AMD expands charges against Intel

[lutjens]

There is no question the TLB bug hurt AMD badly. But, the Phenom wasn't competitive with the Core 2 lineup even prior to the bug. Couple this with the fact that it's hit or miss to get a Phenom to work in an existing AM2 board (that was around prior to Phenom's launch) and there is no small wonder that demand for the Phenom is weak. Poor execution by AMD. On the flip side, you have execution by Intel, as well as an aggressive price strategy, which hurts AMD even more. Intel can afford fire sale prices on their chips, as they have a large number of fabs cranking them out. AMD, on the other hand, can't. The longer AMD's products remain uncompetitive on the performance front, the more it's going to hurt them...and such effects are now trickling down and eroding AMD's hard-won market share in the 4P segment, where they make the majority of their money. Caneland/Tigerton is doubtlessly hitting the Opteron pretty hard ATM, with Dunnington ready soon.

[Spawne32]

its really...just kinda pitiful now

[Jakko]

I know of a few people (one was on XS here, don't know if he still is around or not, ahven't seen him) who had a small PC business, 80% intel 20% AMD systems or something like that, and intel offered a drop in the wholesale price if he was to cut AMD out entirely. He said thanks but no thanks, because he didn't want to alienate the AMD users and he was doing fine at his current pricing anyway. Short while later intel jacked his rates up, which threw him out of business. Hurt intel? Sure, but small fry, I guess they thought it was worth it to loose some sales there in order to chip away at what small portion of marketshare AMD had. He said he wasn't the only one intel had done that to either.

I hope I have all my facts straight.

Wow, didn't know intel also targetted small PC businesses with their illegal business practices.
Seems somewhat dumb.

[freeloader]

All I've got to say is, Intel better get the KY out, they're going to need it.

[Seraphiel]

If what Intel has done is illegal, then aren't all of the OEM guilty as well ?

I mean, isn't it just as illegal to accept such deals as offering them (Intel could have achieved no unfair advantage without the OEM acceptance), or at least just illegal as well ?

AMD could perhaps end up winning the lawsuit, but perhaps also have signed their own suicide note. That is, if the OEM will be hurt by this lawsuit as well as Intel.

Also, didn't AMD sell every single CPU they produced then? How could Intels deals possible have hurt them, if they had no more CPU to loose profit of?

Personally, I don't see any problem with what Intel is accussed of, and such deals are pretty common in many areas other than CPUs or computer hardware.

Just speculation but it all puzzles me.

[Calmatory]

So paying folks to not sell AMD is worse than AMD trying to give away 1 million Processors.

Yes. If company X has market share of 65%, company Y has market share of 25%, it is quite acceptable that the smaller company can give away the chips. If the bigger one does it, it isn't.

But yeah, half of the older americans also think that Microsoft plays clean, does good work and those people are proud of M$.. So what can you expect from those?

I'd love to ask peoples opinions in case where AMD was dominant, and Intel was "whining" like AMD "does now". Opinions would be completely different. Why so?

[Shocker003]

If Intel really paid some companies so that they don´t use AMD´s cpus, they should not go unpunished. I hate the fact that most members fight like kids. We should up hold justice and when we see black, lets call it black. I like both chip makers and i equally have rigs with their cpus and i don´t take sides. Spare the rod and spoil the child(Intel) One day they will equally pay off companies so that all motherboards will be having Intel chipset, no AMD or Nvidia chipsets .

[BrowncoatGR]

All these claims from AMD are bogus for a number of reasons.

1) AMD cannot claim that the lack of demand for 1M free chips and what not indicates pressure from Intel because no one wants 2 year old Athlons while Intel is offering faster, cheaper and more efficient chips, at a better price and in quantities.

There's cheaper than free?

2) This brings us to our second point: the Phenom. AMD has brought out the Phenom 6 months late due to the TLB bug and is currently pushing the bugged chips through its oem channel onto its consumers (check best buy, etc), which sends us the message that they want us to pay for their mistakes. If HP values defective chips less than $0, more power to them.
3) Quantities: AMD has not been able to produce the non-TLB bugged Phenoms in great quantities until recently, and is already limiting that production as it ramps up to 45nm to catch up with Intel, sending its production capacity in limbo until it settles down in q1 2009 when majority of fabs have been refitted/moved over.
Basically, the ONLY time AMD can complain of this is mid 2009, when it is able to churn out 45nm 2.6ghz Phenoms at $200 and companies are not buying, which CAN be proof of Intels intervention, but right now it has no basis. This is just fireworks on their journey to profitability.
And this, coming from an AMD guy

Perkam

Ths isn't about what's going on now but after AMD launched K8. The real counterpoint would be that AMD was already hard presed to fill demand at the time afaik. Still there's no denying Intel did everything in its power to prevent AMD from growing at their full potential.

[Seraphiel]

If Intel really paid some companies so that they don´t use AMD´s cpus, they should not go unpunished.

