New York attorney general files antitrust lawsuit against Intel

[Katanai]

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

This deal with Dell sounds exactly the same. Intel cuts them a sweetheart deal on chips in exchange for Dell doing much of the distribution and price controls on Intel chips, thus protecting their brand.

Yeah but that's not really the problem here. The illegal part comes in when they threatened to cut this deal off if they would also sale products of their competitors. This is the part that really goes against a free market and is borderline blackmail.

[Wesker]

Unfortunately, I have an exam tomorrow so I'll make this quick.

Originally Posted by w0mbat

It seems u dont know what a free market is based on. Its based on the believe of progress/evolution. Its the idea that competition will result in the greatest progress and that peoply only work to their maximum if they are rewarded accordingly.

I, as well as the majority of economists, disagree.

Capitalism is based on:
- The private ownership of resources;
- Resources are allocated using prices;
- It's based on a Laissez-Faire ("to leave well alone") approach--people should be free to conduct themselves without government intervention.

The driving force behind this isn't progress or evolution. Capitalism will cause progress/evolution in an economy. The driving force is self interest--the self interest of firms and everyone else in the economy.

So a free market means that everyone has the same chance so only the best products to the lowest price can survive = the best for the comunity.

No, you're confusing equity and efficiency with one another. In economics we look at what's the most efficient usage of a resource. Efficiency =! Equity.

Now, by building up a kartell and paying money for exclusive "deals" u take out the competition, but not by having a better product or lower prices. Its like ur stopping progress and evolution and that why its excatly against the capitalist believe.

Except no cartel was formed here. Secondly, prices fell, which increased consumer surplus.

A perfect example of a cartel would be OPEC--where a group of firms increase the markup of their products (because they all sell the same products) to raise profits. This harms the consumer by lowering consumer surplus.

Economists are always concerned when prices are artificially raised, or where there are cases of decreased consumer surplsses.

Its a slap in the face of the free market, yes. But Intel and Dell are the one slapping it by trying to go around the market rules and not taking part in a fair competition. Its like cheating and thats illegal.

I hope u can see that ur idea of capitalism is just wrong

Again; Efficiency =! Equity.

If my idea of capitalism is wrong, then the economists (including Adam Smith) of the three centuries were wrong too.

I'd like to expand on what I said, but I am unfortunately very busy. I will be back though!

[w0mbat]

Originally Posted by Wesker

Unfortunately, I have an exam tomorrow so I'll make this quick.

Well, its a good idea for u to attend it to learn something.

Originally Posted by Wesker

I, as well as the majority of economists, disagree.

Capitalism is based on:
- The private ownership of resources;
- Resources are allocated using prices;
- It's based on a Laissez-Faire ("to leave well alone") approach--people should be free to conduct themselves without government intervention.

The driving force behind this isn't progress or evolution. Capitalism will cause progress/evolution in an economy. The driving force is self interest--the self interest of firms and everyone else in the economy.

Did u read what i wrote? "peoply only work to their maximum if they are rewarded " - thats exactly what u wrote too. I didnt say that the driving force of capitalism (which btw is a bad economic form and only leads to a crysis) is progress/evolution but that its based on the (wrong) believe that it will bring progress/evolution.

Originally Posted by Wesker

No, you're confusing equity and efficiency with one another. In economics we look at what's the most efficient usage of a resource. Efficiency =! Equity.

No, ur confisung a current non perfect market with the idea of a perfect market. Of cause efficiency isnt equity, u dont need to tell me that.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Except no cartel was formed here. Secondly, prices fell, which increased consumer surplus.

I know but first english isnt my native language and i wanted to use a term everyone can understand. And lower prices arent always in the interest in the comunity.

Originally Posted by Wesker

A perfect example of a cartel would be OPEC--where a group of firms increase the markup of their products (because they all sell the same products) to raise profits. This harms the consumer by lowering consumer surplus.

Economists are always concerned when prices are artificially raised, or where there are cases of decreased consumer surplsses.

There are many different kinds of kartells so the OPEC would be one of these kinds, but not a perfect one cause there are more oil-producing countrys that arent in the OPEC than u think.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Again; Efficiency =! Equity.

u dont need to tell me that...

