N.Y. AG accuses Intel of antitrust violations

Thus it begins...

*Dons asbestos underwear*

Well I am of the opinion that Intel is guilty and should pay for it's crimes.

The evidence is of the overwhelming kind

But this does not favour Intel or make them look good and great, does that mean I have to ban you now?

Yeah... I suppose it's ban time for me

My mistake... This is NY. My end rant wont make sense til later lol

Tell that to someone like Bruce Lee. 5'6" and 135 pounds but scared guys twice his size.

Or Jet Li, Jackie Chan. Small but scary.

I still find it interesting how they wait so long to do it. We heard of this a while ago then after AMD dropped the FAB plans for N.Y. it dissapeared. I guess its back now and they will blame Intel for AMD not building the FAB when its clear that AMD decided to go the 'buy ATI' route instead.

Oh well. We will see how it goes later. Of course if they completely screw Intel to the point that they lose money enough to cut thousands of US based jobs, wouldn't that be the opposite of what we want right now???

/popcorn


This'll be good.

criminal activity... had Intel not had an aggressive partnership program, AMD most likely would have already been sued out of existence for breech of contract. If they couldn't supply their trickle of CPU's into the commercial line and keep up, they certainly would have been in deep trouble if they would have managed a bigger piece of the pie. I do remember how excited we would get to see AMD SKU's for top end workstations only to find out no CPU's in house. As a rabid AMD fan then it was aggravating since at the time the P4's were junk and the Extremes were just unlocked junk. The product was never the problem, it was getting enough of it to bother messing with. Paint it any delusional color you want but AMD really did poorly in that time frame on their end. Convenient to forget it now but many know how that stuff went down lol

Simply put, yes. He's not fully 100% inline with our Pro-Intel or die thinking. He's not worthy enough to be an IntelZone.com member.

Those are actually things that have never been established though. You are taking the EU extortion commission as some kind of barometer to how the outcome will be in the states. I think years from now when this actually goes to trial, most claims will be pretty watered down when real evidence is required. I get ya though. IF the claims are as fierce as AMD claims or their shill Charlie D claim, then it is underhanded. My guess is truth will fall somewhere in between though.

This guy doesn't wear a fan hat lol. This guy sols his i7 rig and kept his P2 rig because it was the better gamer. These lawsuits are pure ridiculous though. Excuses for futility at the time the way I see it.

Thats your opinion, and good for you.
But, laws exist, and will continue to alot longer than we have time here on earth.
So, we abide the law
If trying to make it frivilous is the point tho, Im not buying. Who knows how bad, how much may have changed etc etc, and if Intel hadnt been called out, how bad itd be now even?
One could say, oh it was only this time, or this amount of time, or, they couldnt or wouldnt do that now, but again, thats opinion here, not truly known.
Talk to a good lawyer (yes, there are some),
Theyll tell you theyll try to seek justice, no matter what, even if there is no defined justice.
Thos definitions reside in our laws, and again, we abide them, and if broken, we break more than just the law itself, but work away at foundations set long ago,foundations set for the betterment of everyone

What this has to do with AMD, Im not sure.
Like I said, other than being named, and possibly bringing forth some evidence, theyre out. Its all on Intel here, and their lawyers

He still has to jump through the same rings as anyone else to do with "law".

So does this establish bribery by Intel or extortion by Dell? I guess it depends on the angle you choose to look at it. I read the same stuff and couldnt decide who the villain was in the tale. I guess if I were devoted to some entity it would be easier to decide. They both come out kind of scumbaggish in that to me lol

To a point yes. But, if Intel is telling them their cpus are going to get better, and a good solid company thats come thru time and again, you wait it out.
After awhile, you lose marketshare, what do you do then?
EVGA is nVidia exclusive, and a great company too, but, if nVidia continues to not have product out, what do you think EVGA will do?
Differences are, theres plenty of gpu partners out there, and none have the market say that of a Dell, nor as much to lose either.
If I were Dell, and were treated like that by Intel, Id never go exclusive with them ever again.
Does this make Dell part of or playing a part of the illegal activities?
Theyre the ones who lost in this, both marketshare, and because of Intels decisions also.
Just bad business practises on Dells part, with possible illegal activities if more info shows up, but they were baited, and also punished by Intel who is the motivator here

@ Elmo, you really need to read the whole article, which I didnt copy here, but puts it somewhat in a better context.
I pulled what I did because yes, its Dell, but also showed the desperation in Intels coporate at the time.
This leads to how things were then, thus helping to put it into context, and dispelling what we today now percieve Intel to be

@JDJ
I cant help but think they could have made a stronger case by using "evidence" from OEM's that didn't volunteer for exclusive partnerships. You know if this is what it appears to a lot of people, it should be fairly easy to dredge out in the likes of HP, Acer, etc. Intel had solid majorities in those companies SKU's but AMD was still around but at low volume. Some documentation out of those who chose to play nice with everyone may be more telling than a company who sold their souldto the devil so to speak. I just don't think this will have the same sting that the EU gave only because things have to be so much more cut and dry with anti-trust cases here than a commission that creams themselves to punish a US company. Could be worse too lol. Judging how MS has always skated through these things with piles of evidence against them steers my thinking on it.
IF it is all true, If they are found guilty, the reward should go to AMD and not some government agency. It isnt a victory for them if the government keeps the spoils.

God I love my AG

Heres the PDF of the lawsuit
http://online.wsj.com/public/resou [...] nt1104.pdf


OK, so now it appears that alot of what we have now came at the expense of AMD, and more credit should go to them, as these constraints obviously had both short and long term effects.
This is like having to either pay taxes and have the police protect you from real harm, or pay Guido from, well you know, those neighborhood guys

3. OEMS’ Reasons For Collaborating With Intel
60. During the relevant period, OEMs understood that they would benefit from
increased competition in the microprocessor market. If a competitor such as AMD could
establish itself as a genuine alternative to Intel, they (and consumers) would enjoy more choices,
lower prices, and better products.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resou [...] nt1104.pdf

Im thinking Intel is in serious trouble here, maybe more harsh than the EU?

Having seen the 'Intel effect' take place in an I.T dept that I was involved in nearly ten years ago, I can only ask/wonder why it's taken so f'ing long.

We'll just have to see how this pans out but if I were AMD I wouldn't count on any monies levied in fines going their way, regardless of how deserving they may be.

Theres the AMD vs Intel suit, being done in Delaware, as this also was filed there, alongside their suit, in the same district.
If AMD wins their case, then they will get monies for sure, and having this, as well as the FTC situation (Federal Trade Commission), this just bolsters AMDs postition in their private case against Intel

And it only gets worse:
107. One of the reasons that Dell remained unwilling to offer AMD-based products
was that Dell’s quarterly profit margins had become dependent on Intel’s payments. A
comparison of Dell’s reported net income with the rebates it received from Intel for some
quarterly periods show that, by 2004, the rebate payments amounted to more than a third of
Dell’s earnings. For the 3 month period between August and October of 2004, Dell received
approximately $304 million in rebates from Intel and reported income of $846 million, so that
the rebates amounted to 36% of net income. Thereafter, the proportion of rebates to net income
rose steeply. In 2006, Dell received approximately $1.9 billion in rebates from Dell, and in two
quarterly periods of that year, rebate payments exceeded reported net income. From February to
April of 2006, rebates ($805 million) amounted to 104% of net income ($776 million). The
following 3 months, between May and July of 2006, the proportion was even higher, 116%
($554 million of rebates and $480 million in net income).
Maybe they should merge and call it InDell?