Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Faces Antitrust Lawsuit From FTC

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 16, 2009 12:50:46 PM

http://freep.com/article/20091216/NEWS07/91216016/1320/...

Quote:
The Federal Trade Commission is suing Intel Corp., accusing the world’s biggest chip maker of using its size to snuff out competition.

The FTC says Intel, which makes the microprocessors that run personal computers, has shut rivals out of the marketplace. In the process, the FTC says Intel has deprived consumers of choice and stifled innovation in the chip industry.
Intel has faced similar charges for years and has denied any wrongdoing. The lawsuit comes after a recent $1.25 billion settlement with rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. over similar claims.
Intel, which is based in Santa Clara, Calif., is also appealing a record $1.45 billion antitrust fine leveled by European regulators.



Intel's legal troubles are most certainly NOT over!
December 16, 2009 3:18:09 PM

YAY! Intel gets to pay for the bailouts!
December 16, 2009 4:24:48 PM

Let's wait and see what becomes of all this, I still want to hear the other side
in court not with settlements.
Settlements to me is not an admission of guilt, this is how the game is played
if i have 2 dollars and you sue me, to fight the suit will cost me $1.50 of my $2
but to settle it will cost me .10 out of me $2 guess what i'm walking away with
$1.90.
Related resources
December 16, 2009 5:38:17 PM

Remember, this is the FTC, not AMD. The FTC shouldn't have an axe to grind, they should just be looking at anticompetitive practices. ($1000 BE CPUs? shutting Nvidia out of the Core i5/i7 chipset business?) In adition, since Intel is a US company, the FTC has huge powers over what to do to solve the issue. Just ask Standard Oil. (Or should I say, Exxon, Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Penzoil, Chevron, Aamoco, Unilever, etc)
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:05:59 PM

It wont take that long. Intel cannot continue to pay lawyers fees and will be forced to settle.

This one was almost settled already until the FTC pushed for more. In the end, it's RIP intel because the very rules that they ran their business by are being used against them by bigger 'businesses' now.

Hell mend them, i hope they are made a real example of - the heads removed and the company split into tiny pieces.
December 16, 2009 10:24:21 PM

jennyh said:
...
i hope they are made a real example of - the heads removed and the company split into tiny pieces.


You have to be joking...

How exactly would that help anything?
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:35:49 PM

B-Unit said:
You have to be joking...

How exactly would that help anything?


It would prevent every other company from falling victim to intel's corruption?
December 16, 2009 10:47:36 PM

And having the FTC looking over their shoulder with a hand on their balls ready to squeeze wont do the same thing?

Shredding Intel would be the worst possible outcome. Having all the parts under one roof is what makes Intel successful, just like bringing ATI into the AMD fold has brought them to where they are today. A split Intel would greatly retard competition and progress IMO.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:53:45 PM

You think huh?

I think intel under one roof is retarding competition. I guess you think it's ok to spend $6bn on bribing dell so long as you spend $3bn on R&D too?
December 16, 2009 10:58:52 PM

Atleast if you want to take a risk. You might want to save up some money to buy some Intel stock. Nothing like a Federal Court case to change the value for the good/bad.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 11:40:32 PM

jennyh said:
It would prevent every other company from falling victim to intel's corruption?

Capitalism = Corruption

It has always been the case and will always be the case. When you're big, powerful and wealthy you want to retain what you have. It's human behavior 101.

When you're small, weak and poor... you want to acquire things which you do not have.

It is a tale of have vs have not.

I am not and will never be a Capitalist (and for those who rush to judgment and assume I am a Communist I am neither that).

Greed is not a virtue. It is rather a human behavioral response that ought not be promoted. But Capitalism is a social/economic system which promotes Greed as being a virtue and as being "Good". Break Intel apart.. it won't change a thing. Another will take its place.
December 16, 2009 11:47:08 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Break Intel apart.. it won't change a thing. Another will take its place.


I speculate that "another" would be AMD. It would become the dominate player, gain marketshare, and then David will have become Goliath.
December 16, 2009 11:59:49 PM

jennyh said:
You think huh?

I think intel under one roof is retarding competition. I guess you think it's ok to spend $6bn on bribing dell so long as you spend $3bn on R&D too?


Not at all. I hope they get a $3-6Bil fine out of this. But I don't believe breaking them up is good for anything. This isn't a AT&T or Standard Oil kind of situation. There is competition. Intel tried to squeeze them out and should pay, but they're not the only player, and that's the only reason to break a company up.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2009 12:09:43 AM

According to the news reports, the FTC is not going after any monetary damages - just forcing Intel to abide by a stricter set of marketing rules.

And absolutely no talk of breaking up Intel - I doubt Congress would go for busting up the chip industry job-creating engine with the economy in its current state. To think otherwise is ludicrous :p ...
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2009 12:52:57 AM

Never doubt luducrous or insane decisions by government bodies or agencies.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2009 1:17:13 AM

i saw that earlier today. They seemed to add some new and far fetched claims I had not heard of before. They even went after poor ole canceled Larrabee as trying to wipe out NVidia & ATI.
a c 127 à CPUs
December 17, 2009 1:18:56 AM

jennyh said:
You think huh?

