×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

N.Y. AG Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the monopoly-on-legal-use-of-force dept.

The Courts 169

CWmike writes "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel, alleging that the company engaged in a 'systematic campaign' of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly. Cuomo's lawsuit alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors. Intel gave computer makers payments totaling billions of dollars in exchange for the exclusive agreements, and the company threatened to cut off payments to computer makers or fund their competitors when they worked with other microprocessor makers, the lawsuit alleged. Cuomo's lawsuit comes less than two weeks after news reports that the FTC is considering filing a formal complaint against Intel. 'Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,' Cuomo said in a statement. 'Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

It's the new fad (5, Insightful)

Bobnova (1435535) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984116)

Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.

Govt Seizure of Private Business (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29984206)

Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.

This time, the govt will just seize the corporation and take over. All in the name of national security and importance to the economy or whatever.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984708)

This time, the govt will just seize the corporation and take over. All in the name of national security and importance to the economy or whatever.

As a leftard, I WISH! Seriously, you teabaggers need to stop prickteasing me with all this socialism that's supposed to happen, but doesn't.

NO Govt Seizure of Private Business (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29984852)

Really, the simplest and most effective solution is to line up a few greedy CEOs and shoot them dead. Then the ones that weren't executed will know you mean business, that they need to play fair. So, if CEOs are as smart as they are supposed to be, to hold those corporate positions, only a very few need to be executed, for the message to be thoroughly understood and acted-upon.

Re:NO Govt Seizure of Private Business (4, Interesting)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985348)

Really, the simplest and most effective solution is to line up a few greedy CEOs and shoot them dead. Then the ones that weren't executed will know you mean business, that they need to play fair. So, if CEOs are as smart as they are supposed to be, to hold those corporate positions, only a very few need to be executed, for the message to be thoroughly understood and acted-upon.

That wouldn't work, although we can give it a try anyway.

Sociopaths, by their very nature, do not see others as human beings equal in any way to themselves. They are unconcerned about any adverse consequences received by others due to their own actions or the actions of others.

Re:NO Govt Seizure of Private Business (1)

ovu (1410823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987100)

CEOs are acting just like individuals do, except with amplified powers and priorities. In my personal life, I am free to do anything that is not explicitly illegal. In legal grey areas, I assess the risk vs. reward and proceed accordingly. With the corporate veil, corporate size bank accounts, and attorneys on staff, CEOs have more leeway than an individual to venture into the grey area. Human history is largely composed of people violating existing rules and either getting away with it or not...Judging morals is like armchair quarterbacking.

Re:NO Govt Seizure of Private Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987248)

Even sociopaths may have a sense of self preservation.

Re:NO Govt Seizure of Private Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987334)

That wouldn't work, although we can give it a try anyway. Sociopaths, by their very nature, do not see others as human beings equal in any way to themselves.

Sociopaths... you mean like people who would line up some businessmen and murder them?

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (1, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984906)

What's left? Government:

- Runs our childhood (school)
- Run our retirement (social security)
- Soon will run our very bodies (sick care and preventative care)

It also directly runs or strictly-regulates the electric company, phone company, cable/internet company. A socialist like you should be jumping up-and-down with glee, since there's very little the government doesn't already control. "Heil! Ooops... sorry. Bad habit." - Doc Strangelove

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984996)

strictly-regulates

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (2, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985070)

It means a government-induced monopoly. No competition can exist because it is illegal to build on these public "properties".

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985238)

It means a government-induced monopoly.

Are you even paying attention to what we're talking about? Go away and leave the grownups alone, son.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (2, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986190)

Are you even paying attention to what we're talking about?

Turning your brain off doesn't make problems go away. We're talking about ISPs with government-granted monopolies supported by the restriction against the creation of competition.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (3, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986486)

We're talking about ISPs with government-granted monopolies supported by the restriction against the creation of competition.

And the alternatives to government-authorized and strictly-regulated monopolies in a market with natural monopoly tendencies are...

1. No service provider
2. Unregulated monopolies.

Maybe you weren't around when telephone and/or cable infrastructure was being built out. The choice was: license a monopoly, or get no service.

