FTC Sues Intel

[skugpezz]

The Federal Trade Commission today sued Intel Corp., the world's leading computer chip maker, charging that the company has illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Intel has waged a systematic campaign to shut out rivals' competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In the process, Intel deprived consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise the computers' central processing unit, or CPU.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/6983/

[Manicdan]

i just got to work and checked on my portfolio, and saw AMD was shooting up again today. and in recent news was this exact thing. even if AMD isnt getting any money, i guess the idea that intel is getting sued again makes it shoot up 7% in the first hour

[Humminn55]

It's going to be an uphill battle since the AMD/Intel settlement which requires essentially an NDA on both parties. So, I'd guess most of the crucial info is now locked up and inaccessible. The FTC is going to have to depend soley upon emails, etc. from Dell and others.

[skugpezz]

Main reason I dont buy intel products.

[quintus]

Too late!

This should have been done in the SLOT 1 era!

[ajaidev]

AAAAAAAAAAA

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:AMD


AMD at $9.36 wowoowowow

[Gilgamesh]

Details here:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm

[naokaji]

I doubt they will get far with it as Intel settled the whole thing with AMD already, so AMD probably can't really say anything against intel anymore in Courts.

but from the looks of it it seems like they are aiming for far more than the whole Intel vs. AMD thing and want to go for Intel for their behaviour towards Nvidia, Via and so on too.

[skugpezz]

I doubt they will get far with it as Intel settled the whole thing with AMD already, so AMD probably can't really say anything against intel anymore in Courts.

but from the looks of it it seems like they are aiming for far more than the whole Intel vs. AMD thing and want to go for Intel for their behaviour towards Nvidia, Via and so on too.

amd isnt the only competition. Amd isnt the one suing here and they could be charged with obstruction of justice if they hold back evidence.

the FTC alleges that Intel has waged a systematic campaign to shut out rivals' competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In the process, Intel deprived consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise the computers' central processing unit, or CPU.

atom packaging anyone?

[Nedjo]

It's going to be an uphill battle since the AMD/Intel settlement which requires essentially an NDA on both parties.

there's no NDA for FTC

[god_43]

It's going to be an uphill battle since the AMD/Intel settlement which requires essentially an NDA on both parties. So, I'd guess most of the crucial info is now locked up and inaccessible. The FTC is going to have to depend soley upon emails, etc. from Dell and others.

no if amd is subpoenaed then they will testify, the agreement just forbade's them to actively volunteer. besides they will likely use the evidence from the EU case as well. this is not an uphill battle. lol a settlement does not give ppl cart blache on the law.

[003]

To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint, the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chips. The FTC also may seek an order prohibiting Intel from unreasonably excluding or inhibiting the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs, and prohibiting Intel from making or distributing products that impair the performance–or apparent performance–of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.

So it doesn't sound like they are pushing for a fine.

[Periander6]

I doubt they will get far with it as Intel settled the whole thing with AMD already, so AMD probably can't really say anything against intel anymore in Courts.

but from the looks of it it seems like they are aiming for far more than the whole Intel vs. AMD thing and want to go for Intel for their behaviour towards Nvidia, Via and so on too.

Indeed. Right from the FTC:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm

Having succeeded in slowing adoption of competing CPU chips over the past decade until it could catch up to competitors like Advanced Micro Devices, Intel allegedly once again finds itself falling behind the competition – this time in the critical market for graphics processing units, commonly known as GPUs, as well as some other related markets. These products have lessened the need for CPUs, and therefore pose a threat to Intel’s monopoly power.

Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.

Sounds like it was practically ghost written by JHH. A couple years ago Intel declared war on Nv. The plan was:

1. Larrabee
2. Cut Nv out of chipsets by not licencing QPI
3. Integrate GPUs onto future dies

Between the Larrabee cancellation and this, Intel's current GPU plans are starting to resemble this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVaX...eature=related

[NickF]

Its too bad that Intel just gave amd over a billion dollars and their legal problems still arent over.

[Mechromancer]

My co-worker's arguments:

Does AMD have their own compiler like Intel? Isn't it just natural that Intel do everything in their power to destroy AMD in the free market system? Why should Intel's compiler, which software developers freely choose, have any enhancements to AMD? What is wrong with even diminishing the performance of a competitor's product with their compiler? Why didn't AMD spend more time and money marketing their products and outdoing Intel during those years they had a performance lead? Is it truly Intel's fault that AMD ran up against high barriers to market access in a free market system? Sure, Intel has a lead with market cap and ISA extensions, so is it their fault people CHOSE to buy their products and use their ISA?

The lawsuits against Intel are invalid overall because their practices are all within the realm of business competition. There are no good or bad business practices, just business practices.

My argument:
<fill in the blank>

Sure, we all know Intel is a F'ing A'hole by doing all of this, but why shouldn't they? They are simply practicing COMPETITION. Now I ask the forum this, all feelings aside, does the FTC (big gov't) have the right to come in and mess with Intel in this manner? If it was AMD trying to stay on top in this manner, would we out of feelings for them, defend them or chastise them?

