not tied to volume, or is significantly different than terms with another buyer with similar volume. They way it is termed makes it sound more like a discount to the normal published pricing, which is very possible. Dell doesn't buy chips in quantities of 1000 like we see the quoted price sheets for. They buy in millions.

Now if these payments suddenly disappeared the quarter that Dell started using AMD or near it, and the volume of chips bought from Intel did not change significantly, then there would be a problem.

But we won't know until the lawsuit is over.

Centurion
February 2, 2007 12:12:05 PM

Is this strategy any different than Coke vs. Pepsi? You cant go to a McDonalds and order a Pepsi. Ethically wrong or right, companies do this all the time.
February 2, 2007 12:17:20 PM

sorry but the key word here is 'allegedly' which is a nice way of saying "we doubt it did, but we need news stories bad"
February 2, 2007 12:27:38 PM

The other way they could be "illegal" is if they did not show up in quarterly reports but rather went directly to the pockets of various executives and directors.

The one tidbit in the Yahoo article referenced "improperly reported" money from Intel. Since its a "Stockholder's" suit, they likely dont give a hoot about AMD vs Intel. What they do care about is siphoned money that does not make it to the investors pockets.
February 2, 2007 12:34:29 PM

Quote:
Why do Morons post theinquirer crap. Most of it False, lies and half truths. Basicly useless JUNK INFO.

I dont care if you are a AMD fanboy or INTEL fanboy. STOP posting from theinquirer. Learn from 9inch mistakes. I beleave he was ban for posting theinquirer. Which served him right.

You're kidding right?
Thank god our admins are not nazis...
People here gets banned only for being hostile / abusive etc.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2007 12:34:58 PM

Anyone who doesn't believe this it true to some extent is a complete idiot, or just doesn't have a clue how big business works. All companies do this, they just know how to do it legally. For instance, Intel studies Dell's business model, they find out just how many CPU's Dell will sell in a given year. Lets say for instance in 2007 Dell projects they will need 10 million CPUS. Intel simply enters into a contract with Dell that says if they buy over 9.8 million CPUs in 2007, they get a rebate at the end of the year for 1 million dollars, or whatever. Intel legally isn't paying Dell not to buy anyone else's CPU's, they just make their deal more attractive if Dell buys ONLY their CPU's. This is the root of how all the anti-trust lawsuits get started, but it takes years in court, millions of dollars to fight, and very tough to prove anything other than it's just competition.

When I purchase or lease new machinery for the plant floor, I have had vendors offer me as much as a $25,000 rebate off the cost of a new piece of equipment or a end-of-lease rebate for every piece of equipment of a competitor that I REPLACE with their machine. Just buying the equipment or signing a new lease does not qualify, I have to prove that I actually removed the competitors machine, or do not extend or sign a new lease with the competitor.
February 2, 2007 12:41:03 PM

Quote:
Why do Morons post theinquirer crap. Most of it False, lies and half truths. Basicly useless JUNK INFO.

I dont care if you are a AMD fanboy or INTEL fanboy. STOP posting from theinquirer. Learn from 9inch mistakes. I beleave he was ban for posting theinquirer. Which served him right.

You're kidding right?
Thank god our admins are not nazis...
People here gets banned only for being hostile / abusive etc.
Trolling, dummy accounts, hostility, spamming, and three confirmed cases of insulting, fighting and baiting the mods. They can only allow you so much leeway.
February 2, 2007 12:50:50 PM

Does this change the fact netburst was crap? No
Does this change the fact C2D is not crap? No
Does this change the fact that K8 was a great Uarch? No
Does this impact todays consumer who is looking for a good system? No

Who does this impact? IMO, self rightious fanboys.
February 2, 2007 12:53:57 PM

Too bad they didn't take the money upfront and then start selling amd cpus anyway... what would intel have done? Sued for them for taking their bribe money?
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
February 2, 2007 1:01:02 PM

Quote:
... sometimes they wrong, sometimes they are right, ...


Throw enough sh*t against the wall and some of it will stick.

This case, well, we will have to wait and see.

john
February 2, 2007 1:11:26 PM

At issue is the manner in which Dell accounted for pricing discounts offered by Intel, nothing more.

In the semiconductor industry it is a common practice to offer what is called a retroactive cost reduction upon award or start of new business. This cost reduction would show-up as a credit to the customer (Dell) against outstanding invoices--not as a briefcase of cash delivered to a limousine in the back parking lot of Dell's corporate offices, or some other skullduggery.

