Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Korea hits Intel with $25M anti-trust fine!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 10:57:28 AM

Hot off Yahoo News, yet another country that has found Intel guilty of anti-trust violations; although $25M is a drop in the bucket.

Read the article here.

The commission ordered Intel to stop using rebates to encourage
South Korean companies not to use the CPUs of AMD and thereby maintain
its market share.

"To ask us to cease and desist behavior which we are not doing and
never have done is odd," said Intel spokesman Nick Jacobs. "We don't
use rebates in an anticompetitive fashion."

said:
The commission ordered Intel to stop using rebates to encourage
South Korean companies not to use the CPUs of AMD and thereby maintain
its market share.

"To ask us to cease and desist behavior which we are not doing and
never have done is odd," said Intel spokesman Nick Jacobs. "We don't
use rebates in an anticompetitive fashion."


What does that mean?!?! First, Nick Jacobs says that Intel, "...are not doing and never have done..." but then follows it up with, ""We don't
use rebates in an anticompetitive fashion." is seemingly a direct contradiction. So which is it? Intel has never offered rebates? Or, they offer rebates but not in an anticompetitive fashion?

As Homer Simpson once said, "I'm not NOT licking toads."


June 5, 2008 11:30:31 AM

25$? While i don't know the details and more importantly the sales that intel gained thanks to this, it looks more a "yep you did that but we don't really care" kind of ruling.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 11:44:11 AM

Intel doesn't care about this. Looks a little frivolous.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 12:33:59 PM

Was I the only one expecting this to be a thunderman post??

I doubt a measly $25M slap on the wrist will even phase Intel...
June 5, 2008 12:43:18 PM

I wonder if that $25M has to be paid in USD or korean WON considering the exchange rates....
June 5, 2008 12:43:48 PM

Theyre sounding like Bill Clinton I never had sex or I smoked it but didnt inhale heheh or by another great dem, I voted for it before I voted against it. Which is it? Just depends on if is is
June 5, 2008 1:02:34 PM

25M is chump change for Intel whose quarterly profit is in the billions!.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 1:27:49 PM

@ evongugg - I'm quite sure Intel does care about this, regardless of the perception. Fact remains this is another governing body that has found them guilty of anti-trust. And, no matter how you gloss it over, that's just not good for business.

@ tgmchuck - I would imagine that the $25M is the USD equivalent of the Korean WON.

@ BGP_Spook - Totally chump change! What's 25 cents when you've got a thousand dollars in your pocket. This won't even be a blip on the bottom line. Heck, I bet the Board or Directors' yearly bonuses are more than $25M!!!!

@ outlw6669 - Thunderman post? This post wasn't created to bash Intel. I'm an ardent supporter of a free market, fair competition, and consumer choice. No company deserves a mulligan if they intentionally use their influence to limit consumer choice.

You'd have to be ignorant to the past to not have recognized that, for at least 3-4 years, you could not buy a Dell with an AMD processor, could not buy an HP with an AMD processor, or could not buy a Gateway with an AMD processor. And, you'd have to even more ignorant to beleive that it was because of AMD's "inferior" product; not when at the time the enthusiast processor of choice was the Athlon64 and/or anything Skt939.

It is what it is.
June 5, 2008 1:38:46 PM

Funny watching fanboys coming out and defending whats happened. It is what it is. Lokk, I like Intel too, but theyve benn found GUILTY here. Live with it. They broke the law . Live with it. They used unethical means for their own personal gains. They broke the law. No biggie, just a company doing business. Good for THEM. How does this help us, the consumer? Not at all, as with this response, if its held within Intels own boardroom as no biggie, were apt to see it again. Or do you really think Intel just disregaurds this?
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 1:40:12 PM

Never claimed otherwise chunky. Just commenting on title of the post as it was seen on the main page. In fact, I completely agree that Intel is being anti-competitive against AMD.

And there his post is.
Almost the same name even ;) 
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 2:32:00 PM

Did you say 25 miiiiillllllion dollars! ahahahaha would you like me to cut a check for that right now?
a c 127 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 2:39:24 PM

The rebate thing is kinda a wierd thing to me. Its wierd b/c all companies will offer rebates to get you to buy their product. They don't give you a rebate to go and buy other companies products. I mean you can get them on anything. End of year car sales have rebates to get you to buy their cars so they can have more sales and have more of the market.