Originally Posted by Wesker

If my idea of capitalism is wrong, then the economists (including Adam Smith) of the three centuries were wrong too.

I'd like to expand on what I said, but I am unfortunately very busy. I will be back though!

Haha, thaks for pointing out Adam Smith. First, he was a very bright mind for his time but he was also very wrong in many things, eg the so called "invisible hand" which is proven to be wrong. He promoted a free market w/o any gov control which will eventually lead to a complete collaps of the market.

For a start u should read "Capital" by Marx, a very good analysis of capitalism that proofed to be right even in our days. And keep studying

[Solus Corvus]

Originally Posted by Wesker

Unfortunately, I have an exam tomorrow so I'll make this quick.

I, as well as the majority of economists, disagree.

Capitalism is based on:
- The private ownership of resources;
- Resources are allocated using prices;
- It's based on a Laissez-Faire ("to leave well alone") approach--people should be free to conduct themselves without government intervention.

The driving force behind this isn't progress or evolution. Capitalism will cause progress/evolution in an economy. The driving force is self interest--the self interest of firms and everyone else in the economy.

No, you're confusing equity and efficiency with one another. In economics we look at what's the most efficient usage of a resource. Efficiency =! Equity.

Except no cartel was formed here. Secondly, prices fell, which increased consumer surplus.

A perfect example of a cartel would be OPEC--where a group of firms increase the markup of their products (because they all sell the same products) to raise profits. This harms the consumer by lowering consumer surplus.

Economists are always concerned when prices are artificially raised, or where there are cases of decreased consumer surplsses.

Again; Efficiency =! Equity.

If my idea of capitalism is wrong, then the economists (including Adam Smith) of the three centuries were wrong too.

I'd like to expand on what I said, but I am unfortunately very busy. I will be back though!

If your only concern is only for economic efficiency, and not fairness or equality, then monopolies are still bad. They are bad for efficiency for the same reason so many "free market" people oppose government interference. Just as government taxes/tariffs/subsidies create a dead weight loss (ie. loss of efficiency), so too does a monopoly create a dead weight loss. Efficiency and innovation in the marketplace is driven by competition. Do something to harm that competition and the market as a whole suffers. It doesn't necessarily mean that prices will rise. But they won't fall as fast, new products won't come out as fast, research on new tech slows, etc.

[Mechromancer]

If AMD had the superior product between 2003 and 2007, why didn't these vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) just say, "Forget you Intel, we don't care if you bully us because we'll just drop your products and go AMD?" Why were these companies reluctant to go with the better product? Was there some other force keeping them with Intel during those four years? It seems to me they were afraid to go AMD for other reasons too. There is no need to let Intel push them to carry only Intel when AMD was clearly superior in every way at the time. Something stinks.

[Hornet331]

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

If AMD had the superior product between 2003 and 2007, why didn't these vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) just say, "Forget you Intel, we don't care if you bully us because we'll just drop your products and go AMD?" Why were these companies reluctant to go with the better product? Was there some other force keeping them with Intel during those four years? It seems to me they were afraid to go AMD for other reasons too. There is no need to let Intel push them to carry only Intel when AMD was clearly superior in every way at the time. Something stinks.

Yes the "force" is known as production cabability. At that time amd only could supply about 20-25% of the whole market, just look at the situation what happend when dell adopted amd, the practically swallowed all of amds production for themself.

If would have been a very bad step form Ibm/HP/Dell id they would just have said to intel: fu, i go amd.
Well they could but intel knew they would have came back on there knees begging for cpus, even when they where inferior. Selling a "crap" cpu is better then not selling a cpu at all. And that would have meant they would have to pay the full price, insted of getting sweet deals.

None of the big oems care if they sell amd or intel cpus, it just who offers the better deal, and there are many factors that play into it. Price and availability are only a few of those variables.

[Andrew LB]

Originally Posted by Katanai

Yeah but that's not really the problem here. The illegal part comes in when they threatened to cut this deal off if they would also sale products of their competitors. This is the part that really goes against a free market and is borderline blackmail.

Ummm... telling the company who has an exclusivity agreement that if they "don't produce contractual results", the deal will be null-in-void.... is hardly illegal.

IT"S PART OF A CONTRACT!!!!!!

