Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another AntiTrust case against Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 10, 2008 3:42:23 PM

The following has been blantantly plagerized from a news article:

"New York's attorney general announced Thursday that it has started an antitrust investigation of Intel.
The attorney general served Intel with a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents and information as part of an investigation into whether the chipmaker violated state and federal antitrust laws by coercing customers to exclude rival Advanced Micro Devices from the microprocessor market. "

I guess everyone wants a piece of the pie. :non: 

More about : antitrust case intel

January 10, 2008 3:52:39 PM

Major_Spittle said:
The following has been blantantly plagerized from a news article:

"New York's attorney general announced Thursday that it has started an antitrust investigation of Intel.
The attorney general served Intel with a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents and information as part of an investigation into whether the chipmaker violated state and federal antitrust laws by coercing customers to exclude rival Advanced Micro Devices from the microprocessor market. "

I guess everyone wants a piece of the pie. :non: 


Apparently the NY attorney general has enough information to believe that Intel is breaking the law. Regardless of what you think of Intel or AMD, there are laws in place that do not allow monopolistic practices.

If Intel strong-armed manufacturers into using their chip instead of any other competitor's chip... they should be punished.

But then... we all saw Microsoft lose in court. Their punishment was less than Bill Gates gives out to charity every month.
January 10, 2008 3:52:42 PM

Just like how people want to sue Apple after their iPod took off.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2008 4:13:14 PM

keithlm said:
If Intel strong-armed manufacturers into using their chip instead of any other competitor's chip... they should be punished.



IF?!?! Japan and the European Union already found Intel guilty.

It's not a questions of "if" it's a question of when Intel is found guilty.
January 10, 2008 4:15:48 PM

keithlm said:
Apparently the NY attorney general has enough information to believe that Intel is breaking the law. Regardless of what you think of Intel or AMD, there are laws in place that do not allow monopolistic practices.

If Intel strong-armed manufacturers into using their chip instead of any other competitor's chip... they should be punished.

But then... we all saw Microsoft lose in court. Their punishment was less than Bill Gates gives out to charity every month.


What if there is not sufficient evidence of wrong doing by Intel and this is just a way for the state of NY to pay AMD back for choosing NY to build their new Fab there? We also need to remember that AMD's biggest fanbois, IBM, have their headquarters there. When it comes to politicians, I always question their motives. I doubt that consumer protection has anything to do with their actions. Follow the money.

BTW- considering AMD's financial situation, I don't see that Fab being built anytime soon. That provokes another cynical thought. Maybe this is a way to punish Intel for beating AMD so badly that they won't be able to build the proposed Fab in NY.
January 10, 2008 4:53:51 PM

chunkymonster said:
IF?!?! Japan and the European Union already found Intel guilty.

It's not a questions of "if" it's a question of when Intel is found guilty.


Link for EU, or I call BS.

Not to mention that US laws are not the same as Japan's or Europe's. It's IF, not WHEN.
January 10, 2008 5:02:16 PM

Indeed in most European countries you get a fair chance to prove your innocence and that the states allegations are balloney.
January 10, 2008 5:19:51 PM

I'm very happy about this news because Intel deserves all the fines it gets. I predict huge loses for Intel this year.

Bad Intel news = Good news for me :) 

AMD4Life!


January 10, 2008 5:26:48 PM

thunderman said:
I'm very happy about this news because Intel deserves all the fines it gets. I predict huge loses for Intel this year.


I predict that statement being VERY WRONG.

LOL
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2008 5:29:15 PM

In America still a corporation can get away with a lot.
In Europe they get fined.
See Microsoft.
January 10, 2008 5:45:28 PM

meh...

First, the EU case isn't settled one way or another. Second, why NY? why now? no mention of who brought up the charges (one guess, starts with A, ends with D). Of all the states to bring this up in, it's where AMD wants to build a fab? What PC OEM's are there in NY that are allegedly being "pressured" to not buy AMD? This whole thing stinks of the same-old, same-old, which has never worked out for AMD. Other than some laywer fees and some feel-good press for AMD until the case gets dismissed, I predict nothing will come of this. I have a feeling that after getting sued umpteen million times for the same allegations, Intel's business practices are pretty air-tight (legally), whether you like them or not... Plus, it'll be doubly hard to prove "stifling innovation" when AMD has stepped on their own dick pretty hard and pretty often in the last year... So again, meh...
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2008 6:11:29 PM

evilr00t said:
Link for EU, or I call BS.

Not to mention that US laws are not the same as Japan's or Europe's. It's IF, not WHEN.


Call it whatever you want...