Thats why I am iffy on it. Why is it that we have a free market and limit some companies in what they can do to get sales. I know its mainly b/c Intel has like 80% of the market share but still its not truly a free market.

I know if I was building PCs and Intel or AMD said buy these and we will give you a rebate I would accept it as that means I will save some money on parts and gain some when I sell the stuff.

Other than that its the norm. Remember S Korea may have different laws than here so what Intel did may be anticompetative in other ways than its considered here. As for the fine, chump change.
June 5, 2008 2:50:46 PM

Say your store/company buys 800 cpus, the cpus company says, if you buy 1000 we will discount you. Thats fine, no problems. Open market with incentives. If the cpu company says, you have sell only our chips, or any percentage, then the market becomes closed, or controlled, no longer open and free. This is how I see it, and Im thinking thats the rules that were broken. I may be wrong, as I havnt read all the ruling
a c 127 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 3:00:04 PM

I know what you say jaydee is true. But the way all these news articles post it it never says Intel forces them to not sell AMD but uses the rebates to get them to buy more Intel chips.

As I said its all respective. I wish they would give me $25M.....
June 5, 2008 3:04:44 PM

Me too!!!! Im hoping this all comes to light soon, and see just what Intel has or hasnt been doing wrong. I dont look at this as a get even against Intel. I just worry that the largest cpu supplier would either do illegal activities, or its easy money for distant governments to muscle their way, and make money along the way.
a c 127 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 3:13:45 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Me too!!!! Im hoping this all comes to light soon, and see just what Intel has or hasnt been doing wrong. I dont look at this as a get even against Intel. I just worry that the largest cpu supplier would either do illegal activities, or its easy money for distant governments to muscle their way, and make money along the way.


I say its the latter. I mean look at the EU. They went after M$, Intel and are planning going against Google b/c Google has the best search engine. I mean I can't see what Google has done illegal unless making an awesome backdoor search engine is illegal.

BTW I say we go and take that $25m for ourselves and split it in half. I would so buy a nuke with my share. Then use that to power my PC.
June 5, 2008 3:24:33 PM

Yeah LOL have a killer system in every room. Even the bath room heheh. With displays for walls
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 3:28:34 PM

Pity it is all too late.

By the time the lawyers have finished AMD won't be a company.

Typical monopolistic behaviour.

Crush the opposition ... move on.

NVidia will be next.

Whilst I will mourn AMD I will giggle a little at NV.

The end result will be we will pay much higher prices for PC related equipment and innovation will drop off considerably.

If AMD crash and burn shortly you won't see Nehalem ... or if you do you won't be able to afford one.

Try double the current prices for anything Nehalem ... why?

Because Intel can't afford to crush their highly successful Core2 line.

Warehouses full of Pentiums sound familiar??

Nehalem will be paper launched ...

If Extreme is the current exemplar ...

June 5, 2008 3:51:02 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I know what you say jaydee is true. But the way all these news articles post it it never says Intel forces them to not sell AMD but uses the rebates to get them to buy more Intel chips.

As I said its all respective. I wish they would give me $25M.....


A tricky thing about those rebate checks. If some companies statements in the past are to be believed, such as Dell and Gateway, Intel offered the rebates with a hook, that is, they only got the rebates if they only sold Intel chips. Not trying to comment on how true the statement is, only to point out how rebates can end up economically forcing a company to avoid selling a competing product such as AMD.

As far as Nehalem goes, I expect it will be released later than expected and it will cost far more than most of us will be willing to pay. Intel has no incentive to price these things down, as they have no competition to force the issue. I somehow expect that Nehalem will end up more as a business oriented chip. I could well be wrong, but I expect that the 775 platform will be with us for quite a while yet.
a c 127 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 4:04:38 PM

sailer said:
A tricky thing about those rebate checks. If some companies statements in the past are to be believed, such as Dell and Gateway, Intel offered the rebates with a hook, that is, they only got the rebates if they only sold Intel chips. Not trying to comment on how true the statement is, only to point out how rebates can end up economically forcing a company to avoid selling a competing product such as AMD.

As far as Nehalem goes, I expect it will be released later than expected and it will cost far more than most of us will be willing to pay. Intel has no incentive to price these things down, as they have no competition to force the issue. I somehow expect that Nehalem will end up more as a business oriented chip. I could well be wrong, but I expect that the 775 platform will be with us for quite a while yet.