A perfect example of a cartel would be OPEC--where a group of firms increase the markup of their products (because they all sell the same products) to raise profits. This harms the consumer by lowering consumer surplus.

WORD!!!!

If AMD had the superior product between 2003 and 2007, why didn't these vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) just say, "Forget you Intel, we don't care if you bully us because we'll just drop your products and go AMD?" Why were these companies reluctant to go with the better product? Was there some other force keeping them with Intel during those four years? It seems to me they were afraid to go AMD for other reasons too. There is no need to let Intel push them to carry only Intel when AMD was clearly superior in every way at the time. Something stinks.

Have you ever heard of "Contractual Agreement"???

The breaking of a legally binding contract is typically met with a HUGE lawsuit and a subsequent financial award which is typically close to the amount of money lost by the corporation who was "violated" when the contract was broken.

I'm not sure what you kids are learning in school these days, but if you truly have zero knowledge of contract law or the other basic fundamentals of running a business... then this country (the USA) really needs help.

[eleeter]

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

fail fail fail and some more fail

Uh huh. You know more than all the regulators and law makers around the world.

[Solus Corvus]

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

Ummm... telling the company who has an exclusivity agreement that if they "don't produce contractual results", the deal will be null-in-void.... is hardly illegal.

IT"S PART OF A CONTRACT!!!!!!
[...]
Have you ever heard of "Contractual Agreement"???

The breaking of a legally binding contract is typically met with a HUGE lawsuit and a subsequent financial award which is typically close to the amount of money lost by the corporation who was "violated" when the contract was broken.

I'm not sure what you kids are learning in school these days, but if you truly have zero knowledge of contract law or the other basic fundamentals of running a business... then this country (the USA) really needs help.

Just because it is in a contract doesn't make it legal. There are lots of things that you could put in a contract that can't legally be enforced. For example, a contract couldn't compel one of the signers to do something illegal. If the contract that Intel signed with Dell was ultimately illegal because of antitrust reasons then it doesn't matter how strongly it is worded - it would be voided if they ever tried to enforce it.

[Wesker]

Originally Posted by w0mbat

Well, its a good idea for u to attend it to learn something.

I applaud your good form. Tell me, do you show this kind of respect to other people in your personal life?

Did u read what i wrote? "peoply only work to their maximum if they are rewarded " - thats exactly what u wrote too. I didnt say that the driving force of capitalism (which btw is a bad economic form and only leads to a crysis) is progress/evolution but that its based on the (wrong) believe that it will bring progress/evolution.

I read what you wrote, and frankly it's wrong.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote, or perhaps read up on some basic microeconomics 101 course readers.

You're now starting to backpeddle on what you said, and now you're claiming that capitalism is a bad economic model.

No, ur confisung a current non perfect market with the idea of a perfect market. Of cause efficiency isnt equity, u dont need to tell me that.

...No I'm not, and I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

I know but first english isnt my native language and i wanted to use a term everyone can understand. And lower prices arent always in the interest in the comunity.

While I have no problem with people of non-English speaking backgrounds, you're doing nothing but causing nothing but confusion when you refer to this case as a cartel--this isn't a cartel and it's probably the total opposite of a cartel (in terms of pricing models and etc). This is more something along the lines of collusion.

There are many different kinds of kartells so the OPEC would be one of these kinds, but not a perfect one cause there are more oil-producing countrys that arent in the OPEC than u think.

Even if they're not in OPEC, they're still part of the cartel (which OPEC member countries would form a majority in).

Perhaps I should said have said 'Oil Industry Cartels'. Never the less, OPEC is one the best examples of a cartel at play.

Haha, thaks for pointing out Adam Smith. First, he was a very bright mind for his time but he was also very wrong in many things, eg the so called "invisible hand" which is proven to be wrong. He promoted a free market w/o any gov control which will eventually lead to a complete collaps of the market.

I have to question your economic credibility here. This is like somebody calling Newton's laws of motion and physics wrong.

First, Smith was not proven wrong. In fact, to this day, his teachings are passed on in every discipline of economics and finance, and most of his theories from 'Wealth of Nations' still hold true to this day. I suggest you pay a visit to your local university, and asking the economic professors whether or not they think that Smith's 'invisible hand' is incorrect.