Agreed, in America you are innocent until proven guilty, but you'd have to be totally niave to think that Intel is innocent in these suites. Especially when Dell, Compaq, and Gateway all stated that Intel withheld shipments as well as were given "incentives" and "rebates" to not use AMD processors.

But let's be real here, you'd have to be an idiot to think that any company, not only necessarily Intel, is not leveraging any and all options to push the competition out of the market place.

Saying Intel did not strong-arm resellers is like saying that GM actively marketed and sold the EV1 to consumers. GM can talk about promoting alternative fuel vehicles and show on paper the marketing dollars spent, but they still mothballed the EV1 claiming that it was not a competitive/successful product. And, like GM and the EV1, Intel can talk about fair practice and show on paper their compliance with regulations, but you only had/have to visit a resellers web-site to see that there were little to no products with AMD processors.

Is this a conspiracy? No.

Is Intel Evil? No.

Is Intel doing whatever it takes to pull a profit and return a dividend to shareholders regardless of fair practice or how it skirts the law? Yes.
January 10, 2008 6:33:41 PM

What does the Transmeta issue have to do with AntiTrust?????
January 10, 2008 6:53:43 PM

azfj60 said:
...Plus, it'll be doubly hard to prove "stifling innovation" when AMD has stepped on their own dick pretty hard and pretty often in the last year... So again, meh...



yeah, they've got a giant dong.... that's why they keep tripping all the time... it's all that manhood. :-p
January 10, 2008 7:33:42 PM


#1 Pricing incentives are legal and what Intel offered Dell was already found to be legal.

#2 Dell accepting Intel's discount for exclusively using Intel processors hurt Dell. Dell put out a lot of Netburst crap that didn't compete on the market and their brand name lost value. This is why Dell broke from the exclusive deal with Intel, but then Intel turned around and came out with C2D processors a few months later and Dell has kicked itself ever since.

#3 Of course Intel would want customers to buy their product and since AMD is their only competition in the x86 home PC market that would by default make them want to exclude AMD from the market.

#4 Intel coercing customers???? Do you really think Intel could threaten a costomer with "we will not sell to you" or "we will charge you more" or "we will limit you shipments??? ANY customer would laugh and say " OK, go for it and we will see you in court while we sue your ass for Monopolistic behavior in our market ".

#5 Intel is getting closer to a true Monopoly everyday. They have 80% of one of the richest markets in the world so of course they are going to get antitrust cases brought against them. This should not be confused with the company being evil so much as a company doing something right. Just like Microsoft, bit.ch all you want as you type on your windows computer because window is the best OS you could buy.
January 10, 2008 7:39:46 PM

nachowarrior said:
yeah, they've got a giant dong.... that's why they keep tripping all the time... it's all that manhood. :-p


Have you really ever seen it? I have when I was at a urinal next to AMD I peeked over and looked. Sure it looked long, but it was about 40% thinner than a normal dong. This leads me to believe that it wasn't really long at all, but just appears long because it is so thin. All AMD likes to talk about is length, but in reality we all know that girth is what creates friction. :pfff: 
January 10, 2008 8:12:29 PM

Actually in my country, when you go to a store to buy a computer they absolutly discourage the AMDs. This has some reasons, first the credit intel gives to the best reseller (sell more intels the better), and that people who don't know nothing about computers can be fooled easily to buy a more expensive intel over a cheap AMD. That has an advantage specially to those who earns a comission for selling (a more expensive machine, more profit for you)
In the year 2000 I went to a computer store and the dialog was like this:

-"I recommend you the P3 600Mhz system, with 256MB SDram, and a intel motherboard..."
-"What about that new eh, AML, AMT, AMF..."
-"You mean AMD?"
-"yeah, right, AMD... do you sell that?"
-"Well, to be honest we offer a 750Mhz AMD Athlon PC, but we don't sell it, LOL. its not as good as the intel PC, I personally recommend the P3, intel is intel you know..."
-"Yeah but... its a 750Mhz "Athlon" or whatever, while the P3 system is only 600Mhz and costs 300$ more..."
-"Yeah, but despite the speed rates in Mhz, the P3 system is much better in performance. also it comes with an intel motherboard, while the AMD comes with a gigabyte motherboard that to be honest, we never sold nothing from this manufacturer before**, moreover, I can tell you its like a low end PC..."
-"oh, you are talking in terms I barely understand, but you mean the intel is worth every penny?"
-"exactly, I confess its more expensive but you won't regret it, you'll getting a much better system overall"

**Gigabyte brand was entering our local market in year 1999~2000 or so, the mobo offered was actually my first AMD system, the GA 71-XE, AGP 2x, SLOT-A. The P3 he offered to me was slot1. When people first heard about the brand name "gigabyte" they run away
January 10, 2008 8:23:31 PM

Actually the same conversations went on in Best Buys all across America during that time.

