Well of course, I hope AMD gets back on track as well. I dread the thought of Intel unchallenged. That said, Im also a firm believer of reaping what you sew. If AMD cant run with the big dog, they should have stayed on the porch.
Yeah they should have committed bribery and extortion just as Intel has and then maybe the American public would have respected them a little more.
*Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;
*According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.
*Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD's share of Sony's business went from 23 percent in '02 to 8% in '03, to 0%, where it remains today.
*Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers' agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
*Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC's purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC's business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.
*Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP's fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP's mainstream retail business.
*Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;
*Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.
*According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has "beaten them into 'guacamole'" in retaliation.
*Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;
*AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Markt, Europe's largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany's retail sales.
*Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.
*Forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;
*Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer's Chairman with "severe consequences" for supporting the AMD Athlon 64(tm) launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.
*Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.
*Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD's participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.
*Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.
Because they aren't capable of doing so or stupid enough to accuse Intel of doing so if they were.
LMAO.. you seriously believe that?
Which one ?
Yep. I don't believe they're capable of providing kickbacks on the scale that Intel has and no I don't believe they are stupid enough to give Intel enough ammo to bury them "with their own pettard" as it were.
I have a question about teh scale of all this. How much money would be in the balance if AMD were to win against inetl on all counts? Millions? Billions? Years of lost revenue?
I have a question about teh scale of all this. How much money would be in the balance if AMD were to win against inetl on all counts? Millions? Billions? Years of lost revenue?
Hard to say if it goes through trial AMD gets it all or nothing the all being lost revenue, market share, and punitive damages in the $B's. I would expect this doesn't go that far because neither side wants a muti billion dollar crap-shoot. There is probably an out of court settlement which could be just about anything, money, tech license, fab who knows?
I have a question about teh scale of all this. How much money would be in the balance if AMD were to win against inetl on all counts? Millions? Billions? Years of lost revenue?
Hard to say if it goes through trial AMD gets it all or nothing the all being lost revenue, market share, and punitive damages in the $B's. I would expect this doesn't go that far because neither side wants a muti billion dollar crap-shoot. There is probably an out of court settlement which could be just about anything, money, tech license, fab who knows?
Even if AMD won, it would be tied up in court for at least 5 years. It will not help AMD survive the next few years - AMD must do that on their own merits (not a legal payday).
Well of course, I hope AMD gets back on track as well. I dread the thought of Intel unchallenged. That said, Im also a firm believer of reaping what you sew. If AMD cant run with the big dog, they should have stayed on the porch.
Yeah they should have committed bribery and extortion just as Intel has and then maybe the American public would have respected them a little more.
*Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;
*According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.
*Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD's share of Sony's business went from 23 percent in '02 to 8% in '03, to 0%, where it remains today.
*Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers' agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
*Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC's purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC's business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.
*Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP's fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP's mainstream retail business.
*Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;
*Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.
*According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has "beaten them into 'guacamole'" in retaliation.
*Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;
*AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Markt, Europe's largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany's retail sales.
*Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.
*Forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;
*Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer's Chairman with "severe consequences" for supporting the AMD Athlon 64(tm) launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.
*Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.
*Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD's participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.
*Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.Pity!! I'm still buying my nice Intel C2D on the 22nd.
Wow, you spent lot's of time gathering this information...great job. Just a few notes though...most, if not all of what you've posted is about current litigation...with no judgements being passed yet (less the Japan incident and lost emails). So, I'd play a wait and see on those.
Also, you used Groklaw as one of you main sources...didn't AMD just recently donate some servers to Groklaw?
Hmm... ??? (wondering what's behind that relationship). Though I'm not familiar enough with the Groklaw site, it would seem that it may be a paid mouth-piece for AMD...could be wrong though, just speculating.
Also, you stated in an earlier post that AMD is incapable of such things as Intel has been accused of. Can you provide some links, just as you have regarding Intel, on how you came to that conclusion?
Hmm... ??? (wondering what's behind that relationship). Though I'm not familiar enough with the Groklaw site, it would seem that it may be a paid mouth-piece for AMD...could be wrong though, just speculating.
And Intel doesn't spend much on marketing ? Given that Groklaw is a legal resource and AMD has been in litigation with Intel for many years, I hardly think it unusual for AMD to provide them with some compensation. We're not talking about a persistent behavior here and I doubt the combined value of those systems was over $10,k total.
Quote :
Also, you stated in an earlier post that AMD is incapable of such things as Intel has been accused of. Can you provide some links, just as you have regarding Intel, on how you came to that conclusion?
That's in the links I had posted by inference. If AMD had matched Intel step-for-step, they wouldn't have been shut out of those companies.
Well of course, I hope AMD gets back on track as well. I dread the thought of Intel unchallenged. That said, Im also a firm believer of reaping what you sew. If AMD cant run with the big dog, they should have stayed on the porch.
Yeah they should have committed bribery and extortion just as Intel has and then maybe the American public would have respected them a little more.
Its funny people like to believe AMD is some morally superior company. They are not. They are a small (relatively speaking) company with a solid track record of strong products, and for the most part ( the first 6 months of 2006 aside) smart pricing policies.
Why it is funny is that they are run by a collection of silver-spoon-up-the-ass executives, the same as any company. And like any company, the executive management will capitalize on that which casts the company in a flatering light, while working to minimize that which relects negatively upon them.
That some people choose to view AMD as morally superior is not because the company actually is, but because the managment, (like any corporate management is like to do) seeing people respond positively to any 'corporate persona' have worked to accentuate and emphasize it, in an attempt to make it appear as if it is real. AMD, while a fine company with fine products, 'is no angel' as evidenced by the fact their PR and executive staff will continually attack and critisize their competition (since the purchase of ATI, Retard Richard has now taken to attacking Nvidia, just in case you havent kept up) whenever the opportunity affords itself.
Furthermore, the simple fact is that by trying to further the perspective that they are not a typical corporate entity, and something more they are in fact, lying...whether by deliberately misleading or omiting by intent. In short, they are willfully, (and successfully I might add as proven by your post along with the posting habits of several others,) fooling people into believeing that they are something more than they really are.
AMD is not 'something more', AMD is not morally superior to Intel, nor will they ever be. They are a company. That is all. Their true value is in the quality and performance of their products, the value of their products and how they treat their employees. Not some mythic ethos imparted to them by disenfranchised consumers, and siezed upon by a publicity hungry executive staff.
In short, congratulations, youve bit of on Henri's publicity gimmick hook line and sinker. Please go pedal that bait elsewhere. There are only 3 other people I can think of on this forum who are foolish enough to bite also.
Hmm... ??? (wondering what's behind that relationship). Though I'm not familiar enough with the Groklaw site, it would seem that it may be a paid mouth-piece for AMD...could be wrong though, just speculating.
And Intel doesn't spend much on marketing ? Given that Groklaw is a legal resource and AMD has been in litigation with Intel for many years, I hardly think it unusual for AMD to provide them with some compensation. We're not talking about a persistent behavior here and I doubt the combined value of those systems was over $10,k total.
Quote :
Also, you stated in an earlier post that AMD is incapable of such things as Intel has been accused of. Can you provide some links, just as you have regarding Intel, on how you c
they are in fact, lying...whether by deliberately misleading or omiting by intent. In short, they are willfully, (and successfully I might add as proven by your post along with the posting habits of several others,) fooling people into believeing that they are something more than they really are.