So what about the companies themselves? They should also not go unpunished then?

Guess who those companies will be less enclined to make deals with, if they loose money because of what AMD has started with this trial.

There must have been something I have missed in all of this. I can't see AMD gaining anything positive from all of this.

[Jakko]

So what about the companies themselves? They should also not go unpunished then?

Guess who those companies will be less enclined to make deals with, if they loose money because of what AMD has started with this trial.

There must have been something I have missed in all of this. I can't see AMD gaining anything positive from all of this.

One example of an outcome would be intel having to pay AMD large summs of money to make up for the missed profits as a result of intels illegal actions.
Basicly AMD is after intels money, and obviously they also do not intel to do such things again in the future.
And the companies themselves should and probably also will be punished in a way, allthough in many cases, an OEM saying no to intels shady deals would get this OEM into big problems if other OEMS do go with the inteal deal. So OEMS didn't really have a chance.

[GoThr3k]

So what about the companies themselves? They should also not go unpunished then?

Guess who those companies will be less enclined to make deals with, if they loose money because of what AMD has started with this trial.

There must have been something I have missed in all of this. I can't see AMD gaining anything positive from all of this.

how would those companies lose money because of what amd started?

If intel has stopped their unfair practices, all prices of their cpu/motherboard rise equally, not differently

[Seraphiel]

One example of an outcome would be intel having to pay AMD large summs of money to make up for the missed profits as a result of intels illegal actions.
Basicly AMD is after intels money, and obviously they also do not intel to do such things again in the future.
And the companies themselves should and probably also will be punished in a way, allthough in many cases, an OEM saying no to intels shady deals would get this OEM into big problems if other OEMS do go with the inteal deal. So OEMS didn't really have a chance.

If the OEM accepted the unlegal deals, then they should be punished like Intel perhaps will. If the OEMs believed they would face unfair competition if they didn't accept, then they themselves should have brought legal against Intel. I am certain they have thought of every possibility, and they still chose to accept Intel's deals.

They had their chances.

how would those companies lose money because of what amd started?

If intel has stopped their unfair practices, all prices of their cpu/motherboard rise equally, not differently

They would loose money because of the punishment being forced by the court. They'll blame AMD, because AMD could have chosen not to take action against Intel.

If they also get punished, which they should if Intel is.

About your last point, how would one thing equal the other?



Didn't AMD back then sell every CPU they made, with greater profit than today? How could they possibly profit more if Intel didn't make these deals, when they didn't have the capacity to sell more?

Again, probably me that got a few things wrong, as it all can't be this obvious, right?

[en4cer]

And for this very reason, I will NEVER, repeat NEVER buy another Intel product for any reason.

Every PC I build for my customers get AMD CPU's

Shady business practices don't fly in my book.

[GAR]

Wayyyyy too many companies crying now a days

Seems to be a trend?

[ryboto]

Didn't AMD back then sell every CPU they made, with greater profit than today? How could they possibly profit more if Intel didn't make these deals, when they didn't have the capacity to sell more?

Again, probably me that got a few things wrong, as it all can't be this obvious, right?

If the OEMs had purchased AMD processors, there would have been a greater demand for them, and AMD may have invested more in fabrication plants because of the greater demand(direct profit from OEMS), and they would have had the investments and backing to do so. Also, Consider the brand recognition, for that entire time the only name the mainstream knew was Pentium. If AMD had been adopted by the OEMs consider where they might be right now in terms of the general public. They might not have had the capacity, but consider the benefits of being a processor inside a Dell machine that every tom, joe and harry go out and purchase. Word of mouth wouldn't have been left to the enthusiast.

As for OEMs being punished, I don't know, even if they are, and this case is public, I don't think they'd want the stigma to back out on AMD after all of this. Besides, if they dropped AMD, who's to say they'd benefit? If Intel knew HP wasn't going to purchase AMD CPUs, couldn't it ask a premium from HP? It's in HP's interest to be a customer to both of them, as it will create competitive pricing.

[Revv23]

I wouldn't take 1 million chips and a bag of cash if i couldn't sell them. Hardware sitting in a warehouse is an expense. The PC business is so low margin and fast changing hardware sitting around leaves you dead in the water.

AMD only offered the chips to clear out thier own inventory, they wouldn't give them away if there was a buyer, but they were sitting on this stockpile of chips no one wanted and losing money on them just sitting there.

Back to the trial... unless intel paid extra for customers to specifically not buy AMD chips i don't think there is a case.... I mean, if i was a car salesman, and i went to a store, and I said to a guy, I will give you $500 off per car if you buy all your cars from me for the next five years. Thats not crushing your competition, thats called a contract. Morally i think intel should be allowed to sell or not sell chips to whoever they see fit - I don't think it's classy, but it's thier company, why can't they? We are talking about the law here not morals though so like i said, unless something really fishy and malicious is going on here, I think this is a drain on both companies cash; for such a desperate time for AMD I think they would be better off licking thier wounds and putting that money into R&D rather then into thier lawyers pockets.