At that time I was running my Celeron 300A overclocked to 450mhz and getting ready to upgrade to an AMD thunderbird as I recall. It would be the 1st of 3 AMD system I built and overclocked.
a c 126 à CPUs
January 10, 2008 8:36:50 PM

thefumigator, The commision is from the company really not Intel. Of course people will want to try to sell you a more expensive PC. Like if you walked into a Dell or Gateway store they want to sell you the one that would get you more commision. And if I worked there thats what I would try to do but when it comes to my friends/customers I help in my spare time I ask what they want and give them options. Right now I recommend Intel as they have a great product for the buck but if AMD turns out to be better I would tell them AMD.

So this is a NY state only lawsuit which will probably not fly since thre has to be no reasonable doubt. If there is any one part of a lawsuit that seems to be not true of not unlawful the whole thing gets thrown out. Plus It was the PC vendors decision to sign a contract with Intel.

I remember some PC vendors that only sold AMD and those were custom built PCs. CyberPower is one I believe and that happened from 2003 don't know when they stopped.

I personally think its weird. I don't think intel "forced" them to as a company can make a choice. I am just sick of hearing about it. I wounder if they are trying to prove Intel is doing it now even though you can clearly see that AMD is shoting themselves.
January 10, 2008 8:48:19 PM

later on similar conversations went on against the Athlon 64. I remember they mentioned the Tom's video about the palomino burning, going "on smoke".

However, lot of people confused the 64bit as "double performance" which somewhat helped the sales and everybody talked about that. Other people were confused and thought that the A64 wasn't compatible with 32 bit at all, for that time I was already a reseller. Later on the Intels with 64 bit support arrived.

There's still people demanding Pentium 4 socket 478 with HT, they don't really know -and we have to tell them- that the core 2 are way much better.

If we count the amount of CPUs that AMD couldn't (or can't) sell because the resellers recommending Intels, I don't know the amount of money AMD lost for this, but also intel earns much more selling the new processors than those old P4 that people search in the stores...
January 10, 2008 8:53:53 PM

@jimmysmitty
Around here the price gap between intel and AMD was big those times. Intel was overpriced and AMD quite devaluated. But also buying a computer was for people who had money, even with AMD the price wasn't always low enough and many people ended up with old celerons or second hand PCs. But the resellers I knew were really dishonest, they really wanted to sell intel no matter what. Maybe it was voluntary by the resseller themselves...
January 10, 2008 9:08:35 PM

Major_Spittle said:

I guess everyone wants a piece of the pie. :non: 


Yeah, Cuomo is trying to recover that peice that he just lost too.

What we have here is a classic example of politicians over extending themselves and then trying to cover their arses. First, this is Andrew Cuomo, the AG of NY, who was also a key player in presenting AMD with that juicy taxpayer subsidized incentive to build a plant there. NY has also spent roughly $150 in improvements in that area in anticipation that AMD would go through with the offer. So now, that the deal has fallen through, the politicians are scrambling to recover some of their losses...gotta blame some for their incompetence.


I predict that this will go absolutely nowhere.
a c 126 à CPUs
January 10, 2008 9:13:41 PM

thefumigator, Believe me it is up to the resellers themselves. Intel would be higher cost so there ya go. They would make more money selling some Joe blow a 2k PC with Intel instead of a 1.5k PC with AMD.

But currently they are roughly the same price. I put together a new AMD system using newegg.com as a wish list and a new system with a Phenom 9600, 790FX mobo(nice one since a old AM2 wouldn't cut it for me), 2GB DDR2 Ram, 2x 500 Seagate 7200.11 HD PSU(to support the video cards) 2x HD3870s and it came to $1500. A Intel setup with the same parts(except the CPUQ6600 / P35 mobo) would be roughly the same price.

Only major difference is that the Q6600 system would provide better performance and has a better OC'ing headroom. So now its up to the reseller to decide which one will be better for the user. Its easier in the laptop arena and will be once the 45nms come out since AMD is lagging there. Maybe they will have them out some day.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2008 9:23:10 PM

Major_Spittle said:
#1 Pricing incentives are legal and what Intel offered Dell was already found to be legal.