Even now, these markets tend to natural monopolies due to high overhead and infrastructure costs. So if we deregulate, we'll still end up with a monopoly... but it'll be less regulated one. Yay.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987914)

You forgot one: 3. Government ownership of the infrastructure. You think Sweden got their cheap, faster-than-anything-available-in-the-US broadband by magic? The government owns the lines and any ISP can use them. Ta-daa!

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986442)

Apart from the millions of small to medium businesses and the thousands of large to gigantic corporations outside government ownership. But don't let reality get in the way of your 1980s-inspired bullshit.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29986590)

They don't build our microprocessors. Duh! Does 'Social Security' really count as running our retirement? I don't disagree with you completely, but that kind of overreaching statement is exactly what OP is protesting.

Re:Govt Seizure of Private Business (1)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987862)

So you hear fox news portray the health care bill as "government run health care" and you believe that this is an accurate enough depiction to parrot? Are you 15? There are a lot of good points of debate to the bills in question, but simply parroting the right wing nut job line shows pretty low critical thinking abilities. But I can see from your sig that you really don't have much to offer in the way of solving problems.

Socialist spankings (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986906)

There is an interesting though: Corporations that misbehave get privatized by the government. That is awful good incentive for corporate restraint.

Re:It's the new fad (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984550)

...what - they'll slap Intel on the wrist twice?

(assuming they're actually found liable/guilty/whatever)

Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board. (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984682)

My understanding, from talking with Intel employees, is that Paul Otellini [wikipedia.org] is not a good CEO.

My understanding is that only one member of the Intel Board of Directors [intel.com] has any technical knowledge. How can people with no technical knowledge oversee an enormously high-tech company? They can't.

Intel board member John L. Thornton was president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, it says. Goldman Sachs [rollingstone.com] helped engineer the present financial collapse. Since the collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable. The U.S. government has done NOTHING to prevent further abuse.

Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board. (3, Informative)

hemp (36945) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984808)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of a Board of Directors. Their job is not to oversee the company, that is management's job. Their job is to look out for the interests of the stockholder.

Oversight with no understanding? (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985326)

How can a board of directors "look out for the interests of the stockholder" if the directors cannot understand the business of the company?

Re:Oversight with no understanding? (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985418)

Indeed. Without knowing SOMETHING about the business of the company about the best they can hope to do is walk around slapping people on the asses and saying "Keep up the profits n' shit!".

That and making background deals with company to "buy our stuff". They probably don't even know what stuff they're selling, just that they want people to buy it.

Re:Oversight with no understanding? (1)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987356)

How can a board of directors "look out for the interests of the stockholder" if the directors cannot understand the business of the company?

Um, drink champagne at board meetings, vote themselves larger fees, do a few sweetheart deals for friends, and plan how to close the next AGM before anyone asks probing questions?

The interests of the directors may well be in conflict with the interests of other shareholders. Just as the interests of the government may well conflict with the interests of the citizens (e.g. privacy).

Breaking the law is okay with you? (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985526)

Could you explain to me how you think that allowing a company to break the law is looking out for the interests of the stockholder?

Re:Breaking the law is okay with you? (3, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986282)

That's because corporate officers treat the law as a business expense and if it's cheaper to ignore it and pay any penalties they may incur then that's what they do. Microsoft are a classic example of that (sorry shills but it's true). That means there's more money for the stockholders (which includes the aforementioned corporate officers).

Intel board of directors: Did they know? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986588)

So, you are guessing that the members of the Intel board of directors knew about Intel breaking the law? Shouldn't they lose their jobs?

Re:Breaking the law is okay with you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987962)

> Could you explain to me how you think that allowing a company to break the law is looking out for the interests of the stockholder?

I'm not that guy and I don't like them breaking the law, but the answer to your question is "because it's highly profitable."

Even though the stockholders suffer from the illegal actions, they profit from them. It's everyone else who loses out...

Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board. (4, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986162)

"Their job is to look out for the interests of the stockholder."