Up-front discounts or negoiating marketshare as a function of price is not illegal. Now if Dell moved the money from colum A to colum B to make their bottom line look stronger to investors, THAT is a problem . . .
February 2, 2007 1:17:19 PM

Sent them bad batches.
February 2, 2007 2:18:48 PM

Quote:
At issue is the manner in which Dell accounted for pricing discounts offered by Intel, nothing more.

In the semiconductor industry it is a common practice to offer what is called a retroactive cost reduction upon award or start of new business. This cost reduction would show-up as a credit to the customer (Dell) against outstanding invoices--not as a briefcase of cash delivered to a limousine in the back parking lot of Dell's corporate offices, or some other skullduggery.

Up-front discounts or negoiating marketshare as a function of price is not illegal. Now if Dell moved the money from colum A to colum B to make their bottom line look stronger to investors, THAT is a problem . . .


I believe that is the issue here. Allegedly only 16 people knew of this... which means it was a secret. If it was a secret it was probably improper.

This lawsuit could open a huge can of worms. Dell & Intel better pray the FTC & SEC doesn't get involved.

This whole thing stinks.
February 2, 2007 2:27:42 PM

Quote:
I believe that is the issue here. Allegedly only 16 people knew of this... which means it was a secret. If it was a secret it was probably improper.

This lawsuit could open a huge can of worms. Dell & Intel better pray the FTC & SEC doesn't get involved.

This whole thing stinks.


Especially for Intel, which is involved in a lawsuit with AMD. This is a valid and strong evidence for Intel to exercise its monopolistic power.
February 2, 2007 3:03:34 PM

I think INTEL should settle now with AMD. This Dell thing could be come damning evidence in thier international anti-trust violation triaL
February 2, 2007 3:10:06 PM

Quote:
I think INTEL should settle now with AMD. This Dell thing could be come damning evidence in thier international anti-trust violation triaL


Yes.... paying a few hundred millions or 1 billion is much better than to be found guilty. :wink:
February 2, 2007 3:18:10 PM

Quote:
Anyone who doesn't believe this it true to some extent is a complete idiot, or just doesn't have a clue how big business works. All companies do this, they just know how to do it legally. For instance, Intel studies Dell's business model, they find out just how many CPU's Dell will sell in a given year. Lets say for instance in 2007 Dell projects they will need 10 million CPUS. Intel simply enters into a contract with Dell that says if they buy over 9.8 million CPUs in 2007, they get a rebate at the end of the year for 1 million dollars, or whatever. Intel legally isn't paying Dell not to buy anyone else's CPU's, they just make their deal more attractive if Dell buys ONLY their CPU's. This is the root of how all the anti-trust lawsuits get started, but it takes years in court, millions of dollars to fight, and very tough to prove anything other than it's just competition.

When I purchase or lease new machinery for the plant floor, I have had vendors offer me as much as a $25,000 rebate off the cost of a new piece of equipment or a end-of-lease rebate for every piece of equipment of a competitor that I REPLACE with their machine. Just buying the equipment or signing a new lease does not qualify, I have to prove that I actually removed the competitors machine, or do not extend or sign a new lease with the competitor.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the AMD suit (the previous suit) alledge that Intel paid not just for a certain number of Intel processors, but a certain porportion of total computers produced by an OEM...? That's rather different. That's not just a volume discount, that's a different animal.
February 2, 2007 4:17:48 PM

Quote:
no one really knows what the law suits are we just keep hearing baseless allegations. it makes it hard to know what is real and what is not real.
aahhh the sky is falling!!! ahhhhhhhhhhh!!! <running around in circles


I think you are not reading carefully.
All the informations are available for you to read, but you did not.

Now Dell is accused for improper accounting that the potential illegal Intel exclusive rebate is included into the financial results of Dell.

But the Intel exclusive rebate itself is potential illegal for the anti-trust law.
February 2, 2007 4:19:58 PM

Quote:
no one really knows what the law suits are we just keep hearing baseless allegations. it makes it hard to know what is real and what is not real.
aahhh the sky is falling!!! ahhhhhhhhhhh!!! <running around in circles


Well, if the suits are based on "baseless allegations" as you say, then they will go away soon enough.

btw, what info do you have not in the public domain, that let's you state the allegations are "baseless" ?
February 2, 2007 4:23:19 PM

That's why there is a courtroom trial. This whole system of justice arose over time, in response to situations that happened, to answer the need for fairness.
February 2, 2007 4:32:37 PM

Quote:
its all he said she said
havent seen any proof of anything


I wonder why. Sitting on the internet looking for proof and being in the court room seeing the proof are two different things.