#2 Dell accepting Intel's discount for exclusively using Intel processors hurt Dell. Dell put out a lot of Netburst crap that didn't compete on the market and their brand name lost value. This is why Dell broke from the exclusive deal with Intel, but then Intel turned around and came out with C2D processors a few months later and Dell has kicked itself ever since.

#3 Of course Intel would want customers to buy their product and since AMD is their only competition in the x86 home PC market that would by default make them want to exclude AMD from the market.

#4 Intel coercing customers???? Do you really think Intel could threaten a costomer with "we will not sell to you" or "we will charge you more" or "we will limit you shipments??? ANY customer would laugh and say " OK, go for it and we will see you in court while we sue your ass for Monopolistic behavior in our market ".

#5 Intel is getting closer to a true Monopoly everyday. They have 80% of one of the richest markets in the world so of course they are going to get antitrust cases brought against them. This should not be confused with the company being evil so much as a company doing something right. Just like Microsoft, bit.ch all you want as you type on your windows computer because window is the best OS you could buy.
#1 - Japan found the pricing incentives illegal.

#2 - Dell partially pulled out of the deal with Intel because they were going to end up getting dragged into the lawsuit and needed to do some quick damage prevention. Also part of the reason why Mikey Dell went back to being the CEO and took over for Kevin Rollins. Of course Dell got hurt, but that is the price they are paying for agreeing to (being forced to?) the Intel incentives.

#3 - Fair practice, a tiered pricing model, and healthy competition are a far cry from offering incentives and rebates to resellers to not use a competitors products.

#4 - Compaq, HP, and Gateway stated in the AMD suit that Intel coerced them into not selling AMD chips. And apparently they did laugh, why else does Intel have antitrust suits filed against them in multiple countries.

#5 - Agreed, large companies can be a target simply because they are large,
but size and success alone are not the sole reason why a company has
antitrust suits filed against them. If only one country or only one company cried foul and filed an antitrust suit against Intel, this would be a non-topic. But when multiple companies and multiple governments file suit against Intel for the same reason, well, you know what they say...if it looks like $hit and smells like $hit, it must be $hit.
January 10, 2008 9:27:13 PM

chunkymonster said:
#1 - Japan found the pricing incentives illegal.

Irrelevant. Japanese law != American law.
January 10, 2008 9:43:15 PM

chunkymonster said:
#1 - Japan found the pricing incentives illegal.

#2 - Dell partially pulled out of the deal with Intel because they were going to end up getting dragged into the lawsuit and needed to do some quick damage prevention. Also part of the reason why Mikey Dell went back to being the CEO and took over for Kevin Rollins. Of course Dell got hurt, but that is the price they are paying for agreeing to (being forced to?) the Intel incentives.

#3 - Fair practice, a tiered pricing model, and healthy competition are a far cry from offering incentives and rebates to resellers to not use a competitors products.

#4 - Compaq, HP, and Gateway stated in the AMD suit that Intel coerced them into not selling AMD chips. And apparently they did laugh, why else does Intel have antitrust suits filed against them in multiple countries.

#5 - Agreed, large companies can be a target simply because they are large,
but size and success alone are not the sole reason why a company has
antitrust suits filed against them. If only one country or only one company cried foul and filed an antitrust suit against Intel, this would be a non-topic. But when multiple companies and multiple governments file suit against Intel for the same reason, well, you know what they say...if it looks like $hit and smells like $hit, it must be $hit.


These are all really good points but too bad they won't work on me you fanboi. :non: 
(just trying to keep it real)
January 10, 2008 11:10:18 PM

"Governor, there's a call for you on line 3. It's some guy from AMC or AMT or something."
"Thank you, Peggy. Put it through."
"Hello, Governor?"
"Is that you Hector?"
"Yeah. Hey, listen, you know that plant we were gonna build? Couple thousand high paying technical jobs, months of construction workers getting paid, that kind of thing?"
"Um... yeah."
"Well, we're getting creamed in the marketplace and our stock's in the toilet. Bottom line is: we won't have the money to build the factory, so all that stuff about the new plant is completely irrelevant unless you can help us out with something."
"I think I take your meaning. Catch you later, Hec."
"Later days, bro."
[click]
"Peggy, get Andy Cuomo on the line. I need to talk to him."
January 10, 2008 11:24:28 PM

I don't get it.

Why isn't MS getting fined? Aren't they monopolizing the OS market? Or have they been fined already?

Although I know monopolizing the market is not a good thing, if your products are cheaper and better than the competitors, how's that illegal?
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2008 11:28:23 PM

thunderman said:
I'm very happy about this news because Intel deserves all the fines it gets. I predict huge loses for Intel this year.

