Intel on FTC Deal: We Didn't Do Anything Wrong
The FTC paves the way for competition.
Intel and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have reached a tentative settlement in the antitrust suit filed by the Commission December 16. The FTC sued Intel alleging Intel had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which relates to antitrust practices.
Under terms of the settlement, Intel is not allowed to offer incentives to other companies to only stock Intel chips. Furthermore, Intel may not retaliate if a PC builder chooses to use CPUs from AMD or other make.
Intel is also banned from offering unfair bundling discounts that would make using competing, non-Intel products more expensive. This would presumably restrict the practice of Intel bundling together a chipset with a CPU that otherwise would be prohibitive to purchase a single part on its own.
It's believed that Intel offered its Atom processor at a significant discount when purchased with an Intel chipset, making it difficult for OEMs to choose competing solutions, such as the Nvidia Ion, without incurring a considerable bump in costs.
Intel must also support the current PCI Express bus standard for another six years, keeping the graphics playing field open to other companies. This would stop Intel from ditching PCI Express, making the on-chip graphics of current Intel CPUs the only choice for video.
The FTC agreement also stops Intel from blocking competitive processor technology through software means, so that any change in software compiling for Intel's CPU would be disclosed and documented. The FTC alleged that Intel's compilers were designed to make AMD chips look bad. Intel also has to provide a $10 million fund for ISVs who wish to recompile their code for non-Intel processors.
Intel must also change its licensing terms to allow for companies who have agreements for Intel's technology to merge. Current licensees of Intel properties, such as AMD, Nvidia and Via would risk their agreements with Intel should two or more companies merge, but the new revisions would allow for licenses to carry on even after a merger. Via will also be getting its licensing deal for x86 processors extended to 2018.
What the settlement didn't appear to cover, however, is chipset licensing. This means that Intel is still the only producer of chipsets for the current generation of Nehalem-based processors, leaving Nvidia stuck at the Core 2 series.
FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz said it got 22 out of the 26 remedies it was seeking from Intel.
"We accepted this settlement because it helps consumers," Leibowitz explained. "Ensuring that this market remains competitive is essential to our future."
Even with this settlement, Intel feels that it has done nothing wrong.
"While Intel and the FTC have agreed to resolve that dispute, Intel is not admitting to any violation of the law nor does it agree with the allegations contained in the complaint," the company said in a statement.
Doug Melamed, Intel senior vice president and general counsel, added, "The settlement enables us to put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation."
Read the FTC settlement document here.
(Sources: Register, Electronista.)
- VIA,
- Intel,
- AMD,
- Business Computing,
- Business,
- ftc ,
- settlement ,
- antitrust ,
- anticompetitive
- VOTW: Controlling Super Mario With Your Eyes
- New Palit GTX460 Sonic Uses 2GB GDDR5
- Verizon, Motorola Working on Android TV Tablet?
- Google was Crowned 'King of Malware' in Analysis
- Lots of StarCraft 2 Sold in the First Two Days
- Crysis 2 Delayed; Need For Speed Shift 2 Coming
- Beware: Email Scam Targeting StarCraft II Fans
- ASUS Gaming Headset Includes Rumble Feedback
- HP Settles with U.S. DOJ, Denies Illegal Conduct
- Battle Hero Cooler Geared for Gaming Notebooks
- Deals for August 5: Halo Reach for $44.99
- Apple Cannot Handle More Than 5-Percent
- Acer Debuts Dualboot Android/XP Netbook at $300
- Nvidia GF106 Chip For GeForce GTS 450 Leaked
- Kotick: Blizzard's Secret MMO Will Be New IP
- Blizzard Cracks Down Erotic Role-Playing in WoW
- Cooler Master's New Gaming Mouse for MMOs
- Logitech Announces New PC Gaming Peripherals
It still doesn't change the fact that it was a slap on the wrist.. And the fact that they purposely slowed down AMD processors compared to their own only makes it worse.. Its the worst type of cheating since programmers and consumers rely on competition to keep the world going round.. I am wanting to use the new AMD magna cores for a VM system but there are still people in our IT department that go on the lines that Intel is better and always will be..
Playing the I'm not guilty routine, but paying the fine or settlement means they are guilty...
Hah, since when does a corporation like Intel admits its mistakes? One has to have guts like Valve to do that.
wow did'nt i read almost this exact line in a HP statement two articles ago?
""While Intel and the FTC have agreed to resolve that dispute, Intel is not admitting to any violation of the law nor does it agree with the allegations contained in the complaint," the company said in a statement."
**cough**GUILTY**cough**
My mistake, the HP article was posted yesterday, i read it two articles ago...
not that it matters, there both guilty.
Give it a couple minutes, and Intel will find new ways to be anticompetitive.