Secondly, Smith never advocated a government free economy. This is totally wrong. Smith argued that the government should let the economy be free, so that prices in the market could signal where resources could go. He then continued onto say that governments need to play a role in enforcing the rules of the game. For example, assigning property rights, running public goods and services (i.e. account for externalities caused by the market) and run and operate services like national defence and policing.

For a start u should read "Capital" by Marx, a very good analysis of capitalism that proofed to be right even in our days. And keep studying

I have looked into some of the ideas of Marx, and while he had a good idea on some things, his theories are open to a lot of criticism and wrongs.

If your only concern is only for economic efficiency, and not fairness or equality, then monopolies are still bad. They are bad for efficiency for the same reason so many "free market" people oppose government interference. Just as government taxes/tariffs/subsidies create a dead weight loss (ie. loss of efficiency), so too does a monopoly create a dead weight loss. Efficiency and innovation in the marketplace is driven by competition. Do something to harm that competition and the market as a whole suffers. It doesn't necessarily mean that prices will rise. But they won't fall as fast, new products won't come out as fast, research on new tech slows, etc.

Yes, I'm well aware of all that.

I think there's a misunderstanding here that I fully endorse monopolies or something to that degree. Not once did I support monopolies (except for the case of natural monopolies), nor did I say that Intel should become a monopolist.

I'm merely questioning the role of, or rather the action, governments have taken in this Intel case. If the government seeks there to be better competition in the semdiconductor or x86 CPU industry, then going around and slapping fines due to exclusivity is not the way to go. I probably should have said this earlier; I believe that if they want better competition in the market, there has to be a much better way than fining Intel. Because there's no doubt that this will cause an increase in the prices of Intel CPU's (maybe not significantly, but it's still quite a large expense).

[Smartidiot89]

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

Ummm... telling the company who has an exclusivity agreement that if they "don't produce contractual results", the deal will be null-in-void.... is hardly illegal.

IT"S PART OF A CONTRACT!!!!!!

1. Just cause it's in a contract doesn't make it legal.
2. This "contract" wasn't exactly official in any way or shape. It was a personal deal cut between the CEOs

[Solus Corvus]

Originally Posted by Wesker

Yes, I'm well aware of all that.

I think there's a misunderstanding here that I fully endorse monopolies or something to that degree. Not once did I support monopolies (except for the case of natural monopolies), nor did I say that Intel should become a monopolist.

I'm merely questioning the role of, or rather the action, governments have taken in this Intel case. If the government seeks there to be better competition in the semdiconductor or x86 CPU industry, then going around and slapping fines due to exclusivity is not the way to go. I probably should have said this earlier; I believe that if they want better competition in the market, there has to be a much better way than fining Intel. Because there's no doubt that this will cause an increase in the prices of Intel CPU's (maybe not significantly, but it's still quite a large expense).

What about government's supposed monopoly on force?

What should governments do in the intel case? They should do what they have that monopoly of force for, to enforce laws. Are fines the right punishment? I personally don't think so. Something more inline with the rhetoric - like making x86 public domain .

[w0mbat]

Originally Posted by Wesker

[...]
I have to question your economic credibility here. This is like somebody calling Newton's laws of motion and physics wrong.

First, Smith was not proven wrong. In fact, to this day, his teachings are passed on in every discipline of economics and finance, and most of his theories from 'Wealth of Nations' still hold true to this day. I suggest you pay a visit to your local university, and asking the economic professors whether or not they think that Smith's 'invisible hand' is incorrect.

Do u really think that? I mean im shure ur just playing with me. Of cause everyone learns about Adam Amith, i did in my economy lessons too. But the next step in these lessons always is, to find out that his idea was a great one but with the help of many examples u then learn that he was wrong in many things. Its like defending the idea that the world is flat

I frankly cant believe that u got anything to do with economics if u really wana tell me Smith was completely right eg with his "invisible hand".

Originally Posted by Wesker

Secondly, Smith never advocated a government free economy. This is totally wrong.

Lets read what u wrote next...

Originally Posted by Wesker

Smith argued that the government should let the economy be free, so that prices in the market could signal where resources could go.

Oh, did u just say 2 different things?

Originally Posted by Wesker

He then continued onto say that governments need to play a role in enforcing the rules of the game. For example, assigning property rights, running public goods and services (i.e. account for externalities caused by the market) and run and operate services like national defence and policing.

