AMD files antitrust case against Intel

[Wrench]

say its about friggen time they did this. I don't think Intel can escape this case as easy as the previous one.


http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,...l?redir=CORBF02

http://driverheaven.net/#news78072

SUNNYVALE, CA - June 28, 2005 - AMD (NYSE: AMD) announced today that it filed an antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation ("Intel") yesterday in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel - including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents.

"Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation - and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market," said Hector Ruiz, AMD chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer. "Whether through higher prices from monopoly profits, fewer choices in the marketplace or barriers to innovation - people from Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel's monopoly abuses."

x86 microprocessors run the Microsoft Windows(r), Solaris and Linux families of operating systems. Even Apple(r), a pioneer of the PC and one of the industry's enduring innovators, announced that it would switch exclusively to x86 processors to run Mac OS(r) software beginning in 2006. Intel's share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power.

This litigation follows a recent ruling from the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC), which found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices to stop AMD's increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers. Intel did not contest these charges.

The European Commission has stated that it is pursuing an investigation against Intel for similar possible antitrust violations and is cooperating with the Japanese authorities.

"You don't have to take our word for it when it comes to Intel's abuses; the Japanese government condemned Intel for its exclusionary and illegal misconduct," said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. "We encourage regulators around the world to take a close look at the market failure and consumer harm Intel's business practices are causing in their nations. Intel maintains illegal monopoly profits at the expense of consumers and computer manufacturers, whose margins are razor thin. Now is the time for consumers and the industry worldwide to break free from the abusive Intel monopoly."

The 48-page complaint, drafted after an intensive investigation by AMD's lead outside counsel, Charles P. Diamond of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, details numerous examples of what Diamond describes as "a pervasive, global scheme to coerce Intel customers from freely dealing with AMD to the detriment of customers and consumers worldwide." According to the complaint, Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly by, among other things:

*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.

[mache]

also here : http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...628010541.html

I expect to see an agreement before something ugly happends and the customers have to pay for this stupid conflict.

[agenda2005]

I personally do not like law suits, but in case a person/organization is involved in recklessness, then a lawasuit is probably the last resort.
On the last point, Intel compilers are known to give the best floating point performance, but I can attest to the fact that it's not the case for AMD processors.
I have a 3700+ running at 237X11 = 2604MHz with SuSe Linux Pro. 9.3 64bit. I'm a premier member of Intel compiler, but this compiler suck really bad on my AMD processor. Let me break it down.

For my test program here are the result.


gcc v 3.3.5(64-bit)
Size of executable 465 KB
Run time 2min 56sec

PathScale v 2.1(64bit)
Size of executable 568 KB
Run time 1min 54sec

Intel Compiler 8.1(64bit)
Size of executable 1343 KB
Run time 5min34sec




As you can see, intel compiler irrespective of any optimization flag, generate a huge executable which is more than the L1+L2 cache combine, so the program has to store part of the executable in the main memory, which is really bad. I have tried other carppy compilers but the highest executable I got was 654 KB.
The question has been asked several time on Intel premier website as to why intel 64-bit compiler generate so huge executable on AMD processors (opteron especially) while those of other competitors provide a reasonable size. The mods on the forum usually ignore it or simply tell you that AMD also uses intel compiler for their SPEC score. That's right, but AMD only uses the 32-bit one, not the 64-bit. They know the 64-bit performance on AMD processor is a real killer, I beleive they are doing something to make the compiler choke and produce so much gabbage once it detects that the CPU is not an intel processor. This is a BAD practice and such attitude does not foster a healthy development. It's a shame that such a big company can resort into such a dirty trick to make itself look better.

[Ugly n Grey]

This is effectively bad news for AMD. To me it screems that they were unable to get support for their complaints from the Federal Justice department and have chosen to go it alone on their own dollar in order to win cash/concessions. Usually these private suits get settled out of court instead of having remedies put into place to ensure competition. Recall, AMD's only priority is it's shareholders. That's it.

[RaptorRaider]

LOL...

'Intel is going to face the music'

Another topic here.

[DudeMiester]

Well since there is the Japanese precedant, and no doubt AMD has been building up vast amounts of evidence over the years, there's no way AMD can loose. Sure Intel can get good laywers, but AMD isn't exactly poor either so they can get good ones too. Intel is going down, and this is the publicity AMD needs to take Intel's corperate image down a notch. I can't wait to see the aftermath of this!

[Ugly n Grey]

I still doubt it will ever see the light of day, Intel will likely settle this and we'll never get a full briefing of AMD's evidence

[Cooper]

I still doubt it will ever see the light of day, Intel will likely settle this and we'll never get a full briefing of AMD's evidence

We already seene enough, ao have millions around the World. I see some huge court trial. Hope that we-customers and both Intel and AMD won`t be hurt. But...somebody really should be...
Only this year I found out that Intel was lying to customers and now THIS.
Monopoly
Healthy competition

[bfx]

As others have said it'll probably end up being settled out of court with some quid pro quo taking place after a few court sessioms.

That's the way most, if not all, Intel/AMD cases have been settled.

Whatever happens the ones most likely to be affected are those that buy off-the-shelf systems. DIY'ers probably won't notice much difference.

bfx

[timpanogos]

DIY's will feel the difference, if AMD is keep from the off-the-shelf turnkey market as well, that's where the majority of the money is

[Quanticles]

This one looks like it might be a bit different... I wouldnt expect anything at this point

[wfarid]

this is going to be fun...

