I don't think it's a never ending circle because if Intel though AMD couldn't make more why didn't they make them self imploded? The fact they made a move to prevent AMD to sell more prove they felt in danger at that time.Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I say it's a never ending circle because when Intel makes one argument, AMD counters with another... meaning, Intel argues AMD would not have sold any more than they did during they hey day because they could not make more (capacity constrained), AMD counters 'we would not have been capacity contrained if you weren't monopolistic as we would have anticipated the need for the capacity and built it' ... it seems to go on and on and on.
I can't really decipher it all, we only hear or read about what is in the news and makes headlines. I am just commenting on what Intel is arguing and what AMD is arguing, I don't know who is right.
Making moves to prevent your competitor from selling more is called competition, AMD makes moves to prevent Intel from selling stuff all the time as well, by lowering prices for one -- Intel counters by offering lower prices as well. It's not illegal to offer better deals so people buy your stuff instead of your competitors.
What is illegal, at least in US cases, is to sell below costs in order to drive competitors out of business to later raise prices (this is called predatory pricing).
Last edited by JumpingJack; 10-31-2009 at 12:29 AM.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
Like I quoted/responded to the nice gentleman/fella above, I am not describing anything, I am simply reading the statements/court briefs. Intel makes a point that AMD was capacity constrained, AMD does not appear to contest that argument, they claim they were constrained because they did not build out capacity since they did not anticipate the demand due to Intel's monopolistic behavior.
I dont' know who is right -- but this is one, of many, lines of arguments each are making.
Last edited by JumpingJack; 10-31-2009 at 12:12 AM.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
You can describe points after reading them, that's what you did.I didn't say you made it up, it was false or wrong or anything, just put what you wrote into a perspective and that is that the capacity shouldn't matter for an antitrust case (in the EU at least).
Seems that Intel's arguments haven't been very effective for a reason then.
P180 Mini - Rampage III Gene - W3570 - TRUE120 - 6GB @ 1420Mhz 7-7-7-15 - MSi GTX670 OC - Samsung 830 256GB & Samsung F1 1TB - BenQ VW2420H
Intel not arguing it's justify itself...
At that time Intel move was not to lowered it price, they paid to restrain AMD sales. That's illegal!
I wonder why in the US, certain restaurants and pizza franchises exclusively carry only Coca-Cola or Pepsi products, and not both. What kinda deals are going on there?
Not comparable. Intel and AMD are the main processor manufacturers. Coke and Pepsi may own lots of market share but you can drink other drinks instead.I wonder why in the US, certain restaurants and pizza franchises exclusively carry only Coca-Cola or Pepsi products, and not both. What kinda deals are going on there?
His 3570K 4.2GHz 1.18v / Corsair H50 / ASRock Z68 Pro3-M / G. Skill 16GB DDR3 1600 / MSI Twin Frozr II 6950 2GB / NZXT Hale90 650w
Hers G850 2.81GHz / Stock HSF / ASUS P8H61-I / SuperTalent 2x4GB 1333 CL8 / Antec Neo 520c
Kid's G530 2.4GHz / A70 / ECS H61H2-M2 / OCZ 4GB DDR3 1066 / Antec Neo 620c
HTPC A6-3650 2.9GHz 1.248v / Stock Copper HSF / MSI A75MA-G55 / G. Skill ECO 4GB DDR3 1866 MHz 9-10-9-28-42 / Coolermaster GX450 Bronze
Yeah like other major softdrink brands that are also owned by pepsi and coca cola.
Not when you buy from these major franchises. Also, there is VIA, which was stronger during the period in question than it is now. So, it's very much applicable. I remember German forum members specifically talking about the major computer retail store where all the PCs were Intel based or something. So just like Pizza hut, for example, when you enter this particular store, all you could carry out was an Intel-based PC. Didn't mean you couldn't buy an AMD based computer from a local corner shop.
QFT! Coca-Cola makes over 150 soft drinks, including water products.Yeah like other major softdrink brands that are also owned by pepsi and coca cola.
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/b...ct_list_a.html click on each bottle for a list of drinks. That's over 3000 beverages!
Last edited by Europa; 10-31-2009 at 10:10 AM.
If you dont like the comparison with the Coca-Cola, you can find something closer - Sapphire doesnt make cards with Nvidia's GPU, on the other hand EVGA doesnt make cards with AMD's GPU - looks familiar?
Familiar to what?
AMD pay Sapphire to not build Nvidia cards?
Nvidia pay EVGA to no build AMD cards?
Why don't they? What in your estimation is the reason why they don't? Fact is, exclusivity is not a novel idea in business.
Educate yourself:
Sherman Antitrust Act
Clayton Antitrust Act
No, you educate yourself:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/artic...ced-seven.html
Be sure to scroll down....
And more.....
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=pizza...148470ea1f7ec2
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr.../255565-1.htmlCoke wins Burger King, Domino's Pizza
primary supply contract: The long-term contract signed by Coca-Cola Co. with Burger King and Domino's Pizza will cost Coke some major margin money. The contract, considered a setback for rival PepsiCo, Inc., promises major rebates and enticements, according...
Last edited by Europa; 10-31-2009 at 11:18 AM.
OMFGI wonder why in the US, certain restaurants and pizza franchises exclusively carry only Coca-Cola or Pepsi products, and not both. What kinda deals are going on there?
The chip market is very innovative and has short product cycles, also it is price sensitive unlike softdrinks. No where near to comparable. Please go learn some basic economy, and take some time for law too as the law was also - knowingly I might add - violated. Can't deny that.
It seems that we keep having the same discussions over and over on XS, when the subject is about the antitrust lawsuits. Facts don't lie though.