I understand what you mean. But there was also something else that urked me. It was Dell. The whole "Dude your getting a Dell!!!" guy that I so wanted to tie between 2 F150 lightnings and let em rip...literally.

Anyways, Dell states that they signed a contract with Intel for that period. If that were true, what happened there also happens a lot in other markets, then shouldn't Dell be held just as responsable as Intel? It was Dell who would have signed the contract. Not sure if the same happened with Gateway even though I saw some AMD Gateways a while back maybe 2-3 years ago.

I really think they just go after once company when it should also have the parties involved held accountable too. But thats just my view. Technically it would have been Dells fault too.
a c 114 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 4:05:30 PM

Rebate / Kickback / Bonus / Discount / Reimbursement / Payola ..... Whatever!

It's all in the 'eye' of the beholder (or the Fan Boys, as the case may be ...)

As I understand how this worked, in exchange for 'exclusivity' Chipzilla would sell you XXX cpus with the option to purchase X more cpus at 'discount' if you went along with the program. The end result was a percentage of the product (10% ??) effectively ended up being free.

I don't think anyone has a problem with 'discounts' for 'volume'. It's the 'exclusivity' where the problems come in ...

And I think where Chipzilla's problems start in the US is the ""Oh! My bad. We lost all those emails ..."" defense.

It my understanding that DAAMIT (with proper documentation from HP, Dell, Toshiba, etc) can compel Intel to release their pertainent emails as documentation on the matter - 'discovery' court rules.

A Federal judge ordered Intel to retain approx 1,000 emails, but (Gasp!) they didn't.

AFAIK when evidence in these matters 'conveniently' disappears for the defendents, the judge in the case can rule that the accusations by the plaintiff are effectively true.

Where's a cheap lawyer when you need one?
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 4:11:42 PM

sailer said:
A tricky thing about those rebate checks. If some companies statements in the past are to be believed, such as Dell and Gateway, Intel offered the rebates with a hook, that is, they only got the rebates if they only sold Intel chips. Not trying to comment on how true the statement is, only to point out how rebates can end up economically forcing a company to avoid selling a competing product such as AMD.



That's the part of this entire issue that usually gets glossed over, the fact that the incentives Intel offered had a hook/clause to excusively sell Intel processors.

June 5, 2008 4:14:07 PM

Since theres only 2 companies in the market place, and say I own a company that requires one of the 2's products, Im limited. If I sign an agreement that prohibits me using anothers product, the only OTHER in this case, should I be help liable? Or should I have reported this company? Or was there more of a compelling reason besides business as usual? If you could prove those other reasons, then yes, I should be fined as well. If they dont exist, then Intel is on their own
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 4:18:24 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Anyways, Dell states that they signed a contract with Intel for that period. If that were true, what happened there also happens a lot in other markets, then shouldn't Dell be held just as responsable as Intel? It was Dell who would have signed the contract. Not sure if the same happened with Gateway even though I saw some AMD Gateways a while back maybe 2-3 years ago.

I really think they just go after once company when it should also have the parties involved held accountable too. But thats just my view. Technically it would have been Dells fault too.


In theory, I totally agree. If you are party to a wrong-doing, then you are guilty by association. But I suppose it's easy for Dell or any other OEM to simply say, "Hey, I'm just trying to sell some computers here!"

Besides, what good would it do AMD to implicate Dell in the lawsuit when it is Dell that AMD wants to sell processors to. I would also imagine the Dell having to produce the emails and documentation regarding their deal with Intel was more than enough of a wake up call to cover their a$s. If you noticed, shortly after the lawsuit was announced, Dell started selling AMD based PC's, again.
a c 127 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 4:24:03 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Since theres only 2 companies in the market place, and say I own a company that requires one of the 2's products, Im limited. If I sign an agreement that prohibits me using anothers product, the only OTHER in this case, should I be help liable? Or should I have reported this company? Or was there more of a compelling reason besides business as usual? If you could prove those other reasons, then yes, I should be fined as well. If they dont exist, then Intel is on their own


If you sign an agreement first then yes it was your decision to do that. It was not that company forcing you like people think. Now if they come to you with an agreement and you decide not to sign and then report you would be safe.