Yes, and thats why hes not completely wrong and why u still learn about his stuff. Cause many of the things he said where right, like many where wrong. The price as lead signal for allocation is a very good and true idea.

Originally Posted by Wesker

I have looked into some of the ideas of Marx, and while he had a good idea on some things, his theories are open to a lot of criticism and wrongs.

Well, of cause hes not perfect but if u read his books u can understand how the economy crysis started in the US last year. And u cant that by believing in Smith´s "invisible hand"...

[chris.y2k.r1]

Originally Posted by Vit^pr0n

This is great and all, but if the money from all these cases don't go to AMD then what will they have accomplished other than exposing them and having them pay off a small ( for them atleast ) fine?

My thoughts precisely.

[Wesker]

Originally Posted by w0mbat

Do u really think that? I mean im shure ur just playing with me. Of cause everyone learns about Adam Amith, i did in my economy lessons too. But the next step in these lessons always is, to find out that his idea was a great one but with the help of many examples u then learn that he was wrong in many things. Its like defending the idea that the world is flat

I frankly cant believe that u got anything to do with economics if u really wana tell me Smith was completely right eg with his "invisible hand".

*sigh* Please re-read what you posted and my replies.

Your points were that the 'invisible hand' theory was flat out wrong and that Smith promoted a government free economy. These points are wrong. The 'invisible hand' was not proven to be incorrect, because it occurs throughout the world economy each and everyday. Every transaction that is made on say the stock market, the FOREX market or even at a car auction is explained by the 'invisible hand'.

Now it's true that sometimes, markets fail to reach an economically efficient outcome. But this is quite rare, and is referred to as market failure.

Lets read what u wrote next...

Oh, did u just say 2 different things?

Thank you for cutting me off. Especially where I said "He continues on with..."

Yes, and thats why hes not completely wrong and why u still learn about his stuff. Cause many of the things he said where right, like many where wrong. The price as lead signal for allocation is a very good and true idea.

That's the main contention behind the 'invisible hand'.

Well, of cause hes not perfect but if u read his books u can understand how the economy crysis started in the US last year. And u cant that by believing in Smith´s "invisible hand"...

The global financial crisis last year cannot be explained by Karl Marx, or anyone of socialist thinking for that matter. I doubt Marx could even explain what a derivative is let alone a collateralized debt obligation.

You expect me to explain such a complicated event like the GFC, using only a simple concept like the 'invisible hand'?
Can you explain to me the half a century lack of productivity growth and eventual implosion of the Soviet Union, using only the theorem of captial by Karl Marx?

EDIT: I think we've de-railed this topic by quite a bit. My apologies for that. As such, this is my final post in this topic.

[chris.y2k.r1]

Originally Posted by K404

Theres more than one way to swing a cat. If Intel offered discount for bulk buy, thats fine- but they offered discount only for exclusivity. Utterly wrong. Who else is doing this the same way intel were?

Swing a cat
rotate a feline
tabby-coptor

It's 'Skin a cat' - IE: 'Shave a pussy' - 'Tabby Trimmer' but you knew that... (Holy Poop! I could type "Shave a pussy" without the censorship! Yes! pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy pussy............ cat!

What's worse is Intel "Punishing" Dell for carrying competition. It is sad that Intel is so afraid to compete. If they had just let things be, both Intel and AMD would have more money (Intel with less fines and AMD with more sales) and better products due to heightened competitive R&D. Who wins in this scenario - in my eyes, everyone. On the other hand, keep doing it the Intel way and everyone including Intel loses. And this time it is going to cost them.

I truly wish AMD would stand to gain more than they do. They have sacrificed so much, restructured, been and are burried in the red just to compete with such a dirty player all so we can have a cheap, good CPU.

If you consider the fact that AMD is now making CPUs, chipsets and video cards then you realize that we aren't just talking $100 per computer that AMD lost on a CPU but much more than that. I own both platforms - who ever makes the best at the time I'm buying that is within my budget, gets my money. I just wonder how much further along we might be if AMD and Intel competed in a technical battle like they should have instead of this La Costa Nostra crap.