Quote:
if they were getting so much money to use intel only parts why do they use amd now as well?


Because they're in court for this exact reason. Why would they keep doing it? It would really make them look bad.

They were locking out AMD from large portions of the market.
February 2, 2007 4:38:05 PM

Quote:
dell started using amd a while ago not today


How long has they intel vs amd case been going on?
February 2, 2007 4:41:54 PM

Quote:
ya your right this is a court thing. its probably that dell bought a billion parts from intel and intel gave them a discount for buying so much. I find it interesting that dell is now using amd also. if they were getting so much money to use intel only parts why do they use amd now as well?


Because they are losing shares to others, especially in server market due to the strong Opteron performance against Netburst craps.

Quote:

also if they were supposed to use only intel parts and got all that money from intel does intel want that money back for breaking the agreement?

Unknown

Quote:

also
since apple is using intel parts is intel paying them off too?


Unknown too.
February 2, 2007 4:42:55 PM

Quote:
I get rebates all the time when i buy stuff
is that illegal? i guess i shouldnt use them


Getting rebate is not a problem.
Getting rebate to shut off competition is a problem.
February 2, 2007 4:49:45 PM

Quote:
exactly my point
case been going on forever with obviously no hard proof of anything
otherwise the case would be over by now.
amd has those exclusive contracts with those chinese companies to dump the amd products on. are you thinking amd is not discounting their product for them? i bet they are. I bet they are selling them product at nearly a loss to make sure they only buy amd product. amd financial statements support this as well. they calaim they gained in market share but posted in the red. this tells me they are just dumping their product to those companies. maybe we should sue amd for not making a profit and dumping their parts in china


Exactly not because the majority of the computers in China are Intel-based.
February 2, 2007 4:57:24 PM

Quote:

case been going on forever with obviously no hard proof of anything
otherwise the case would be over by now.


Just because it's not over now doesn't mean there isn't any "hard proof."

If there wasn't any "hard proof" it would've already been thrown out.

When this thing first started, I remember seeing that lots of people would say this case would go on for years. Just think of all of the companies and countries involved in this. Just think of ALL of the paper work that has to be sorted through, examined, and introduced as evidence. All of the employees of those companies that would be called as witnesses and such. This isn't an overnight deal.
February 2, 2007 5:04:40 PM

Quote:
Why do Morons post theinquirer crap. Most of it False, lies and half truths. Basicly useless JUNK INFO.

I dont care if you are a AMD fanboy or INTEL fanboy. STOP posting from theinquirer. Learn from 9inch mistakes. I beleave he was ban for posting theinquirer. Which served him right.


We should have a sticky: "Why we dont post news items from the Inquirer"
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2007 5:07:08 PM

That is AMD's position, and why they filed the lawsuit.
Whether it was just a good move by Intel to gain market share, or whether Intel did something illegal is what the courts have to decide. It's definetly not something cut and dry, and will take years for the lawyers and judges to decide the outcome. All we can do is speculate, as no one outside of lawers and judges will ever know all the fine details until it's over and made public.
February 2, 2007 5:10:58 PM

Quote:
All we can do is speculate, as no one outside of lawers and judges will ever know all the fine details until it's over and made public.


/\And that's why beerandcandy (or anyone else outside the court room for that matter) doesn't know of any "hard proof." It hasn't been made public yet.
February 2, 2007 5:40:04 PM

I think anyone that doesnt see the writing on the wall in this case is a plain fool.

Ever since 2000 when the 1Ghz Athlon was released and Intel faltered with the coppermine, AMD has had an equal or greater counter part to every single intel chip. Yet it wasnt until the opteron in 2003 that AMD could get a decent corner of the market that wasnt riddled with Intel backroom dirty money. The opteron finally allowed IT professionals and small/medium sized companies an alternative to the high priced xeon. And there was little intel could do to keep that from happening as "making deals" with every small corporation is out of the reach of even intel.

Its a crying shame that it has still taken 3 years after the release of the K8 opteron for AMD to finally reach 50% of the OEM desktop shipments as they did in Q4-2006. This should have happened long before now and I for one can only imagines what the processor industry would have looked like today if AMD had the market share they should have had for the past 6 years. AMD being a small morsel compared to intel and holding ground for all these years instead of getting the market share and profits it deserved, the CPU market would truly be lightyears ahead of what it is now.
February 2, 2007 5:44:07 PM

Quote:
another BS from the_INQ



8O 8O 8O 8O wtf happened to your face? it looks like you have been drinking the jeckyl and hyde brew again 8O 8O

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

@ pope this is heresay until its proven in court. If its untrue then it could be seen as slander and intel could finally close the inquirer.

they can "close" the Wall Street Journal just after they finish The Inquirer I guess, right?
February 2, 2007 5:44:54 PM

I think there is a lot of people here missing the point.