Personally I would find it interesting if Intel started making their own PC since they will have all the parts pretty soon (they make CPUs, SSDs, Mobos, soon GPUs, and so on) to make a Intel PC. And then they will be fined for selling their PCs with only their CPUs...hehe.
June 5, 2008 4:38:00 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Funny watching fanboys coming out and defending whats happened. It is what it is. Lokk, I like Intel too, but theyve benn found GUILTY here. Live with it. They broke the law . Live with it. They used unethical means for their own personal gains. They broke the law. No biggie, just a company doing business. Good for THEM. How does this help us, the consumer? Not at all, as with this response, if its held within Intels own boardroom as no biggie, were apt to see it again. Or do you really think Intel just disregaurds this?

They used illegal means, to that i agree. Unethical, well, i'm not so sure about that.
June 5, 2008 4:39:26 PM

I think regardless of the goings-on between Intel and PC manufacturers, AMD's processors lately have paled in comparison to Intel's developments. I think some people are looking at where AMD is today and rather than saying "too bad, their product was beaten" they point the blame at Intel saying that it's their "anti-competitive" actions that caused AMD's downfall.

It's in a company's best interest to be anti-competitive, though. If you produced a product, would you intentionally hold back on your manufacturing/r&d/marketing in order to let your less-efficient competitors gain a foothold in the market? I say let Intel be judged by the law and if they have broken any, they should pay the fine, and let that be it...
June 5, 2008 4:39:48 PM

jimmysmitty said:

Anyways, Dell states that they signed a contract with Intel for that period. If that were true, what happened there also happens a lot in other markets, then shouldn't Dell be held just as responsable as Intel? It was Dell who would have signed the contract. Not sure if the same happened with Gateway even though I saw some AMD Gateways a while back maybe 2-3 years ago.

I really think they just go after once company when it should also have the parties involved held accountable too. But thats just my view. Technically it would have been Dells fault too.


It might seem tempting to hold Dell and the other involved companies at fault, but at the same time, they were being held subject to extortion by Intel. Its similar to the line from the movie "The Godfather", giving "an offer they can't refuse". Refusing it would have meant they had to pay much higher prices for the Intel chips, which would have made them non-competitive with companies that did accept the offer. Yes, Gateway made its break to offering AMD chips sooner than Dell did, perhaps after hearing some advice from their staff lawyers, or they just decided that the calls for AMD chips were too high to be ignored. The problems with Intel and the subsequent investigations might be one of the reasons that the CEO of Dell at the time got fired and Micheal Dell stepped back in to lead the company.
June 5, 2008 4:48:11 PM

chris312 said:
I think regardless of the goings-on between Intel and PC manufacturers, AMD's processors lately have paled in comparison to Intel's developments. I think some people are looking at where AMD is today and rather than saying "too bad, their product was beaten" they point the blame at Intel saying that it's their "anti-competitive" actions that caused AMD's downfall.

It's in a company's best interest to be anti-competitive, though. If you produced a product, would you intentionally hold back on your manufacturing/r&d/marketing in order to let your less-efficient competitors gain a foothold in the market? I say let Intel be judged by the law and if they have broken any, they should pay the fine, and let that be it...


Yes, AMD's processors have paled in comparison to Intel's, but try looking at it a different way. If AMD had not been locked out when they were, they could well have sold more chips, therefore having more money to invest in R&D, therefore perhaps having a better chip now on the market. If AMD had been able to get the Phenom out to the market a year or more earlier, while they would still not have been as fast as the Q6600 for example, they could have at least had a competitive chip. They also probably wouldn't have the cash problems that are now dragging them so far down.
June 5, 2008 5:03:46 PM

I somewhat agree with that Sailer, but it is speculation. Anyone that says it didnt hurt AMD is just wrong.
a c 127 à CPUs
June 5, 2008 5:04:31 PM

Sailer, I agree with you a lot. But I am not saying it is their fault only. I am saying that they made the decision to go that route and that technically helped Intel to do anticompetative practices.

I just think that they should not get off scott free if this did happen. Its like if a bank was robbed and one guy was just a driver who knew what was going on but the robber got thrown in jail and the driver just got let go scott free.

Personally I think Dell used the agreement from Intel to their advantage to build up their company and then left Intel to take all the blame and crap.
June 5, 2008 5:10:20 PM

i really dont care about its fair or not.we are consumers, its not we are getting a CPU for rediculously high price.if you are happy to pay for the product for the price why you complain?if you are not happy with the price or quality you are getting then dont buy and complain.

and those of you who disagree with me,will you buy a AMD system even if its available as an option?
June 5, 2008 5:15:56 PM

sailer said:
Yes, AMD's processors have paled in comparison to Intel's, but try looking at it a different way. If AMD had not been locked out when they were, they could well have sold more chips, therefore having more money to invest in R&D, therefore perhaps having a better chip now on the market. If AMD had been able to get the Phenom out to the market a year or more earlier, while they would still not have been as fast as the Q6600 for example, they could have at least had a competitive chip. They also probably wouldn't have the cash problems that are now dragging them so far down.