I think intel under one roof is retarding competition. I guess you think it's ok to spend $6bn on bribing dell so long as you spend $3bn on R&D too?


In that train of thought if AMD started to do as much as Intel they would retard competition.

Having one company do so much is not a bad thing. Trust me, you don't see it but in most markets there is one company who does everything.

And besides, the larger a company gets the more R&D goes up. I am sure that Ford/Honda and the such spend quite a bit of R&D every year.
January 13, 2010 6:58:34 PM

I don't think many people noticed that Intel responded to the FTC complaint on Dec 31, 2009. The public (slightly redacted) response can be found here:

http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/FTC_Docket-9341_Redacted_Public_answer.pdf.

Since I'm not supposed to comment publicly on legal matters, I'll just quote a few items I found interesting and/or funny for you guys to discuss:

Quote:
In 2004, AMD Executive Vice President Henri Richard, the company’s highest ranking sales executive, declared internally that “f you look at it, with an objective set of eyes, you would never buy AMD. I certainly would never buy AMD for a personal system if I wasn’t working here.”

Quote:
In public, AMD’s Chairman conceded that AMD had adopted a strategy under which “we were going to not be as competitive in the mobile space, even though we knew that mobile space was going to be critical.” As a consequence, AMD’s Chairman conceded, AMD was “late with a competitive product in the mobile space.”

Quote:
AMD’s inability to execute was a recurring problem that impeded the company’s ability to compete successfully with Intel. In late 2006 and early 2007, after AMD began selling to Dell, it was unable to manage its supply network and failed to deliver on supply commitments to many of its customers. AMD’s acquisition of Dell as a customer, rather than bringing added success to the company, marked the beginning of a backward slide. AMD alienated loyal customers, prompting them to switch business to Intel. AMD’s Chairman and CEO admitted publicly that AMD’s acquisition of business at major original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) “occurred in our view probably faster than we had planned” and that AMD was unable “to make the shift in balance properly.”

Quote:
The Commission would employ Section 5 of the FTC Act to defy Supreme Court precedent and modern economics and punish Intel for conduct that has promoted competition and benefited consumers. The courts – in particular, the Supreme Court – have established under Section 2 of the Sherman Act clear standards for the kinds of conduct at issue here. These standards embody decades of economic learning as well as the accumulated wisdom of courts, legislators, government enforcers, private litigators, and academics. Yet the Commission has made it clear through the statements that accompany the Complaint that it finds this settled law unsatisfactory as a policy matter. Those statements reflect an intent by the Commission to proscribe procompetitive conduct and evade the clear mandates of the Supreme Court through the unbounded application of Section 5 of the FTC Act.


* Not speaking for Intel Corporation *
January 13, 2010 11:54:39 PM

sonoran said:
I don't think many people noticed that Intel responded to the FTC complaint on Dec 31, 2009. The public (slightly redacted) response can be found here:

http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/FTC_Docket-9341_Redacted_Public_answer.pdf.

Since I'm not supposed to comment publicly on legal matters, I'll just quote a few items I found interesting and/or funny for you guys to discuss:

Quote:
In 2004, AMD Executive Vice President Henri Richard, the company’s highest ranking sales executive, declared internally that “f you look at it, with an objective set of eyes, you would never buy AMD. I certainly would never buy AMD for a personal system if I wasn’t working here.”

Quote:
In public, AMD’s Chairman conceded that AMD had adopted a strategy under which “we were going to not be as competitive in the mobile space, even though we knew that mobile space was going to be critical.” As a consequence, AMD’s Chairman conceded, AMD was “late with a competitive product in the mobile space.”

Quote:
AMD’s inability to execute was a recurring problem that impeded the company’s ability to compete successfully with Intel. In late 2006 and early 2007, after AMD began selling to Dell, it was unable to manage its supply network and failed to deliver on supply commitments to many of its customers. AMD’s acquisition of Dell as a customer, rather than bringing added success to the company, marked the beginning of a backward slide. AMD alienated loyal customers, prompting them to switch business to Intel. AMD’s Chairman and CEO admitted publicly that AMD’s acquisition of business at major original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) “occurred in our view probably faster than we had planned” and that AMD was unable “to make the shift in balance properly.”

Quote:
The Commission would employ Section 5 of the FTC Act to defy Supreme Court precedent and modern economics and punish Intel for conduct that has promoted competition and benefited consumers. The courts – in particular, the Supreme Court – have established under Section 2 of the Sherman Act clear standards for the kinds of conduct at issue here. These standards embody decades of economic learning as well as the accumulated wisdom of courts, legislators, government enforcers, private litigators, and academics. Yet the Commission has made it clear through the statements that accompany the Complaint that it finds this settled law unsatisfactory as a policy matter. Those statements reflect an intent by the Commission to proscribe procompetitive conduct and evade the clear mandates of the Supreme Court through the unbounded application of Section 5 of the FTC Act.


* Not speaking for Intel Corporation *


Very good find but all of this don't matter because it not blaming Intel at for AMD's biggest problems.
!