[[XC] Lead Head]

Intel basically did this.

If you don't sell AMD, we will give you large discounts. If you sell AMD, we will get rid of your discounts, and charge you more then everyone else for our CPUs. That is unfair.

[Brother Esau]

And for this very reason, I will NEVER, repeat NEVER buy another Intel product for any reason.

Every PC I build for my customers get AMD CPU's

Shady business practices don't fly in my book.

Right on Brother!!! And yeah sue the crap out of them AMD

[[XC] riptide]

I thought this was in reference to a few years ago when it was AMD's CPUs of the day (AXP or A64) vs intel's CPUs of the day (P4) and the performance was either equal or in AMD's favor? I remember reading one of the original lawsuit articles referencing that and how HP would have taken the free chips to try out except for the fear that intel would have nothing of it and would basically punish HP for doing so.

I know of a few people (one was on XS here, don't know if he still is around or not, ahven't seen him) who had a small PC business, 80% intel 20% AMD systems or something like that, and intel offered a drop in the wholesale price if he was to cut AMD out entirely. He said thanks but no thanks, because he didn't want to alienate the AMD users and he was doing fine at his current pricing anyway. Short while later intel jacked his rates up, which threw him out of business. Hurt intel? Sure, but small fry, I guess they thought it was worth it to loose some sales there in order to chip away at what small portion of marketshare AMD had. He said he wasn't the only one intel had done that to either.

I hope I have all my facts straight.

I remember that guy

[irev210]

i love how people are speculating on a case nobody knows all of the details about.


Fanboys (on both sides) rejoice.

[ethernal]

I can see that no one is a lawyer around here.

Repeat after me: exclusivity contracts (that can include cash payments for exclusivity) are not inherently illegal. The question isn't whether or not Intel used exclusivity contracts or other incentives. The issue is whether or not they were illegal exclusivity contracts. While there are a couple of caveats, the one that we need to look at most is the monopoly one. If you use your large market position to exploit companies and materially harm your smaller competitor(s), that is an illegal exclusivity contract. However, exclusivity contracts are of and by themselves not illegal. AMD must prove that Intel illegally coerced the OEM's into accepting the contracts (e.g., "If you don't accept this deal, we will stop selling to you") or AMD must prove that they were materially harmed by the exclusivity contracts, and since AMD was at capacity during the whole Pentium4 fiasco, that may be relatively hard to prove.

This is a matter of law, not a matter of fact. Even if Intel did what AMD is accusing them of, it may not have been illegal. But it makes a great press release and some negative PR for Intel (because it does sound illegal, so it must be!)

[NotFred]

If this is true, then AMD are right to complain, and we hope something comes of it. It would boil down to a technologically superior company (in those days) being stifled becuase the inferior company has a large cash reserve to throw at people.

If this isn't true... AMD look very silly.

[eleeter]

You have to be incredibly gullible, stupid, a raving fanboy, or a mix of the above to believe that Intel didn't coerce OEM's into using their CPU's or suffer for it.

People need to realize that it is Intel's culture to crush any and all competition at any cost, period. Intel doesn't give 2 s about ethics, fair business practices, fair competition, and will do pretty much anything legal or not to push AMD out of the market.

[ethernal]

You have to be incredibly gullible, stupid, a raving fanboy, or a mix of the above to believe that Intel didn't coerce OEM's into using their CPU's or suffer for it.

There is a difference between illegal coercion and legal coercion. There is a fine line between being competitive and abusing a monopoly position, but it is a moving line, and a line that changes depending on who and what hears the case.

If Intel is found guilty, it won't be for some egregious violation of anti-trust laws. It will be for "overstepping the bounds". Once again, things like this aren't clear cut. There's a lot of shades of grey.

You can have your own personal opinion over whether Intel using exclusivity contracts - perhaps illegally, perhaps not - is wrong, but keep in mind that if Intel wasn't a monopoly, what they would be doing wouldn't bat anyone's eyebrow. That isn't unfair, it's just the way things are: there are reasons why we have anti-trust laws. However, just be aware that virtually every supplier has some form of exclusivity contract. It's only Intel's position that makes it possibly illegal.

Am I an Intel or AMD fanboy? No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out what the law says. If you want to call me "gullible, stupid, or a raving fanboy", go ahead, but I'm just pointing out the actual issue of the case rather than just spewing how Intel is evil or how AMD is evil for suing Intel.

[eXclusive]

+1 Ethernal.. I have an Intel set up but I'm as open ears and minded about this as anybody. I think its unfair to abuse a company that already has as much market share as Intel and foolish to file ignorant lawsuits. I'm not saying either is the case tho. It could be none of or a bit of both. Who knows.