Bad Intel news = Good news for me :) 

AMD4Life!

I'm going to mark your words.
January 10, 2008 11:32:07 PM

That's a good kitty.

We need these proof when he's wrong.
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2008 11:37:34 PM

There we go, sigged for future reference.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2008 12:10:24 AM

evilr00t said:
Irrelevant. Japanese law != American law.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. And please explain how Intel being found guilty of anti-trust practices, by Japan or any government, is not relevant to this topic?



a b à CPUs
January 11, 2008 12:19:03 AM

Major_Spittle said:
These are all really good points but too bad they won't work on me you fanboi. :non: 
(just trying to keep it real)

I'm a fanboy for contributing to a thread about Intel you created? Puh-leez... :sarcastic: 

They are really good points. Thanks!

Now let me keep it real...is anyone really surprised that Intel is and will be found guilty of antitrust? As I wrote in a previous post...

you'd have to be an idiot to think that any company, not only
necessarily Intel, is not leveraging any and all options to push the
competition out of the market place. said:

you'd have to be an idiot to think that any company, not only
necessarily Intel, is not leveraging any and all options to push the
competition out of the market place.

and...

Is Intel doing whatever it takes to pull a profit and return a dividend
to shareholders regardless of fair practice or how it skirts the law?
Yes. said:

Is Intel doing whatever it takes to pull a profit and return a dividend
to shareholders regardless of fair practice or how it skirts the law?
Yes.


Even an fanboy can't deny violating antitrust laws in any country is still illegal, regardless of the company.

January 11, 2008 1:06:13 AM

randomizer said:
There we go, sigged for future reference.

I think thundermans quotes are becoming legendarily stupid.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2008 1:13:17 AM

But always funny :D 
January 11, 2008 3:18:41 AM

Ca_lawman said:
What if there is not sufficient evidence of wrong doing by Intel and this is just a way for the state of NY to pay AMD back for choosing NY to build their new Fab there? We also need to remember that AMD's biggest fanbois, IBM, have their headquarters there. When it comes to politicians, I always question their motives. I doubt that consumer protection has anything to do with their actions. Follow the money.

BTW- considering AMD's financial situation, I don't see that Fab being built anytime soon. That provokes another cynical thought. Maybe this is a way to punish Intel for beating AMD so badly that they won't be able to build the proposed Fab in NY.



This opinion article was out a couple of weeks ago. No matter what the politicians do to try by suing intel or whatever AMD will never have the capitol to build a muliti billion dollar plant in NY.

AMD could never compete at anytime in volume and I believe that part of Intel's defense will be that AMD could not meet the supply demands regardless of what Intel did. When AMD signed up with Dell they imidiatly started to faulter. Curious as it is so did Dell just about the same time.

AMD does not have the financial ability anymore to dual with Intel on the legal front and they do not have the ability to compete in the marketplace with competitive products. So now they whine to the libs in New York about how they were cheated. This is so blatent it is astounding that only a few are addressing it.

Who has smarter lawyers, Intel or the New York Judicial system? This is who will prevail in the long run. It sure hurt Bill Gates business and made billionaires of the companies who got the politicians to go after him. Thats the reason almost everyone is using netscape now instead of MS explorer.
January 11, 2008 3:49:10 AM

bixplus said:
Yeah, Cuomo is trying to recover that peice that he just lost too.

What we have here is a classic example of politicians over extending themselves and then trying to cover their arses. First, this is Andrew Cuomo, the AG of NY, who was also a key player in presenting AMD with that juicy taxpayer subsidized incentive to build a plant there. NY has also spent roughly $150 in improvements in that area in anticipation that AMD would go through with the offer. So now, that the deal has fallen through, the politicians are scrambling to recover some of their losses...gotta blame some for their incompetence.


I predict that this will go absolutely nowhere.


Bix,
Unless youve seen something new, which is quite possible, the deal hasent fallen through yet. Hell, a deal hasnt even been signed yet ;) 
Nov 07-Luther Forest still AMD's top pick: spokesman

Quote:
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s plans to build a $3.2 billion computer chip plant won't be impacted by the resignation of Ken Green, the economic developer that play a role in landing the company here.


There never was an actual deal....no contracts were ever signed, and at the last meeting of AMD and the SEDC (that I know) of in Dec 07, AMD signed only an option on an undisclosed amount of land in the Luther Forest Technology Campus...to be purchased if AMD decided to press ahead with the plan.

Dec 07-AMD secures option on Luther Forest land

Quote:
Advanced Micro Devices has reached a deal to secure an option to purchase land at the Luther Forest Technology Campus in Malta.