Totally off topic, I just don't get the censorship action on this site - especially when the owner's name is FUGGER. I mean, it's the internet - Nothing is G-rated, hell even google is PG!

[chris.y2k.r1]

Originally Posted by w0mbat

Do u really think that? I mean im shure ur just playing with me. Of cause everyone learns about Adam Amith, i did in my economy lessons too. But the next step in these lessons always is, to find out that his idea was a great one but with the help of many examples u then learn that he was wrong in many things. Its like defending the idea that the world is flat

I frankly cant believe that u got anything to do with economics if u really wana tell me Smith was completely right eg with his "invisible hand".

Lets read what u wrote next..
[Edited for brevity by chris.y2k....]
Oh, did u just say 2 different things?

Yes, and thats why hes not completely wrong and why u still learn about his stuff. Cause many of the things he said where right, like many where wrong. The price as lead signal for allocation is a very good and true idea.

Well, of cause hes not perfect but if u read his books u can understand how the economy crysis started in the US last year. And u cant that by believing in Smith´s "invisible hand"...

Just a little unsolicited advice...

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate on the Interweb, it really helps your case to use proper punctuation and actually take the time to hit the other two keys and spell out "y-o-u".

Otherwise, referring to "you" as "u" in the midst of an Internet debate is like testifying in Court while wearing Super Friends Underoos.

[haylui]

hopefully the money fined goes into AMD, partially will do.....
if not, all the law suits are just too late to give enough pressure to Intel...

[cegras]

I have little to no respect for financial engineers; that's pretty much what led to the current situation of the world, including pretty much every other bubble in the past.

You cannot hope to sway public opinion about this deal with 'Adam Smith.' Intel and Dell, regardless of the strictest definition of right or wrong, will be punished accordingly.

[w0mbat]

Originally Posted by Wesker

*sigh* Please re-read what you posted and my replies.

I did that.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Your points were that the 'invisible hand' theory was flat out wrong and that Smith promoted a government free economy. These points are wrong. The 'invisible hand' was not proven to be incorrect, because it occurs throughout the world economy each and everyday. Every transaction that is made on say the stock market, the FOREX market or even at a car auction is explained by the 'invisible hand'.

No, u dont understand the whole thing. Its not the "invisible hand", its proven to be wrong. Just look at the US and u can see that its not working at all.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Now it's true that sometimes, markets fail to reach an economically efficient outcome. But this is quite rare, and is referred to as market failure.

Is not that rare and it only can be controlled if the market is lead by many rules and controlled by the gov.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Thank you for cutting me off. Especially where I said "He continues on with..."

That doesnt change anything.

Originally Posted by Wesker

That's the main contention behind the 'invisible hand'.

Yes, according to Smith. But that not true simply as the allocation via the prices isnt doing anything as the "invisible hand" is supposed to do.

Originally Posted by Wesker

The global financial crisis last year cannot be explained by Karl Marx, or anyone of socialist thinking for that matter. I doubt Marx could even explain what a derivative is let alone a collateralized debt obligation.

Of cause it can be explained by Marx and im very shure Marx has much more understanding of a capitalist market than u.

Originally Posted by Wesker

You expect me to explain such a complicated event like the GFC, using only a simple concept like the 'invisible hand'?
Can you explain to me the half a century lack of productivity growth and eventual implosion of the Soviet Union, using only the theorem of captial by Karl Marx?

What does the "Capital" by Marx have to do with the economie in the UDSSR? Well, not that much.

Originally Posted by Wesker

EDIT: I think we've de-railed this topic by quite a bit. My apologies for that. As such, this is my final post in this topic.

Well, i think ur right with that and over the internet its always more complicated.

The thing is, that a free market is the worst economie typ mankind can think off cause it eventually leads to a collaps and forming a few very rich and many more poor people. Now note, that there are other models using many things from the "free" market model that work much better.

Originally Posted by chris.y2k.r1

Just a little unsolicited advice...

If you want to be taken seriously in a debate on the Interweb, it really helps your case to use proper punctuation and actually take the time to hit the other two keys and spell out "y-o-u".

Otherwise, referring to "you" as "u" in the midst of an Internet debate is like testifying in Court while wearing Super Friends Underoos.

Thx and i know that its not good but its much more easy for me this way.