But the job they really do is to look out for the interests of board members in general (e.g. if you give me big bucks for being CEO then I'll give you big bucks for being CEO through my buddy who sits on your board of directors).

Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board. (1, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984818)

I don't buy it. For Goldman Sachs to have "engineered" the collapse, they would have had to be an omniscient god. They may have taken advantage of it, using political connection to DC, but they certainly didn't plan events to happen. I'm sure they would have preferred the bubble keep going up.

The result was very well known in advance. (2, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985268)

"bubble keep going up". Bubbles don't always go up. That's why they are called bubbles.

Everyone in the financial industry knew two things: 1) The bubble would collapse, and 2) The U.S. government, led by the Federal Reserve Bank, composed of former financial industry executives, would make the taxpayers give money to the financial institutions.

You didn't read the Rolling Stone article linked in the grandparent comment, did you? Or anything else about Goldman Sachs and the financial collapse?

Note that the "Federal Reserve Bank" is not a bank, it is not federal, and there is nothing in reserve. Three lies in three words, in the name!

This Slashdot comment, The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the **huge** winners [slashdot.org], discusses some of the new ways Goldman Sachs will make money in the future using the power of government. That Slashdot comment links to the Rolling Stone article, but that copy of the article has been removed. See the link to the article in the grandparent comment.

The corruption is not new. For example, see the May 13, 2002 article in Business Week, How Corrupt Is Wall Street? New revelations have investors baying for blood, and the scandal is widening [businessweek.com] Quote: "Consider Enron, which has paid $323 million to Wall Street in underwriting fees since 1986, according to Thomson. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) pocketed $69 million of that..." Enron, of course, went bankrupt when it was discovered the company was dishonest.

Beginning in 2002, Warren Buffett began very publicly calling derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" [bbc.co.uk]. That particular part of the corruption was allowed by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term. Nothing was done to reinstate the laws, and that's why we are suffering now. Why was nothing done? Numerous articles say the corruption was allowed to happen because Goldman Sachs people, and other financial company executives control the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.

If the past is any guide, Intel will be fined a trivial sum like $100 million, and the corruption and anti-competitive activity against AMD will continue.

Part of loving the U.S. is becoming aware of, and trying to stop, the corruption in government.

Re:The result was very well known in advance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987892)

The financial services modernization act was drafted under clinton, and endorsed by senate democrats and republicans.

Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board. (1)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984868)

Since the collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable.

They would have been bankrupt if the US hadn't bailed out AIG. The AIG bailout was just a Goldman Sachs bailout in disguise.

Re:Maybe Intel needs a new CEO and Board. (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986954)

Actually, I think Goldman Sachs was profitable all through the crisis, and didn't take any money from the gov. And now we know where all the money went.

Re:It's the new fad (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984826)

While I wouldn't say the Microsoft anti-trust suit was nearly as successful as many of us Slashdot types would've hoped, it did have some benefits. It managed to stop a few pernicious practices, like exclusive licensing to OEMs (who weren't allowed to sell non-Windows OSs if they wanted to receive the normal favorable OEM pricing). It also provided a sort of hovering threat that forced Microsoft to at least think a little harder about whether they wanted to engage in new anti-competitive practices, since MS knew the cost of doing so would be higher than otherwise.

Does it strike you as ironic? (1, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985114)

Does it strike anybody else as a bit ironic to have Intel being sued for a market segmet defined by Intel?

There are loads os chips out there tat can easily be made into a GP computer - ARM, MIPS, SPARC, and Cell, to name a few. It's Intel that defines 'x86' and they are being sued in tat 'market'.

I'm not saying this suit isn't a good idea. Just seems a bit ironic...

Re:Does it strike you as ironic? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986024)

The market is processors used in general purpose computers, and the lawsuit is because Intel makes sure that that market is the same as the market for x86. Other processors could easily be used in general purpose computers (Cell is not one of them), but the lawsuit alleges that Intel is using bribes to make sure that doesn't happen.

Re:Does it strike you as ironic? (2, Interesting)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986242)

The recent anti-trust scam is about defining the market so that the target is a monopoly by definition. That's why "server" computers (that might even use PC hardware) were artificially excluded from the "market" so that MS could be considered a monopoly.