AMD has signed the option, and it has signed today by Luther Forest Technology Campus Development Corp. Executive Director Michael Relyea.

AMD spokesman Travis Bullard couldn’t say how many acres the option covered. AMD is planning to build on about 200 acres, but Bullard said the acreage covered in the option would not be disclosed to the public.

Bullard said the execution of the option will allow AMD to buy the land for a $3.2 billion computer chip factory it is planning at the site. AMD has until July 2009 to make a decision to go ahead with the project.


Now, that doesnt mean I believe they are or not going to go ahead with the project, only that there is no rush to do anything about it. The situation, depending how its managed could actually save them a little face. With the go-no go dead line still 18 months away, they can posture and say 'yeah, we're doing it', making it appear as if they can afford it....even if they cant. Even if they arent going to go ahead, saying so now, when it isnt costing them any money, could cost them in reputation....essentially a cancellation could be interpreted as an admission that things are as bad for AMD as some people are saying...then again, with 'fab lite' (sounds like a frigging soft drink....dontcha wanta fanta), a cancellation could be seen nuetrally....mearly as part of a new plan. Regardless, right now it doesnt hurt them to keep the option open.

Peace bro

January 11, 2008 4:01:43 AM

chunkymonster said:
#1 - Japan found the pricing incentives illegal.

#2 - Dell partially pulled out of the deal with Intel because they were going to end up getting dragged into the lawsuit and needed to do some quick damage prevention. Also part of the reason why Mikey Dell went back to being the CEO and took over for Kevin Rollins. Of course Dell got hurt, but that is the price they are paying for agreeing to (being forced to?) the Intel incentives.

#3 - Fair practice, a tiered pricing model, and healthy competition are a far cry from offering incentives and rebates to resellers to not use a competitors products.

#4 - Compaq, HP, and Gateway stated in the AMD suit that Intel coerced them into not selling AMD chips. And apparently they did laugh, why else does Intel have antitrust suits filed against them in multiple countries.

#5 - Agreed, large companies can be a target simply because they are large,
but size and success alone are not the sole reason why a company has
antitrust suits filed against them. If only one country or only one company cried foul and filed an antitrust suit against Intel, this would be a non-topic. But when multiple companies and multiple governments file suit against Intel for the same reason, well, you know what they say...if it looks like $hit and smells like $hit, it must be $hit.


#1 - Never proved, settled, and Japanese laws are different than NY laws.
#2 - Some facts to back that up, or your opinion? I'm not up to speed on Dell.
#3 - Agreed, but there is no proof of these allegations. Again, was NY just randomly checking into CPU manufacturers? On behalf of whom? And what CPU customer (i.e. OEM computer maker in NY) is being hurt by this?
#4 - Background? which one of the many AMD suits? Proven in court? I think all of them have sold AMD chips. Who has brought these anti-trust suits to the courts, OEM's, or AMD? How many times has Intel been found guilty of antitrust?
#5 - It's not the country's that are doing this. It's AMD shopping the world's court system hoping to litigate a break.


chunkymonster said:
Now let me keep it real...is anyone really surprised that Intel is and will be found guilty of antitrust?


If previous history is any indicator, NY doesn't stand a snowball's chance...
January 11, 2008 5:26:18 AM

turpit said:
Bix,
Unless youve seen something new, which is quite possible, the deal hasent fallen through yet. Hell, a deal hasnt even been signed yet ;)  ...


Great points Turpit! To answer your question, no I haven't seen any recent hard evidence of AMD officially backing out of the deal. What I'm basing my opinion on is mostly circumstantial, but enough for me to form a half baked opinion. ;) 

Here's what I see:

1) I don't see AMD being able to raise enough cash through their CPU business for purchasing this new fab even though it's mostly subsidized by NY state. Especially in light of their recent issues with Barcelona and lack of delivering the goods in general. Who knows though, IBM could step in and cover the rest, with the fall-back idea of picking up the new fab for a song if AMD goes bust in the near future.

2) I don't see them being able to secure any new loans to raise enough cash for this either. They're debt heavy already and after the Abu Dhabi incident, I don't think the'll be able to court any more sugar daddies.

3) I don't see any products on AMD's current roadmap that could put them into a position to raise enough cash to pursue this venture. Some believe that ATI will be able to generate enough $$ until the CPU division can get back on it's feet. I'm not so optimistic.

4) As you mentioned, the whole Fab Lite concept that AMD has floated out there. Again, based on speculation, but I think it's safe to assume that AMD is meaning farming out to TSMC and others. Can't imagine what else a term like this could mean.