[skugpezz]

My co-worker's arguments:


My argument:
<fill in the blank>

Sure, we all know Intel is a F'ing A'hole by doing all of this, but why shouldn't they? They are simply practicing COMPETITION. Now I ask the forum this, all feelings aside, does the FTC (big gov't) have the right to come in and mess with Intel in this manner? If it was AMD trying to stay on top in this manner, would we out of feelings for them, defend them or chastise them?

[Manicdan]

well the US could use some of that cash intel has laying around.

[Starscream]

My co-worker's arguments:


My argument:
<fill in the blank>

Sure, we all know Intel is a F'ing A'hole by doing all of this, but why shouldn't they? They are simply practicing COMPETITION. Now I ask the forum this, all feelings aside, does the FTC (big gov't) have the right to come in and mess with Intel in this manner? If it was AMD trying to stay on top in this manner, would we out of feelings for them, defend them or chastise them?

The unfair competition thing vs AMD was mostly Intel forbidding retailers to sell AMD products. Threatening that if the retailer kept selling AMD, intel would stop deliveries of Intel products to that retailer.

And that definetly is unfair competition.

The way Intel treated Nvidia and Via wasnt very nice but dont know if its illegal.

[skycrane]

My co-worker's arguments:


My argument:
<fill in the blank>

Sure, we all know Intel is a F'ing A'hole by doing all of this, but why shouldn't they? They are simply practicing COMPETITION. Now I ask the forum this, all feelings aside, does the FTC (big gov't) have the right to come in and mess with Intel in this manner? If it was AMD trying to stay on top in this manner, would we out of feelings for them, defend them or chastise them?

back in the late 70s the FTC did the same thing to MaBell and look where we are now

if it wasnt for that, that smartphone you have in your pocket would be nonexsistant. forget abut a touch tone phone, if you were rich enough to have a cell phone, it would be a rotary dial.

[Mechromancer]

The unfair competition thing vs AMD was mostly Intel forbidding retailers to sell AMD products. Threatening that if the retailer kept selling AMD, intel would stop deliveries of Intel products to that retailer.

And that definetly is unfair competition.

The way Intel treated Nvidia and Via wasnt very nice but dont know if its illegal.

My co-worker shot that argument down. If those retailers had a choice between one product or the other, not both, why didn't they just go with the superior AMD hardware and stop carrying Intel products? They could have just kicked Intel to the curb, but they didn't for some reason of their own choice. Intel twisted their arm, but they didn't have to stand there and let their arm continue to be twisted.

It would appear that logic is sound (if that is all there is to it).

[skugpezz]

My co-worker shot that argument down. If those retailers had a choice between one product or the other, not both, why didn't they just go with the superior AMD hardware and stop carrying Intel products? They could have just kicked Intel to the curb, but they didn't for some reason of their own choice. Intel twisted their arm, but they didn't have to stand there and let their arm continue to be twisted.

It would appear that logic is sound (if that is all there is to it).

They were paid not to use intel's products. Intel use to pay dell even more than what dell made in a year

[Periander6]

My co-worker shot that argument down. If those retailers had a choice between one product or the other, not both, why didn't they just go with the superior AMD hardware and stop carrying Intel products? They could have just kicked Intel to the curb, but they didn't for some reason of their own choice. Intel twisted their arm, but they didn't have to stand there and let their arm continue to be twisted.

It would appear that logic is sound (if that is all there is to it).

AMD only had so much capacity, and adding capacity is a process in this business that takes years. Everybody couldn't just drop Intel because 75%+ demand would go unfilled for years. In the meantime everyone would have to still carry Intel as the majority of their product line and be subject to Intel's retaliation.

[Mechromancer]

They were paid not to use intel's products. Intel use to pay dell even more than what dell made in a year

AMD only had so much capacity, and adding capacity is a process in this business that takes years. Everybody couldn't just drop Intel because 75%+ demand would go unfilled for years. In the meantime everyone would have to still carry Intel as the majority of their product line and be subject to Intel's retaliation.

I'll let you know how Paul, my co-workers, responds. I simply told him we don't have and do not want a free market in the sense that he believes in. Eventually a total monopoly will happen and the consumer will have no choice in the free market system he believes in (absolutely no regulation).

[Starscream]

My co-worker shot that argument down. If those retailers had a choice between one product or the other, not both, why didn't they just go with the superior AMD hardware and stop carrying Intel products? They could have just kicked Intel to the curb, but they didn't for some reason of their own choice. Intel twisted their arm, but they didn't have to stand there and let their arm continue to be twisted.

It would appear that logic is sound (if that is all there is to it).

Like others said. The realy big OEMs and retail chains (like Metro in europe) got bonusses from Intel if they signed a contract to not sell AMD.
And ofc AMD wouldnt be able to meet the sudden increase in demand. And the most obvious reason the majority of the PC buyers dont have a a clue and only want Intel because Intel is the best, if a store doesnt sell Intel they will go to one that does sell it.

A year or 2 ago there also was a thread about all of this and an XS user who owned or used to own a Computer store posted his experiences.
The Intel rep simply told him that his competitor a few blocks down did sign the agreement to stop selling AMD and in return this competitor got a discount on Intel products.
So the small stores didnt realy have a choice. Either sign it and live or dont sign it and die because your competition gets their hardware cheaper.

[Solus Corvus]

Screw the fines and other punishment. FTC should make Intel put x86 and all extensions into the public domain.