Re:Does it strike you as ironic? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987010)

Or maybe the market for servers really is distinguishable from the market for home computers, or something crazy like that.

Re:It's the new fad (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986072)

If AMD ends up getting money from this and you don't, it'll be exactly like the job they did on Microsoft.

Re:It's the new fad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29986106)

Well they didn't do anything to microsoft. They gave them a pass. They are still giving them a pass (every day). Windows must be split from Office, must be split from every other large application. Further, there is no legal smackdown for microsoft not paying state taxes (IN WASHINGTON STATE!). If more than 20% of a companies operations are in any given state, they must pay taxes in that state based on the size of the operation within that state. Having a single desk office in Nevada, and being incorporated there and paying very low tax rate there, means that they are not paying enough tax in Washington. This must end. Also the illegal tactics, collusion and racketeering of the harware/software market. Paying a forty billion dollar fine would be a start, but a decade or two in jail for everyone on the top three or four tiers of the company would be a great start.

Re:It's the new fad (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987630)

Last I checked, microsoft office was not part of windows. One is supposed to pay in order to get it. A trial may be installed on your new computer but it is not a full version, and many people get a computer with a windows OS without office.

Split microsoft like Bell was split? Good idea. Have an OS division (or company), office should be it's own division. A software developer division, does msSQL deserve it's own division? I am not sure if that should be part of the developer application one. Just like Bell was broken up into the baby bells. Which in turn all joined up years later to form what we now call Verizon. Maybe a few baby bells are not part of Verizon yet, but a lot are. Even if microsoft was split up into 5-6+ separate companies. They would all still feed from the same source and profits would go to the same place. Unless microsoft was forced to separate the balance sheets for each division and all divisions had to live (or die) on their own, splitting up microsoft does not do any good. So we get a new company name and new boxes for software. The same people are still calling all the shots.

The rest of your rant about taxes has nothing to do with the anti trust case. You might want to look at who worked for microsoft before and during the anti trust case. Then go after those people. Employees who were hired after that case were not involved and they should not be punished for other people's screw ups. They may have to fix the screw ups, but those newer people should not be punished for it.

A lot of people do not like microsoft, but not all of the people who work there should be punished for it.

Re:It's the new fad (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986262)

All they had to do was watch that 30 minute training video on corporate ethics, but I guess they were too busy. What a shame.

Re:It's the new fad (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987160)

Lets see if they do a better job on intel then they did on microsoft.

Holding companies accountable for their actions?

Adobe (-1, Troll)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984140)

I'm tired of seeing all these law suits against Intel. Why doesn't someone target a true monopoly which has a great negative impact on consumers and the market place - Adobe.

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29984434)

Because there is no one to compete with to whine about being squashed by the larger entity.

Re:Adobe (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984482)

Because, if you look around a bit there are free, functional replacements for almost everything that Adobe makes.

Re:Adobe (2, Insightful)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984690)

Because, if you look around a bit there are free, functional replacements for almost everything that Adobe makes.

You must not use much of their portfolio professionally to say that. The free replacements are quite non-functional for anything but most basic tasks.

On the other hand, there are lots of commercial offerings that compete well with Adobe's products. Other than Photoshop and Acrobat, all of their other heavyweights (Illustrator, After Effects, Premiere, Dreamweaver, etc.) have significant competitors. I'm not really sure why they should be considered a big bad monopoly.

Re:Adobe (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985414)

Nope, more of a CAD person. In hindsight I guess that would be like someone saying that QCad or Intellicad was a complete AutoCAD replacement.

Re:Adobe (2, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984920)

Assuming Adobe has a monopoly in some area or other, precisely how have they abused it?

The illegal part is the abuse/protection, not the monopoly itself.

Re:Adobe (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985276)

The illegal part is the abuse/protection, not the monopoly itself.

No, in Adobe's case, the abuse part is customer service. May they burn in Hell forever.

Yawn. (3, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984168)

These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.'