5) Lastly, I find it very strange that NY is initiating this investigation. All other suits to date have been initiated by AMD. So I ask, why NY state? Why not Halfbaked, Iowa, or Middletown, Georgia? Well, that's obvious, I know. NY has much to lose if they lose this huge investor...prestige, tax dollars, etc. That's what leads me to believe that it's more political than anything else. archibael's post was particularly funny to this light...I can see something like this actually happening. :na:  :na:  I think it's at least an indication that NY is concerned that AMD won't be able to follow through. I'm not even sure what kind of jurisdiction NY state would have over Intel since this is filed in a state court and not Federal...definetely not my area of expertise though.

So, you see, lot's of speculation on my part based mostly on circumstantial evidence...so I could be way off here.

Cheers bro,
Bix
January 11, 2008 5:58:06 AM

azfj60 said:
#1 - Never proved, settled, and Japanese laws are different than NY laws.

Not settled, Intel accepted the ruling, and aceeded to the terms, though they did not admit guilt.(ever met a convict who said the judge was right?)
Actually most country's antimonopoly law is very close. International forums played a major part in American, and most other country's wording.
While the republicans have been loath to allow monopoly cases, it would seem that that time is passing.

My two bits says Intel will be found guilty, and will be required to pay AMD enough to build that fab.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2008 6:16:43 AM

In Australia no Government Departments have ever purchased AMD processors in their PC contracts that I am aware of.

If this is FUD then please ... illuminate me ... because I havn't seen one green machine in a state or federal office.

Even recently we received new PC's (in the thousands) with dual core Pentium D SPACE HEATERS in them... because that was what was specified in the contract.

At the time we could have purchased X2's at a lower price ... and wit the cool and quiet I'd assume a healthy decrease in power use.

Interestingly all of the machines have INTEL crap mobos in them and INTEL crap integrated graphics ... with the crap D805's in them.

I complained to the local IT senior staffer who handled the contract and he commented that that's just the way it is.

AMD have been ruled out of the market under the SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TENDERS.

If that isn't monopolistic behaviour then I am at a loss to understand the concept.

Now that AMD has the platform capacity I hope they are given the opportunity to compete....
January 11, 2008 6:28:58 AM

On another note, good for amd getting money, poor way to do it though.

CA_Lawman = fanboi (with a hint of conspirator)
January 11, 2008 10:18:14 AM

thefumigator said:
Actually in my country, when you go to a store to buy a computer they absolutly discourage the AMDs. This has some reasons, first the credit intel gives to the best reseller (sell more intels the better), and that people who don't know nothing about computers can be fooled easily to buy a more expensive intel over a cheap AMD. That has an advantage specially to those who earns a comission for selling (a more expensive machine, more profit for you)
In the year 2000 I went to a computer store and the dialog was like this:

-"I recommend you the P3 600Mhz system, with 256MB SDram, and a intel motherboard..."
-"What about that new eh, AML, AMT, AMF..."
-"You mean AMD?"
-"yeah, right, AMD... do you sell that?"
-"Well, to be honest we offer a 750Mhz AMD Athlon PC, but we don't sell it, LOL. its not as good as the intel PC, I personally recommend the P3, intel is intel you know..."
-"Yeah but... its a 750Mhz "Athlon" or whatever, while the P3 system is only 600Mhz and costs 300$ more..."
-"Yeah, but despite the speed rates in Mhz, the P3 system is much better in performance. also it comes with an intel motherboard, while the AMD comes with a gigabyte motherboard that to be honest, we never sold nothing from this manufacturer before**, moreover, I can tell you its like a low end PC..."
-"oh, you are talking in terms I barely understand, but you mean the intel is worth every penny?"
-"exactly, I confess its more expensive but you won't regret it, you'll getting a much better system overall"

**Gigabyte brand was entering our local market in year 1999~2000 or so, the mobo offered was actually my first AMD system, the GA 71-XE, AGP 2x, SLOT-A. The P3 he offered to me was slot1. When people first heard about the brand name "gigabyte" they run away



LOL is like Best Buy
January 11, 2008 11:10:25 AM

Mario's little boy Andrew wants to be President of the United States, so he's taking Elliot's lead and suing and investigating everyone in the state for his next step as Governor for the state of New York. See he wants to go farther than daddy.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2008 11:39:59 AM

azfj60 said:
#1 - Never proved, settled, and Japanese laws are different than NY laws.
#2 - Some facts to back that up, or your opinion? I'm not up to speed on Dell.
#3 - Agreed, but there is no proof of these allegations. Again, was NY just randomly checking into CPU manufacturers? On behalf of whom? And what CPU customer (i.e. OEM computer maker in NY) is being hurt by this?
#4 - Background? which one of the many AMD suits? Proven in court? I think all of them have sold AMD chips. Who has brought these anti-trust suits to the courts, OEM's, or AMD? How many times has Intel been found guilty of antitrust?
#5 - It's not the country's that are doing this. It's AMD shopping the world's court system hoping to litigate a break.