The party here who will be found to be more guilty is Dell.

If there were incentives paid to Dell in order to buy from Intel only and Dell showed these incentives on the books then all this means is Intel was selling their product at a discounted cost. The same as AMD is doing or they would not be supplying Dell right now.

If there is a document somewhere from Intel or Dell that Intel paid Dell not to use someone elses product then this is another matter.

If there were bribes given and it is not on the books or somehow shown in writing there may be grounds as a civil matter since the burden of proof is a lot different, the same as with OJ he was found innocent of murder yet found guilty for being responsible.

The bottom line is if it is not in writing it does not exist. If there is no paper trail then it becomes more of a moral/civil issue.

Getting someone who is credible to admit that money was exchanged is almost impossible. A person who is willing to steal will have no problem with lying about it.
February 2, 2007 5:49:00 PM

Quote:
I think there is a lot of people here missing the point.

The party here who will be found to be more guilty is Dell.

If there were incentives paid to Dell in order to buy from Intel only and Dell showed these incentives on the books then all this means is Intel was selling their product at a discounted cost. The same as AMD is doing or they would not be supplying Dell right now.

If there is a document somewhere from Intel or Dell that Intel paid Dell not to use someone elses product then this is another matter.

If there were bribes given and it is not on the books or somehow shown in writing there may be grounds as a civil matter since the burden of proof is a lot different, the same as with OJ he was found innocent of murder yet found guilty for being responsible.

The bottom line is if it is not in writing it does not exist. If there is no paper trail then it becomes more of a moral/civil issue.

Getting someone who is credible to admit that money was exchanged is almost impossible. A person who is willing to steal will have no problem with lying about it.


Well, there are two suits. The Dell shareholder suit isn't about the exclusivity. The AMD suit isn't focused only on Dell.
February 2, 2007 6:12:50 PM

Quote:
sorry but the key word here is 'allegedly' which is a nice way of saying "we doubt it did, but we need news stories bad"


Just a question, do you realize the US is among the most litigious societies on the planet if not THE MOST LITIGIOUS?

Journalists can't foresee the future, and if a verdict goes to the accused, regardless of whether they did it or not, those journalists can't and don't want to afford to defend themselves from slander or libel, even if they know the fact to be true. We all know some people and companies are able to beat the system...

Very reputable sources use the word "alleged" ALL THE TIME. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM. It's a legal way to make a statement based on research (or not) without opening yourself up to charges of slander or libel.
February 2, 2007 6:13:18 PM

I don't really know what that has to do with my comments to this thread which was from the article from the inq. which states that there is a class action suit regarding Dell.
February 2, 2007 6:15:37 PM

Quote:

When I purchase or lease new machinery for the plant floor, I have had vendors offer me as much as a $25,000 rebate off the cost of a new piece of equipment or a end-of-lease rebate for every piece of equipment of a competitor that I REPLACE with their machine. Just buying the equipment or signing a new lease does not qualify, I have to prove that I actually removed the competitors machine, or do not extend or sign a new lease with the competitor.


Dell offered me a free latitude (ostensibly for company use but registered to me personally) if I authorized the purchase of a number of latitudes for my department...
February 2, 2007 6:34:07 PM

the inquirer does have a problem publishing shakey news - but they are usually the first ones out there with rumors - some of it gets disproved, some of it grows legs and turns out to be true. that's the risk they take when they are the only ones on the net pushing new info on a regular basis.

go to any of the major news sites, they are all regurgitated Associated Press articles published days ago, go to one you've gone to them all.

And is it that hard to remember 3-4 years ago when AMD was pumping out these killer opteron and Athlon 64 chips that were killing Intel in the gaming-benchmark department?

and dell (and gateway , compaq, HP, dam near all the major manufacturers ) was STILL only carrying Intel chips in their rigs? the joke amongst my group of friends went something like - dude, your parents hate you, your getting a Dell.

the inquirer got probably got this one right.
February 2, 2007 6:39:15 PM

you have to use words like that, in news/radio/tv/paper articles, or you can be sued for "libel" or slander if it is spoken.
IT's ALL alleged until proven in a court of law.
and all "proven" means is it made sense to 12 people.
February 2, 2007 6:58:39 PM

I wonder if dell will "randomly" drop amd cpus from their line up if the next gen of amd cpus outperform c2d.... well probably not if this all pans out to be true.
!