Intel allegedly paid DELL over 1 BIL not to use AMD

[LordPope]

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?

 

[Harrisson]

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.

 

[GrimReaperGuy]

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.

 

[gOJDO]

another BS from the_INQ

 

[Atolsammeek]

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.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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

 

[qcmadness]

another BS from the_INQ

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.

 

[bassin]

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?

 

[Atolsammeek]

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.

 

[Harrisson]

AtolSammeek, I hate to say this, but people who worship OR hate INQ are the two sides of the same coin 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.

 

[Centurion]

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

 

[AppzCoder]

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.

 

[danjal]

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"

 

[zenmaster]

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.

 

[Pippero]

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.

 

[jitpublisher]

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.

 

[dasickninja]

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.

 

[turpit]

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.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

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?

 

[jsc]

... 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

 

[phrygius]

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 . . .

 

[dasickninja]

Sent them bad batches.

 

[mpjesse]

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.

 

[qcmadness]

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.

 

[LordPope]

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