Hey! I was gonna say that. But you did first.

This conversation has been done SO MANY TIMES before.

Now it's time for someone to come in and claim that what you say is not as important because AMD chose to buy ATI. (As if that somehow makes your point less important.)

Actually it's fairly simple: When a company that spends more money on R&D than another company makes in gross profit, but they still feel the need to stifle the competition, something is not entirely correct.

Perhaps when the Athlon64 got popular Intel saw the path AMD was going down they knew that they needed to follow the same path. But they didn't want to be a few years behind... so it was a logical business decision to stifle the competition and make sure they didn't have the money for R&D to maintain the lead. Intel didn't want to put AMD out of business... they just didn't want to be 3 or more years behind on their redesign.

But of course now they just have to pay the consequences of that logical business decision since it wasn't entirely legal.
June 5, 2008 5:21:24 PM

i think those people who are bored and want to make a fuss also file a lawsuit against MS about their product being to dominant.
June 5, 2008 5:29:26 PM

keithlm said:
Hey! I was gonna say that. But you did first.

This conversation has been done SO MANY TIMES before.

Now it's time for someone to come in and claim that what you say is not as important because AMD chose to buy ATI. (As if that somehow makes your point less important.)

Actually it's fairly simple: When a company that spends more money on R&D than another company makes in gross profit, but they still feel the need to stifle the competition, something is not entirely correct.

Perhaps when the Athlon64 got popular Intel saw the path AMD was going down they knew that they needed to follow the same path. But they didn't want to be a few years behind... so it was a logical business decision to stifle the competition and make sure they didn't have the money for R&D to maintain the lead. Intel didn't want to put AMD out of business... they just didn't want to be 3 or more years behind on their redesign.

But of course now they just have to pay the consequences of that logical business decision since it wasn't entirely legal.
All excellent points, and done with the usual predictability as well. This may be the tip of the iceberg, or it may be the end of it all. If its the beginning, then Intel will have to slow it down some
June 5, 2008 5:46:27 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i really dont care about its fair or not.we are consumers, its not we are getting a CPU for rediculously high price.if you are happy to pay for the product for the price why you complain?if you are not happy with the price or quality you are getting then dont buy and complain.

and those of you who disagree with me,will you buy a AMD system even if its available as an option?


Well, the roots of all this go back to a time when processors were very high priced. We can now build whole medium range computers for what one of those older CPUs used to cost. Not that I'm complaining about the present low prices, mind you. Yes, I did buy an AMD system back in 2000 because it was an option from a company. I knew the AMD chips of the time weren't quite as fast as the Intel chips, but they were much cheaper and did all that I wanted. I stayed with AMD based computers from then until a couple months ago when I switched back to Intel because the present AMD chips were so bad (the Phenom 2950 BE hadn't come out yet). The problem isn't so much whether AMD or Intel chips were the best ones, but that Intel tried its best to make sure there wasn't any option to buy an AMD chip. And if AMD's lack of income continues much longer, there won't be a viable option in the future.

JDJ- I know what I wrote about AMD having more money for R&D is speculation. After all, Intel has had a ton of money for R&D and yet came out with some chips that stunk, as well as being late getting 64 bit chips on the marketplace. There are no guarantees in the business. But at least it would have leveled the playing field a little bit.
June 5, 2008 5:50:15 PM

i know by saying this i will get rape by AMD fanboys but i think amd should just shut down their CPU department completely and concentrate what they good at now.GPU!!!
June 5, 2008 6:13:29 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i know by saying this i will get rape by AMD fanboys but i think amd should just shut down their CPU department completely and concentrate what they good at now.GPU!!!