Seriously, if Intel spent as much effort on improving their product as they do trying to screw over their competitors, there'd be no need to screw over AMD and Nvidia. They got lazy, resting on their crappy P3/P4 architecture, and thats why AMD beat them (architecturally) between 2003-2006. Not because they weren't giving manufacturers enough "incentives". How about the fact that their on-chip graphics suck? Maybe in Larrabee were more than just a pipe dream, they could compete with Nvidia chipsets. No, instead they just lock Nvidia out of the chipset market, rather than improve their own offering. And dropping PCI-E to force out all graphics competitors, wow, that's a whole new level of corporate douchiness I hadn't even contemplated. What happens after 2016? We get Intel Express Bus, with heavy licensing fees?
Oh, and crap, I blamed Marcus for this article by Tuan : http://www.tomshardware.com/news/a [...] ,7837.html. Sorry Marcus.
hahah i love corporate drama. Nvidia competes with Ati, AMD competes with intel, nvidia hates intel, but nvidia can't be friends with AMD because AMD is ati....
i'm not saying intel is guilty or not guilty of bad business practice, but maybe AMD could actually do there part and maybe advertise. they need to get there name out there
This sucks because we need nvidia chipsets
This may set bad precedence. Next up to bat, nVidia with its closed proprietary technology and .cg shader language that purposely makes competing hardware run bad while they bribe developers to use their technology.
I don't see how Intel cannot be accused of monopolistic behavior w.r.t. their Nehalem chipsets. Refusing to license other companies to create Nehalem-compatible chipsets is certainly no better than embedding your browser in your O/S.
Somehow, I'm not sure that Liebowitz understands the significance of that particular item.
Hmm, I wonder how this may change the way technology companies do business with each other. Many of the incentives Intel is being fined for are common practices in the industry. Is Intel now going to blow the whistle and begin suing various tech companies throughout the United States?
I don't see how Intel cannot be accused of monopolistic behavior w.r.t. their Nehalem chipsets. Refusing to license other companies to create Nehalem-compatible chipsets is certainly no better than embedding your browser in your O/S.Somehow, I'm not sure that Liebowitz understands the significance of that particular item.
In that case...nVidia should be forced to ensure the same level of performance for PhysX regardless of the processor, whether it be an Intel processor, AMD processor, nVidia GPU or ATI GPU. nVidia purposely uses x87 instructions to prevent PhysX from performing at the same level on CPU's as it does on their GPU. If PhysX were properly coded using x86/SSE....Core i7 would have no trouble at all handling PhysX.
hahah i love corporate drama. Nvidia competes with Ati, AMD competes with intel, nvidia hates intel, but nvidia can't be friends with AMD because AMD is ati....i'm not saying intel is guilty or not guilty of bad business practice, but maybe AMD could actually do there part and maybe advertise. they need to get there name out there
Hahaha, yeah, watching this is like a cheesy soap opera like Dynasty. Intel is Alexis, ATI is Krystal - what we really need is for IBM to wade in like Moldavian terrorists and machine gun the lot of them.
I doubt any of this bothers intel. They posted record profits and ever since Core 2 came out have relegated AMD to the value market. They said Sir yes Sir to the FTC and went back to raking in billions. What does intel have to worry about...AMD has nothing that comes close to touching them.
...What does intel have to worry about...AMD has nothing that comes close to touching them.
...try to realize that there is life beyond the miniscule desktop enthusiast market to that of the IT world of servers...pfft
I'd like to see AMD step it up and take some market share. I almost got one of the netbooks with an AMD/ATI cpu/gpu. At the 330 price range there is some amd options with HDMI out. Intel HD is trash. Ion is fairly expensive.
I would like to see Nvidia and AMD work together. This way they can work together to fight Intel and their poor buisness practices. Not like they have to merge or anything; it would just be better for the competition within the market.
Hp and Intel admits no wrong doing. Next, BP oil.
Best thing about this suit is it opens up more oems to AMD. By this time next year AMD will be hitting Intel hard. I'm not sure about forcing Pci Express on Intel though. If they want to hang themselves by not allowing other video solutions, let them. Theres a ton of companies that require workstation video cards to get their work done.
Good for AMD.
Intel better support PCI-E for a loooong time to come or I'm off to AMD for the rest of my life.
I'd like to see AMD step it up and take some market share. I almost got one of the netbooks with an AMD/ATI cpu/gpu. At the 330 price range there is some amd options with HDMI out. Intel HD is trash. Ion is fairly expensive.
It sounds like you will want the AMD Ontario based netbook.
When are they going to start putting the white collar crooks in jail? A common thief or burgler can be sent to jail for stealing small amounts, but engage in illegal activity that costs the public perhaps millions of dollars and you can negotiate a settlement that the company (investors) pay for.
If the prosecuters started throwing a few more businessmen in jail for their crimes, we might see more law abiding corporations.