With that language, I wonder if he's just going for a consent decree regarding future conduct, and maybe a slap on the wrist. I wonder if this will in any way lead to AMD being made whole.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984672)

I doubt it - AMD decided to drop its fabs without Intel's help.

Yes, for awhile the Opteron series was kicking Intel ass all over the map. But, AMD never really did that much with it after awhile, and Intel finally removed head from ass to come up with Core. I'm not seeing how things could've been that much different. Once Core came out, all bets were off (and thus NetBurst died a well-deserved death...)

Even on the Apple side of things, well... Apple started looking at the x86 in the first place, largely because the G5 chips were such room heaters that you couldn't make a laptop with one and have it not overheat (or keep the form factor to a usable size). AMD had a similar reputation for heat, no realistic roadmap to match/beat Intel's, and didn't really (IMHO) offer much to entice Apple to their side, tech-wise.

Re:Yawn. (4, Insightful)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984784)

Yes, for awhile the Opteron series was kicking Intel ass all over the map. But, AMD never really did that much with it after awhile, and Intel finally removed head from ass to come up with Core.

I guess the point here is that even though Opteron was kicking ass, AMD couldn't get past 25% or so marketshare, thanks to what Intel was doing to preserve its monopoly. It's hard to compete when your competitor can give Dell a billion dollars to stop them from buying any AMD.. (or threaten "jihad"!)

If AMD was fairly allowed to sell the products they made a few years back, they might have had the resources to keep their fabs and fund research into next gen CPUs.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985066)

Assuming the allegations were true, how can you explain AMD's continued presence in OEM machinery anyway? HP (for instance) certainly didn't stop selling AMD-based desktops, servers, etc., and Intel+HP are like fraternal twins.

Also, AMD still had gobs of cash with which to spend on R&D, even with 25% of the market (Hell, Apple has less than 10% of its market, and look how they're doing). Also, consider that Opterons were mostly relegated to servers and higher-end desktops (and IIRC not laptops, low-end desktops, etc).

Even if Intel did pull a Microsoft with 'rebate' scams, I doubt that AMD was exactly starved for cash, and Hector Ruiz certainly wasn't helping things any with the way he ran the show.

I'm not denying Intel may have done shady dealings (in fact I think it's likely that they did do it, along the lines of Microsoft's OEM 'rebate/marketing funds' model), but there's only so much you can blame on that even if it were 200% as bad as alleged.

Re:Yawn. (1)

eabrek (880144) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985694)

AMD couldn't get past 25% marketshare because their fabs were running at 100%. AMD could not, and never could have produced sufficient product to have a greater market share.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29985870)

Yes, for awhile the Opteron series was kicking Intel ass all over the map. But, AMD never really did that much with it after awhile, and Intel finally removed head from ass to come up with Core.

"Intel is accused of paying I.B.M. $130 million to hold back on selling a server based on A.M.D.’s Opteron chip, while also threatening to curtail joint projects if I.B.M. marketed A.M.D.’s products."

If true, that's pretty damning.

SpitzerSwallows? (-1, Troll)

vandelais (164490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984218)

These cases Cuomo are bringing are transparently political and very thin.

It's almost like Cuomo's doing this B.S. on purpose to make Spitzer look good in retrospect. Say what you want about the man's personal life, but at least Spitzer's public bullhorn cases were backed up by well-documented actions of serious wrongdoing.

It's really starting to turn into amateur hour over at the NY A.G.'s office.

Re:SpitzerSwallows? (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984712)

If you can't see a monopoly abuse on Intel's part at this point, I'd say you are the one with the agenda.

Besides, isn't doing good things so that you can get reelected SUPPOSED to be the way things should work?

Re:SpitzerSwallows? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986088)

Besides, isn't doing good things so that you can get reelected SUPPOSED to be the way things should work?

No, the way things are supposed to work is that politicians should do the right thing, regardless of whether it helps them get re-elected.

As soon as they head down the slippery slope of not doing the right thing because "if I don't get elected, I won't be able to help people any more", it's all over. Once a politician believes that their being in office is the most important thing, then by definition what's important to the people that elected them becomes secondary.