[[XC] Lead Head]

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I wouldn't really be surprised if this had anything to do with the latest round of threats given by the New York Federal Reserve to dozens of privately owned Fortune 500 companies, demanding that they drastically cut executive pay or "face an FDIC audit", which would cost tens of millions of dollars per corporation. Since it's obvious that Intel isn't a bank thus an FDIC audit can't be used... other means to achieve the guals of Obama's "Pay Czar" must be explored.

And yes... it is not only illegal, but flat out unconstitutional to threaten a privately owned corporation with with said "penalties" in order to force them to restructure how they compensate employees.

... but since when has the Constitution even been factored into any of the decisions made by a corrupt President whose sole goal is to massively expand the powers of the federal government?




Hate to burst your bubble, but it is not illegal in the United States to broker an extremely sweet exclusivity deal with one of your business partners. By handing Dell a big slice of the chip market and subsequently causing 3rd party companies to buy from Dell instead of Intel, it frees them up from having to deal with all those smaller accounts.

A few years ago I was running the North American operations of a German motorsport company called Oettinger GmbH, and it was common practice to make exclusivity deals with tuning companies in Canada and Mexico to streamline the flow of goods and to prevent gray market products from undercutting our partners. Thank god such deals were in fact legal because I had enough BS to deal with here in the U.S., with various tuners constantly fighting with each other and myself over the wholesale discounts they were given as well as their complaints over their competitors discounts.

This deal with Dell sounds exactly the same. Intel cuts them a sweetheart deal on chips in exchange for Dell doing much of the distribution and price controls on Intel chips, thus protecting their brand.

Intel was not like "We normally charge $75 per chip, but if you only carry us, will only charge you $45", they were more along the lines of "We normally charge $75 per chip, but if you only carry us will charge you $45 - but if you carry AMD, we'll charge you $115 per chip"

There is actually a member here on XS, I forgot who it was, but that is exactly what Intel did to him. He owned a computer shop and did decent business with both Intel and AMD chips, Intel offered him some deals exclusivity deals, but he didn't want to loose the fairly large chunk of AMD sales he had, so instead of going back to their original price, Intel charged him more for their CPUs. Drove him out of business because his Intel prices were higher then everyone else's

[thatdude90210]

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

There is actually a member here on XS, I forgot who it was, but that is exactly what Intel did to him. He owned a computer shop and did decent business with both Intel and AMD chips, Intel offered him some deals exclusivity deals, but he didn't want to loose the fairly large chunk of AMD sales he had, so instead of going back to their original price, Intel charged him more for their CPUs. Drove him out of business because his Intel prices were higher then everyone else's

I support the NY AG's antitrust suit against Intel, as I found it incredible that during the A64 era of dominance, Dell didn't offer any AMD chips in their desktop configs. But I find it hard to believe that Intel would waste resources to implement their policy at the local shop level.

[god_43]

Originally Posted by thatdude90210

I support the NY AG's antitrust suit against Intel, as I found it incredible that during the A64 era of dominance, Dell didn't offer any AMD chips in their desktop configs. But I find it hard to believe that Intel would waste resources to implement their policy at the local shop level.

in order to protect the top, you have to subdue the bottom.

[flippin_waffles]

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Intel was not like "We normally charge $75 per chip, but if you only carry us, will only charge you $45", they were more along the lines of "We normally charge $75 per chip, but if you only carry us will charge you $45 - but if you carry AMD, we'll charge you $115 per chip"

There is actually a member here on XS, I forgot who it was, but that is exactly what Intel did to him. He owned a computer shop and did decent business with both Intel and AMD chips, Intel offered him some deals exclusivity deals, but he didn't want to loose the fairly large chunk of AMD sales he had, so instead of going back to their original price, Intel charged him more for their CPUs. Drove him out of business because his Intel prices were higher then everyone else's

I'm not sure it can get much sleazier than that. For anyone to side with those kinds of tactics says more about them than it does about intel. j/k but anyway it just doesn't seem like something good for the market.

[initialised]

Originally Posted by Smartidiot89

So what? Down with monopolistic behaviour, lets see what a fair x86 market looks like.

Trust me they wil find this thread soon

A fair x86 market doesn't exist. A fair market for CPUs may exist once windows supports CPUs other than x86.