Not sure if all of this was fair to Intel, considering it was only price fixing that they did and they got all this stuff regulated against them. But Intel doesn't mind. I do believe Intel might start to think about suing companies now though. And If I was Intel, I would throw a shock to everyone's face and try to acquire NVidia. I know this most likely won't happen, but it will catch people's pants down.
PS Isn't Intel one of the forerunners for PCIe? Why would they try to get away from it unless they developed something better? Intel's tech is Intel's tech, and just like AMD begged the courts to get some of Intel's tech back in the day, everyone just needs to become innovative like they were. AMD can do it, but they just don't have to best staff that is smart enough.
i think this is fkn fair. I am using Intel from start, pretty much can say me a fanboy. But these days Intel in Pakistan have pushed i3, i5's and what not and took out all c2d's and cqd's. i designed my system around a c2d and now the processors are all gone. that's the biggest shame i ever saw. I hope they get fined big. or somehow lose alot of money as this gave me alot of tension. now i am finding a smuggled processor. atm Only quad core q6600 is available from Intel dealers.
I find it hard to believe that Intel would drop the PCI-E or planned to. In fact this is news to me does anyone have any official announcements that they actually planned to do such? It would seem to be a very strange move on their part mainly because this would make them far less attractive to consumers. I know that their aim is to make the CPU handle all graphical functions as well eventually and while that may someday become a reality at this time they would just be shooting themselves in the foot because they are far from giving a dedicated video-card performance.
As much as I like Intel CPU's ...
"We didn't do anything wrong, but we will stop doing it."
I don't see how Intel cannot be accused of monopolistic behavior w.r.t. their Nehalem chipsets. Refusing to license other companies to create Nehalem-compatible chipsets is certainly no better than embedding your browser in your O/S.Somehow, I'm not sure that Liebowitz understands the significance of that particular item.
In that case...nVidia should be forced to ensure the same level of performance for PhysX regardless of the processor, whether it be an Intel processor, AMD processor, nVidia GPU or ATI GPU. nVidia purposely uses x87 instructions to prevent PhysX from performing at the same level on CPU's as it does on their GPU. If PhysX were properly coded using x86/SSE....Core i7 would have no trouble at all handling PhysX.
Those aren't around the same lines at all. Intel is refusing to let other companies design chipsets that can work with its nehalem CPUs. They are deliberately cornering that market for themselves. In the case of Nvidia and Physx, they coded the software the way they want to. No one can tell them they have to code their software a certain way. Obviously you're right, its coded to run poorly on CPUs, but why should a GPU company be concerned about how their software runs on a CPU?
In my mind you can't correlate intel's cornering of the chipset market (monopoly) to nvidia's decision on how to compile it's software. They are drastically different issues, and I believe the FTC should of pushed for Intel to open the chipset doors to Nehalem.
After all, these are PCs we're talking about, an open platform. Hardware vendors are supposed to be able to offer alternative components. If you buy an Intel CPU, you shoudln't be forced to use an Intel chipset. From the looks of the FTC settlement, Intel wanted you to be forced to also use a Intel GPU with an Intel CPU. Basically they want every component to be Intel, or it won't work with an Intel CPU.
This is not even close to comparable to how Nvidia codes their software, they could of made it so PhysX does not run at all on CPUs. If Nvidia wrote PhysX for x86 (owned by intel), they would need to pay license to Intel for their GPU running x86. Do you also expect Nvidia to write CUDA to work on CPUs?
Intel doesn't write its software to run on GPUs, and why should they?
I don't see how Intel cannot be accused of monopolistic behavior w.r.t. their Nehalem chipsets. Refusing to license other companies to create Nehalem-compatible chipsets is certainly no better than embedding your browser in your O/S.Somehow, I'm not sure that Liebowitz understands the significance of that particular item.
IIRC Intel retaliated for nVidia refusing to license their SLI to Intel, so that nVidia could continue their chipset monopoly. IMO nVidia got what they deserved in that one instance..
Not sure if all of this was fair to Intel, considering it was only price fixing that they did and they got all this stuff regulated against them. But Intel doesn't mind. I do believe Intel might start to think about suing companies now though. And If I was Intel, I would throw a shock to everyone's face and try to acquire NVidia. I know this most likely won't happen, but it will catch people's pants down.PS Isn't Intel one of the forerunners for PCIe? Why would they try to get away from it unless they developed something better? Intel's tech is Intel's tech, and just like AMD begged the courts to get some of Intel's tech back in the day, everyone just needs to become innovative like they were. AMD can do it, but they just don't have to best staff that is smart enough.
It's not that AMD doesn't have smart people, it's that they don't have enough of them to work on all the projects and further not enough money to provide money to projects...
IIRC Intel retaliated for nVidia refusing to license their SLI to Intel, so that nVidia could continue their chipset monopoly. IMO nVidia got what they deserved in that one instance..
By not letting customers an extra choice? If I was in a store and couldn't buy something because the owner says "we don't allow those anymore" I would just walk out of the store and buy it from someone else..