You need to trust that doing the right thing will get you re-elected, and if not, then the people have spoken and don't want what you are trying to do.

Campaign season already? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984224)

Here we have an election yesterday and already Cuomo is running for Governor.

Re:Campaign season already? (1)

cvos (716982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985188)

Albany (ny state capital) is not very far from Armonk (IBM HQ). IBM would love to have more of the high end server market.

Closing the barn door after the horse has left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29984254)

Our government is so good at worrying about things several years too late. It seems much of their evidence predates Intel's current CEO. Way to stay on top of things. I guess we have to wait until someone gets into office that hasn't received the appropriate bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions) to get anything done.

Find/Replace (3, Insightful)

Caviller (1420685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984294)

Ah if only I could just use find/replace and find all 'Intel' in the article and change them to 'ISP X' then it would be a good day... Seriously, they should be going after the much more monoploistic ISPs in this country then Intel.

Politicians + Tech = Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29984348)

I'm neither an Intel fan nor an apologist, but I very seriously doubt whether Andrew Cuomo could tell a microprocessor from a microbrew. As noted above, dude is running for governor here, not seriously prosecuting a case.

Re:Politicians + Tech = Bad (2, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984464)

but I very seriously doubt whether Andrew Cuomo could tell a microprocessor from a microbrew

Well, that depends on how many he has had.

I'll scratch your back.... (4, Interesting)

surmak (1238244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984372)

I wonder if this has anything to do with AMD (err Global Foundaries) dropping a few billion on the construction of a plant a few miles from Albany?

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984686)

Shhh Quite. The government only has our best interest in mind... Nothing as petty a bringing billions of dollars to an ailing local economy that is right next to the state capital.

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (3, Insightful)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984716)

Does that change the facts of the case?

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29985622)

Why the fuck was this modded funny? Someone take the mod points away from the 15 year old doche bag.

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (2, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984720)

...this is New York we're talking about, not Chicago. They're (well, supposed to be) more subtle about such things.

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (5, Interesting)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985172)

I'd say that viewpoint, which seems to be the mainstream on Slashdot, is like taking a single snapshot of a baseball game and acting like you can lay out the stats.

This antitrust lawsuit is filed after a precidence of antitrust lawsuits from other countries against Intel. Right now, if we take a snapshot of how Intel is competing, Intel may be playing fair. However, in the past - especially during the relatively long time (in the IT world at least) that AMD had the clear technology lead - there are quite a few reasons why there should be an antitrust lawsuit.

First of all, Intel only has the technology lead right now because Intel has more funds to dump into research and development. However, in the past, AMD leveraged themselves to put enormous amounts of funding into the Athlon and they came out with a clear technology lead. The market share barely followed. AMD had trouble selling their superior processors. The largest computer maker, Dell, was an Intel-only company. It's easy to be ignorant and blame bad execution on AMD's part - and maybe there was. But, there is some damning evidence that Intel was not playing fair. For example, AMD tried to give away 1 million processors to HP - and these were faster processors than Intel's at the time - but HP declined. Intel's pricing model was structured in a way to make it so that using any competitor in any small percentage would be more expensive than being 100% Intel only. They did this by using 'marketing rebates' that would directly correlate with the percentage of Intel processors sold.

Face it.. the P4 sucked. It did nothing but suck for years. It was an awful processor. Yet, somehow, Intel kept its exclusive agreements long enough to keep AMD from gaining significant market share - which would have in turn allowed AMD to keep spending on R and D which would have allowed AMD to remain competitive. It takes YEARS to develop the next best processor. Intel is only sitting where it is because it successfully choked AMD years ago.

For a few quarters, AMD was kicking Intel's ass - but it should have been kicking way more ass than it was. Also, AMD's financial situation is a result of leveraging themselves in order to compete with Intel and then not receiving the market benefits that normally come in a competitive industry with a technology lead.

Further, it is hard to dismiss threats as evidenced in emails from Intel against business with competitors. Or, you can shove your head in the sand and call this entire complicated situation as all sorts of 'red herrings.'