[Cooper]

this is going to be fun...

yeah ? for who ? This court gonna cost a lot of money and time. And who knows how this could affect production facilities and development.

[Ugly n Grey]

Exactly my point, it's cheaper to settle and keep it out of the news.

[[XC] leviathan18]

anyone amd wants to enter with dell xD

[onewingedangel]

A victory for AMD wouldn't be all that good for AMD really. At the moment Intel resorts to rebates etc. to ensure their market dominance (which in many ways helps AMD). If they are forced to compete on an even playing field they will likely sell their processors dirt cheap in AMD's key areas and cut AMD's bottom line out from under them. Intel has excess capacity and the cheaper processes. AMD can't make enough processors for retail sales let alone supply OEM's and system integrators as well as retail. If Dell sold AMD processorsthey would only be able to offer one or two models, as they would eat up all of AMD's capacity on those models alone (eg. one single core system and one dual core system).

[Entity_Razer]

onewingedangel, fab 35 is comming up to full production state which WILL give AMD a surplus in production

don't forget, they even have a fab 37(or 38 what was it?) planned

and this is a good thing. Now maybe we will finally get some better competition between AMD and intell. And it's not only the chips, it's the compilers that produce "bad"/ slower code for AMD's then they do for intel

[Quanticles]

A victory for AMD wouldn't be all that good for AMD really. At the moment Intel resorts to rebates etc. to ensure their market dominance (which in many ways helps AMD). If they are forced to compete on an even playing field they will likely sell their processors dirt cheap in AMD's key areas and cut AMD's bottom line out from under them. Intel has excess capacity and the cheaper processes. AMD can't make enough processors for retail sales let alone supply OEM's and system integrators as well as retail. If Dell sold AMD processorsthey would only be able to offer one or two models, as they would eat up all of AMD's capacity on those models alone (eg. one single core system and one dual core system).

You obviously didnt read the news briefing.

------

AMD wants to be a serious player. They're going to make sure they win, there's going to be no settlement, and it's supposedly going to be a jury trial.

[Hans.Gruber]

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.

Slight dent on the road of success for AMD.

[Quanticles]

48 HP In 2002, when AMD set out to earn a place in HP’s commercial Desktop product roadmap, HP demanded a $25 million quarterly fund to compensate it for Intel’s expected retaliation. Eager to break into the commercial market, and to earn a place in HP’s successful “Evo” product line, AMD agreed instead to provide HP with the first million microprocessors for free in an effort to overcome Intel’s financial hold over HP. On the eve of the launch, HP disclosed its plan to Intel, which told HP it considered AMD’s entry into HP’s commercial line a “Richter 10” event. It immediately pressured HP into (1) withdrawing the AMD offering from its premier “Evo” brand and (2) withholding AMD-powered computer from HP’s network of independently value-added resellers, the HP’s principal point of access to small business users for whom the computer was designed in the first place. Intel went so far as to pressure HP’s senior management to consider firing the HP executive who spearheaded the AMD commercial desktop proposal. As a result of Intel’s coercion, the HP-AMD desktop offering was dead on arrival. HP ended up taking only 160,000 of the million microprocessors AMD offered for free. As of today, HP’s AMD equipped commercial desktops remain channel-restricted, and AMD’s share of this business remains insignificant.

There are *dozens* of these in the complaint that was filed.

[Hans.Gruber]

I personally do not like law suits, but in case a person/organization is involved in recklessness, then a lawasuit is probably the last resort.
On the last point, Intel compilers are known to give the best floating point performance, but I can attest to the fact that it's not the case for AMD processors.
I have a 3700+ running at 237X11 = 2604MHz with SuSe Linux Pro. 9.3 64bit. I'm a premier member of Intel compiler, but this compiler suck really bad on my AMD processor. Let me break it down.

For my test program here are the result.


gcc v 3.3.5(64-bit)
Size of executable 465 KB
Run time 2min 56sec

PathScale v 2.1(64bit)
Size of executable 568 KB
Run time 1min 54sec

Intel Compiler 8.1(64bit)
Size of executable 1343 KB
Run time 5min34sec




As you can see, intel compiler irrespective of any optimization flag, generate a huge executable which is more than the L1+L2 cache combine, so the program has to store part of the executable in the main memory, which is really bad. I have tried other carppy compilers but the highest executable I got was 654 KB.
The question has been asked several time on Intel premier website as to why intel 64-bit compiler generate so huge executable on AMD processors (opteron especially) while those of other competitors provide a reasonable size. The mods on the forum usually ignore it or simply tell you that AMD also uses intel compiler for their SPEC score. That's right, but AMD only uses the 32-bit one, not the 64-bit. They know the 64-bit performance on AMD processor is a real killer, I beleive they are doing something to make the compiler choke and produce so much gabbage once it detects that the CPU is not an intel processor. This is a BAD practice and such attitude does not foster a healthy development. It's a shame that such a big company can resort into such a dirty trick to make itself look better.

Does it make same exe in Intel platform ?

[agenda2005]

I don't have a 64 bit intel platform to compare. We only have 32-bit intel machines around to test. Since I'm reffering to 64-bit platform, it woundn't make any sense comparing with a 32-bit Intel cpu.

[Hans.Gruber]

I tought that it's possible to compile 64bit binaries in 32bit platform, that the icc has some option for it.
But of cource you can't run it.

[agenda2005]

Yes! ofcourse I can compile in 32-bit mode(emulation), but I will be missing the extra 8-registers in the 64-bit mode which is basically what I'm interested in. I've not tried it, but I will see how the 32-bit perform on my 64-bit OS.