Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

N.Y. AG accuses Intel of antitrust violations

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 4:45:58 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33620538/ns/business-us_bus...

Quote:
Intel Corp was sued on Wednesday by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who accused the world's largest chipmaker of scheming to maintain worldwide monopoly power in the market for microprocessors.



Discuss
November 4, 2009 4:50:30 PM

Thus it begins...

*Dons asbestos underwear*
November 4, 2009 4:51:46 PM

Cuomo is an animal, he wont lose, and he doesnt give in, and he goes for the throat.
Intels in trouble here, and if more states start doing this, itll be huge problems as well, besides the FTC
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 4:53:30 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Cuomo is an animal, he wont lose, and he doesnt give in, and he goes for the throat.
Intels in trouble here, and if more states start doing this, itll be huge problems as well, besides the FTC

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

The evidence is of the overwhelming kind :p 
November 4, 2009 4:58:44 PM

I too think they are as well, as too much has already gone down.
Whats surprising is that Cuomo jumped the gun here,and beat everyone to the punch, and that a state is pursuing Intel.
This could get very ugly, as not only are states looking for money, but regarding precedence, this may well be considered low hanging fruit
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 5:01:23 PM

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

The evidence is of the overwhelming kind :p 

[:grahamlv:3] But this does not favour Intel or make them look good and great, does that mean I have to ban you now? :??:  :( 
November 4, 2009 5:03:32 PM

Complete BS lawsuit. AMD couldn't fulfill their supply channels in that era in spite of the rebate offers so how can you claim damages? I am relieved that our government is so fine tuned and has everything important taken care of to the point they have the resources to attempt crippling yet another company. What next? A CPU czar?
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 5:03:50 PM

Mousemonkey said:
[:grahamlv:3] 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 :p 
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 5:05:36 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Yeah... I suppose it's ban time for me :p 

Or you can serve time in the Wingy's basement, it's up to you. :lol: 
November 4, 2009 5:09:54 PM

My mistake... This is NY. My end rant wont make sense til later lol
November 4, 2009 5:11:31 PM

Yea, its all about AMD here, not Intel at all.
Its like a 300 pound guy beating the crap outta a 120 pounder, hey, this is ok, he couldnt a fought back anyhow, he only goes 120 pounds, so why charge the big man? heheh
a c 126 à CPUs
November 4, 2009 5:22:31 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Yea, its all about AMD here, not Intel at all.
Its like a 300 pound guy beating the crap outta a 120 pounder, hey, this is ok, he couldnt a fought back anyhow, he only goes 120 pounds, so why charge the big man? heheh


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???
November 4, 2009 5:28:05 PM

No, we should want justice, or do you prefer criminal activity ?
Im sure gangs make gang members money too....
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 5:35:58 PM

/popcorn


This'll be good. :) 
November 4, 2009 5:39:35 PM

My point should be obvious, as in both cases, Im trying to say, regardless of the circumstances, illegal activity shouldnt go unpunished, and if this were people, or another company, alot of this would be redundant, and no one would bother defending this kind of thing, but it bears to point out how some wil go to some ends to defend their choices
November 4, 2009 5:46:35 PM

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
November 4, 2009 5:52:33 PM

Has nothing to do with AMDs activities here
At all
Period
They arent the ones breaking laws, theyre the wrongfully done here, or have people decided different?
November 4, 2009 5:54:35 PM

Mousemonkey said:
[:grahamlv:3] But this does not favour Intel or make them look good and great, does that mean I have to ban you now? :??:  :( 


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.
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 5:58:57 PM

roofus said:
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

We could discuss plausible scenarios but at the end of the day we're left with laws which were broken. I have seen enough evidence from one source (a large computer OEM which was subpoena'd) to warrant formulating an opinion on the matter (my myself it is a personal opinion after all). That opinion is that Intel is guilty of the charges laid against it.

My opinion could be wrong. I am, after all, formulating an assumption based on evidence I have seen and the context of this evidence could prove otherwise.
November 4, 2009 6:02:25 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Has nothing to do with AMDs activities here
At all
Period
They arent the ones breaking laws, theyre the wrongfully done here, or have people decided different?



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.
November 4, 2009 6:10:28 PM

Actually, I was thinking of Japan, or or how many do we need?
And how many excuses will we see?
This goes right to my point about Intels IGPs.
Intel isnt perfect.
Like Elmo said, it just doesnt matter about AMD, other than any evidence they can bring in. Its all about Intel and their activities.
Everyone needs to take off their fan hats and seek a better direction, including Intel.
November 4, 2009 6:16:14 PM

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.
November 4, 2009 6:21:20 PM

Let me add.. The product was better (AMD), but everything around the product could have been done better. Marketing, supply channels, partnerships, presence with OEMS. Some of those could be affected if Intel did go as low as claimed and other things were controllable. Hard to say this many years later though.
November 4, 2009 6:25:02 PM

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
November 4, 2009 6:27:12 PM

Time will tell I guess. Probably years from now but time will tell lol
November 4, 2009 6:28:22 PM

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
November 4, 2009 6:29:46 PM

Cuomo wont allow it to take too long.
Like i said, hes an animal, and will move quickly, as we already see here
November 4, 2009 6:31:49 PM

He still has to jump through the same rings as anyone else to do with "law".
November 4, 2009 6:35:34 PM

136. On Nov. 10, 2005, Michael Dell followed up with an email to Otellini: “We have lost the performance leadership and it’s seriously impacting our business in several areas.” Otellini’s reply: “There is nothing new here. Our product roadmap is what it is. It is improving rapidly daily. It will deliver increasingly leadership products … Additionally, we are transferring over $1B per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/04/what-did-cuomo-f...
Also:
140. By April 2006, Dell’s relationship with Intel reached a breaking point. As Michael Dell wrote: “Intel – we overestimated both their ability to execute and our true competitive position with them and we underestimated AMD. And we relied too much on rebates from Intel.”