If previous history is any indicator, NY doesn't stand a snowball's chance...


#1 - As endyen noted, the case was settled and Intel agreed to the terms. It doesn't take a legal analyst to know that they settled the case to avoid a court ruling and sweep the issues and a guilty verdict under the rug.

#2 - Not opinion, it's the documented history of Dell. Once Dell started selling Opterons and a few months after they started selling the Athlon, AMD products all but dissappeared from their line-up and you could only buy machines with P4's. The lawsuit gets filed late 2005, Dell gets dragged into the antitrust fracas in late 2006, January 2007 Mikey Dell becomes the CEO (again) and Dell has giant press releases about how they are selling AMD processors. Do some research.

#3 - No proof?! C'mon, you're killing me here...btw, the New York state is home to the 2nd Circuit Federal District court...I'd say that's more the reason why NY is investigating, albeit the timing is curious. And so what if AMD called in a favor to start the investigation, it's still the Federal Prosecutor's decision to investigate.

#4 - Do some research, read the filings and depositions, it's all documented.

#5 - So what if AMD is "shopping" the courts? They governments themselves would not be investigating if there were no case.

It's hard to believe that anyone out there thinks Intel is not guilty. You have be niave to think that any company doesn't leverage it's market share and skirt the law to edge the competition.
January 11, 2008 12:12:56 PM

chunkymonster said:
#...It's hard to believe that anyone out there thinks Intel is not guilty. You have be niave to think that any company doesn't leverage it's market share and skirt the law to edge the competition.


So why isn't every company being sued for anti-competitive behavior? The truth will come out. It seems you have already convicted Intel without any facts. What is apparent is that AMD shops the same old allegations around the world, and there hasn't yet been any convictions, especially in the US. The only proof you've offered is the parroting of AMD allegations. Historical market share data is going to be tough for AMD to look at in court. When they had good processors, their market share skyrocketed proportionately, no? I guess we just disagree, and will have to wait for the facts to come out, but AMD has a history of trying to litigate instead of actually get some decent products on the market. Crying wolf gets old after a few decades.
January 11, 2008 2:19:13 PM

chunkymonster said:

#3 - No proof?! C'mon, you're killing me here...btw, the New York state is home to the 2nd Circuit Federal District court...I'd say that's more the reason why NY is investigating,.... .

Inconsequential. There are 11 district courts in all, and all of them are shared by numerous surrounding states. In the case of the Second Circuit court, it's shared by Connecticut, Vermont and NY.

chunkymonster said:

And so what if AMD called in a favor to start the investigation, it's still the Federal Prosecutor's decision to investigate.

This is particularly sad. If AMD was producing a decent product (e.g., Barcelona), was fiscally responsible (e.g., $5.2 billion for ATI?) and had a better manufacturing process (e.g., architecture upgradge, then process shrink), they wouldn't have to resort to such tatics because they would be a viable competitor to Intel. This is common when a company has a hard time competing in a market...and it's not always due to a perceived monolopy.

chunkymonster said:

#4 - Do some research, read the filings and depositions, it's all documented.


Depositions and filings don't always translate to a guilty ruling...they are just one side lodging allegations. I'll wait for these to run the course of the judical system before condemning anyone. If Intel is found guilty, you bet I'll heap on the disdain.

chunkymonster said:

#5 - So what if AMD is "shopping" the courts? They governments themselves would not be investigating if there were no case.

Any government would be interested in a case involving a major player in their market. However, let's just hope that those governments aren't involved to a degree that they would influence one way or the other a desired outcome. I don't think you would want anything but a fair and impartial trial.

chunkymonster said:

It's hard to believe that anyone out there thinks Intel is not guilty. You have be niave to think that any company doesn't leverage it's market share and skirt the law to edge the competition.

It's hard to believe much coming from AMD these days. As I mentioned above...I'll wait for this to run its course...
January 11, 2008 4:36:39 PM

Dell's probably a little pissed that AMD can't provide K10 in quantity and that it doesn't perform. That was probably part of the decision of starting to supply AMD CPUs, they thought they'd have a competitive part that they could get in respectable quantities.
!