It may be surprising, but the bulk of AMD's income still comes from computer chips. To shut it down would only speed it toward bankruptcy. The world as a whole does not look at computer chips the way enthusiasts look at them. Its chips sold to the business world, which has far different concerns, that produce the big money.
June 5, 2008 6:20:33 PM

sailer said:
It may be surprising, but the bulk of AMD's income still comes from computer chips. To shut it down would only speed it toward bankruptcy. The world as a whole does not look at computer chips the way enthusiasts look at them. Its chips sold to the business world, which has far different concerns, that produce the big money.


but is the % of profit as high as GPU they are selling?AMD is going into bankruptcy anyway.so it doesnt matter.unless the delayed Deneb makes people's jaw drop.you get what i mean.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 6:54:53 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i really dont care about its fair or not.we are consumers, its not we are getting a CPU for rediculously high price.if you are happy to pay for the product for the price why you complain?if you are not happy with the price or quality you are getting then dont buy and complain.

and those of you who disagree with me,will you buy a AMD system even if its available as an option?

I think you are missing the point entirely.

If a consumer chooses to buy processor A over processor B then it is the consumer who is deciding what processor to buy. In the instances of these lawsuits, Intel is alleged to be persuading OEM's to buy only Intel processors so you and I as consumers do not have a choice of processor when buying a pre-built computer.

As a consumer in a free market, you should care. Think of only being able to buy one make and model of car/truck because the manufacturer incented the dealerships to sell only that brand and model.

June 5, 2008 7:03:44 PM

chunkymonster said:
I think you are missing the point entirely.

If a consumer chooses to buy processor A over processor B then it is the consumer who is deciding what processor to buy. In the instances of these lawsuits, Intel is alleged to be persuading OEM's to buy only Intel processors so you and I as consumers do not have a choice of processor when buying a pre-built computer.

As a consumer in a free market, you should care. Think of only being able to buy one make and model of car/truck because the manufacturer incented the dealerships to sell only that brand and model.


well i think you missed what i try to say.if something is better what you looking for will you still buy the worse performing one because you cant be bother to find the better one for yourself?because if one doesnt do what you want you move on to the one that does.simple.
June 5, 2008 7:09:56 PM

If you cant get that part, it means you cant get it. If another company decides to tell the stores, you buy our product and no one elses, and the stores agree, how would you get that part then? You couldnt. The average person just goes to the store, and doesnt know any better.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 7:10:47 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i think those people who are bored and want to make a fuss also file a lawsuit against MS about their product being to dominant.


There is no parallel between Microsoft and Intel regarding these lawsuits.

Let's face it, Windows is effectively the only commercially available x86 consumer operating system. Even RedHat is geared more towards businesses and servers. And OSX is geared towards the Mac.

Also, with Vista Ultimate costing well over $400, it's easy to understand why Linux has become so popular.

Lastly, if you remember, Microsoft was sued over bundling media player and internet explorer into Windows and intentionally making other browsers and media players incompatible.

a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 7:21:56 PM

iluvgillgill said:
well i think you missed what i try to say.if something is better what you looking for will you still buy the worse performing one because you cant be bother to find the better one for yourself?because if one doesnt do what you want you move on to the one that does.simple.

I get what your saying, point taken. But your statement still implies that the consumer is making the choice to purchase "the worse performing one because you (the consumer) can't be bother to find the better one". Intel incented OEM's to not buy AMD processors which removes the consumer's ability to choose.
June 5, 2008 7:23:51 PM

well who ever is right or wrong in here.(not saying im right) it doesnt really effect the $25M Intel is gonna pay out!lol
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2008 3:26:27 PM

If your going to talk about trucks I am going chunky ... I have this fear of trucks ... unhealthy I know.
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2008 3:34:36 PM

yeah thunderman ... this is the right spot.

a b à CPUs
June 6, 2008 8:24:05 PM

According to the New York Times, as a result fo the South Korean fine the Federal trade Commission has launched an anti-trust investigation into Intel's activities.

You can read the article here!

Korea, Japan, and the EU are one thing, but this is the real deal.
June 6, 2008 8:36:32 PM

Also, the values up on AMD stock. Thats not what the investors of Intel want to hear, because that could be interpreted as being the fault of these fines/investigations
June 7, 2008 7:25:49 AM

iluvgillgill said:
well who ever is right or wrong in here.(not saying im right) it doesnt really effect the $25M Intel is gonna pay out!lol

Yea, $25M may not be a lot of money to Intel, but here's the thing. It means that the KFTC will be keeping a close eye on Intel, for signs of illegal rebates. Then the fines escilate.
Oh, and by the way, AMD is in a position where they can file for damages, once all the appeals are complete. Punitive damages run at about 3X the actual loss. That could be a few dollars, since Samsung is not a bit player.
!