Now, the great Intel looks so great?
November 4, 2009 6:41:45 PM

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
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 6:56:21 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
136. On Nov. 10, 2005, Michael Dell followed up with an email to Otellini: “We have lost the performance leadership and it’s seriously impacting our business in several areas.” Otellini’s reply: “There is nothing new here. Our product roadmap is what it is. It is improving rapidly daily. It will deliver increasingly leadership products … Additionally, we are transferring over $1B per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/04/what-did-cuomo-f...
Also:
140. By April 2006, Dell’s relationship with Intel reached a breaking point. As Michael Dell wrote: “Intel – we overestimated both their ability to execute and our true competitive position with them and we underestimated AMD. And we relied too much on rebates from Intel.”


Now, the great Intel looks so great?


There you mentioned the Large OEM Computer maker in question which proves Intel's guilt. Of course we would need the full context in which these conversations took place. Context can sometimes change the interpretation of a statement.
November 4, 2009 6:57:13 PM

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
November 4, 2009 6:58:53 PM

That and the fact at the time, Dell was in an exclusive agreement to sell only Intel SKU's. It could very easily be viewed as someone trying to get more mileage out of their deal based on the fact AMD had a better product those days. It worked though! They got paid.
November 4, 2009 7:01:05 PM

@ 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
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 7:06:13 PM

Not really news to me. Any small computer shop that was graced by the presence of an Intel Rep can tell you as much. Even Best Buy got pressure from Intel. Of course, Intel was also prone to bribe the guys working on the floor as well with steep discounts if they completed some brain wash..., er, I mean "special" training, and every so often some rewards for meeting certain goals.
November 4, 2009 7:21:55 PM

@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.
November 4, 2009 7:32:11 PM

Well, Cuomo does his job well, and who knows amounts of damages?
As to AMDs compensation, I asked JJ 3 years ago if 3 billion dollars would be worth it, and he said yes.
AMD will take these findings along with the others to court to bolster their case against Intel in the Delaware courts, and itll help them overall, the other monies will go to help build roads and bridges
a b à CPUs
November 4, 2009 7:46:30 PM

God I love my AG :D 
November 5, 2009 12:23:05 AM

The lawsuit doesn't specify whether Dell is currently receiving payments similar to the ones alleged. But a footnote says "there is evidence that Intel continues to apply pressure to Dell to minimize AMD's ability to compete effectively."
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091104-722996.htm...

Hmmm, I think Intel had better trying to quite buying its marketshare.
This is monopolistic behavior, where they control AMDs marketshare it seems to me
November 5, 2009 12:35:11 AM

Heres the PDF of the lawsuit
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Intelc...


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
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2009 2:54:54 AM

All I can think about when elected officials talk about tech stuff is the Internet is a series of tubes....
November 5, 2009 3:08:43 AM

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/resources/documents/Intelc...

Im thinking Intel is in serious trouble here, maybe more harsh than the EU?
November 5, 2009 3:17:55 AM

The way I see this, the more I read on it, the more devious Intel seems. I honestly had no idea it was this bad.
As Intel would get a OEM to start using their "rebate" program, theyd threaten that OEM with having to go full payment, and as Intel got the rest of the players on board, the OEMs started to do what any company does, competes for marketshare/sales, by reducing pricing.
What this led to was, as they lowered their prices, they became dependent upon Intels "rebates" for profitability, which in turn only gave Intel more leverage over them, by Intels continued threats of removing their "rebates unless they limited or totally denied using AMD product.
This is monopoly abuse at its highest end, as the whole industry was eventually controlled by Intel, wielding their power over the OEMs
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2009 3:21:56 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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/resources/documents/Intelc...

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.
November 5, 2009 4:35:28 AM

Thing is, others have tried dragging the OEMs resposibility into this, or AMDs inability to keep the market supplied etc etc, always pointing elsewheres.
As Intel induced the OEMs, they were held hostage here, and should be absolved of any wrongdoing, since theres obvious evidence they were trying and thinking of breaking out of this stranglehold Intel had put on them.
If this is as I see it, and Im sure others have a differing view, but regardless, if it is this way, Intel deserves everything they get, and hopefully AMD will recieve 2-5 billion from Intel as well
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2009 4:43:53 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2009 4:50:51 AM

Yet there is a certain party/movement in this country that believes the Gov. should NOT regulate corporations. The free market will police itself.


Make Intel pay. Then go after that fruit themed disaster known as Apple.
November 5, 2009 4:55:10 AM

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
November 5, 2009 8:09:31 AM

I encourage evryone to read the PDF
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Intelc...
Ive been skimming here and there, and this is astounding to me.
The corruption goes long and deep.
At one point, Dell was recieving 100$ million a qtr from Intel, and had Dell actually find the inside bids and give them to Intel, so they could out bid them, thus looking legit.
I have a feeling that this could get to the point of sharing room with AMDs head at the penitentuary, with Intel holding its marketshare for beds for ex Intel higher ups, plus 1 for Michael Dell.
Anyone defending this is truly not within a open frame of mind, and tho Intel is innocent until found guilty, this is very damning for them
November 5, 2009 8:19:06 AM

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?
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!