P180 Mini - Rampage III Gene - W3570 - TRUE120 - 6GB @ 1420Mhz 7-7-7-15 - MSi GTX670 OC - Samsung 830 256GB & Samsung F1 1TB - BenQ VW2420H
So you're saying antitrust does not apply to the soft-drink industry? (Yawn) NEXT!OMFG
The chip market is very innovative and has short product cycles, also it is price sensitive unlike softdrinks. No where near to comparable. Please go learn some basic economy, and take some time for law too as the law was also - knowingly I might add - violated. Can't deny that.
It seems that we keep having the same discussions over and over on XS, when the subject is about the antitrust lawsuits. Facts don't lie though.
You're comparing apple to lemon.
Soft-drink industry is not a bipolar industry. Coca Cola hold like 45% of this market and Pepsi like 30% Moreover soft-drink is a part of drink industry and represent 50% of it.
CPU industry is a (nearly) a bipolar industry. Intel hold 80% of the market, AMD 13%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28economics%29A company, brand, product, or service that has a combined market share exceeding 60% most probably has market power and market dominance.
Not only that but using exclusive deals does not put Coke or Pepsi out of business. Intel's anti-competitive practices were intended to. That is abusing your market position.
Intel, nvidia, microsoft, norton, america online. you might just think the devil himselfs owns these companys. just another explaination of a brutal monopoly. burn them to the ground.
it don't matter anyways by the looks of things now by the end of obamas 4 yrs the dollar will be gone and so wont intel and amd. hopefully amd can hold out they dont carry nearly as much toxic debt that intel does; not to mention intels share took the biggest hit last year.
Take a look at the derivatives market. if a 4.85 quadrillion black hole needs to be paid off; which the crooks on wall street will demand from the taxpayer. intel will be gone during the afternoon sell off.
I am just waiting for that black monday, next terrorist attack, israel nukes iran. w/e the swine flu; can take an enormous toll on the markets to the point where the fed cannot manipulate anymore.
see all those cash 4 gold commercials, at least someone knows whats going on...
i did not think that intel had debt? i mean they have made a lot of profit, i just assumed that their debt would be paid off?
[MOBO] Asus CrossHair Formula 5 AM3+
[GPU] ATI 6970 x2 Crossfire 2Gb
[RAM] G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 1600
[CPU] AMD FX-8120 @ 4.8 ghz
[COOLER] XSPC Rasa 750 RS360 WaterCooling
[OS] Windows 8 x64 Enterprise
[HDD] OCZ Vertex 3 120GB SSD
[AUDIO] Logitech S-220 17 Watts 2.1
Capacity has everything to do with it when you think it through, if AMD argues they weren't more successful because Intel was monopolistic, Intel has an very good argument that this is not true.... AMD was very successful during the K8 vs Netburst days, registering 14 quarters of growth at Intel's expense -- AMD even bragged about it during several conference calls as I recall.You can describe points after reading them, that's what you did.
Seems that Intel's arguments haven't been very effective for a reason then.
So the bottom line -- AMD argues that though they recorded record gains, they should have done better and that this is evidence that Intel was monopolistic. This is the very essence of their argument -- read their original filing. (Again, I am just restating how each are arguing, not what is true or factual or even what I believe).
To counter this, Intel argues that AMD's lack of 'doing better' was caused by AMD's lack of capacity, that they ran constrained -- basically, Intel is saying AMD is incompetent. In order to bust up AMD's reasoning, Intel has to show that AMD in fact ran full capacity through out the complaint period and sold everything they could sell and could not have sold more if they wanted to, this is crucial part of the argument actually. Intel has a good point here (this is my opinion now), because from 2003 to 2006 AMD scrambled for capacity, they even worked out an arrangement with Chartered to make more.
So the Intel argument goes as such... If AMD could not sell more product because they could not make more is, indeed, important ... since the reason AMD failed to move even higher in the market was not caused by Intel blocking them (behaving monopolistic) but because they could not make enough of it. At least this is where all this is headed.
Like I have said before, I don't know because all that information is wrapped up in a nice tight seal from the publicly redacted documents. Intel certainly has a point, google around and you will find stories of AMD over loading factories to try to keep up with demand and where AMD held as much as 80% of the retail desktop share. So, personally, I don't dismiss Intel's argument as hogwash, however, I don't necessarily accept it as fact either -- simply because we are not privileged to all the information.
If you peruse all the filings, you will find oodles of subpoenas issued by Intel to obtain AMD manufacturing information, and you will find oodles of motions by AMD trying to block them from getting it.
Last edited by JumpingJack; 10-31-2009 at 10:31 PM.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
When I go into Best Buy, or the now Defunct Circuit city, and look for say Pinnacle Studio's latest and greatest, right on the front of the box it often offers me up 20 or 30 bucks rebate for upgrading from a competitors product. They are paying me to stop using and not buy their competitors products... this is called competition, this is not illegal, it is a protected business practice by the anti-trust laws themselves.
It is not illegal to offer up better deals (lower prices, rebates, however you want to phrase it) to gain more sales, heck it is even not illegal to say I will sell you at X price lower if you buy 100% from me.
It is only illegal if the ultimate prices comes in below the costs of which it is to create the goods. This is called predatory pricing.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
And thats why AMD again argues that capacity would have been there if demand was ,which Intel cut off by bribing OEMs .If AMD had more contracts with OEM that's more investment and more fiances and more leverage .... bottom line is they could have made more chips .
My Heatware
Originally Posted by some guy on internet
That's your problem right there. Just forget about how things look on paper as that's irrelevant.
That's a very weak argument. Well, yea what we did was illegal, but our competition had their own problems so it doesn't matter so much. We cool judge? High fives jury.
Its all moot isn't it? Why are we even debating if Intel did anything or not. They have already been convicted in how many countries now?
Our courts should not even be wasting their time and OUR money on this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