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (1)

DomNF15 (1529309) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986238)

I'll agree with you on the shady practices of Intel when the Athlon line was launched - but I don't think a one hit wonder like that should magically position AMD as the top chip maker. There are probably other reasons why AMD didn't enjoy a greater deal of success even though it had, for a limited time, a superior product. Brand recognition is one reason. Reluctance of professionals trusting AMD processors in server grade machines could be another. The P4 may have sucked but keep in mind that previously AMDs chips sucked as well, and for a long time the only thing AMD was good for was reverse engineering Intel designs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_architecture)

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (1)

Joe Mucchiello (1030) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985566)

Nah, far more likely to be related to IBM's Headquarters in Armonk. Does IBM still do any fabrication in Poughkeepsie?

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (1)

spammeister (586331) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986690)

I'm sure GloFo was more than forthcoming with all sorts of fantastic documents and whatnot they've had from all their previous rally sessions with other institutions against Intel.

Not saying Intel doesn't have some major Karma issues coming back at them, it's just kinda fishy the new lawsuit just happens to be coming from a newly inducted AMD/GloFo state.

Re:I'll scratch your back.... (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987190)

Of course. All things are connected in some way.

It also has something to do with Intel using illegal tactics. I'm shocked it took building a new multi-billion dollar fab to get anyone interested.

Who gets the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29984500)

Besides the lawyers of course... if Intel did " hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices", does that mean everyone that bought a pc with an Intel processor gets a settlement? I'm still waiting for my cheque from when the EU fined them back in May.

Who gets the money? (0, Redundant)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984646)

Besides the lawyers of course.. If Intel really did "hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices", then shouldn't everyone be getting a settlement? I have a couple of Intel processors, and I'm still waiting from my cheque in the mail from the last time they got sued.

Re:Who gets the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29985062)

The CEO of Intel will handwrite millions of checks for $1.09, just like Steve Martin in The Jerk.

IT's called "I want to be Governor..." (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984704)

Hey lets file a couple of lawsuits against some companies and maybe I can be governor... strike the heroic looking photo of the AG "going after" evil Intel.

This lawsuit, like anything else our political classes do (regardless of party), is total b.s.

Why did Intel even need to do this? (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29984956)

This was a pretty stupid move on Intel's part, they didn't even need to act in this way because they seem to have really pegged the market precisely in going after the performance/efficiency angle with that last few years worth of chips. I should know, I was an AMD fan throughout the late 90s and early 00s but for my newest PC I went with an Intel Core Duo2 because they really are that great in terms of speed versus power consumption. Not to mention that during AMD's disaster with their Barcelona quad core chips [zdnet.com], there really wasn't any choice for awhile for quad core chips except for Intel. Most of the dates in TFA are from 2003-2006, I suppose those were really sort of dark years for Intel [thei7.com] in that it seemed like AMD was gaining ground and their chips were cheaper for the same performance, but now Intel's latest are really quite good.

Re:Why did Intel even need to do this? (1)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985968)

You answered your own question. The K8 product line beat anything Intel was pushing during that time frame. It should have given AMD a sizable portion of the market share. The performance was that much better. In a free market, the obviously better product should take the market share, and as fast as the IT market moves, there should have a perceptible wave in market share and profit flowing into AMD. Who knows where AMD R&D would have gone with the influx of cash.

Really? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985028)

Off-topic and not for nothing...

For all the acronym- and jargon-laden summaries which barely qualify as English, and inevitable posts of 'WTF?', and the even more inevitable follow ups of 'Google, ya wanker," is it really necessary to qualify Intel as a "microprocessor maker"?

Anyone here not know what Intel is or what it does? Anyone?

Please state Libertarian position? (2, Interesting)

thickdiick (1663057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985290)

I would like to know what the Libertarian position is on monopolistic competition?
I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine. The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice. Any advice?

Re:Please state Libertarian position? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29986178)

The short answer is: The free market is always right. If you don't have the cash to keep up, you don't have the cash to compete. Sorry.

That's the unregulated free market that libertarians and objectivists favor.

I like a nicely blended market, erring on the side of regulation, because consumer interests are better protected that way.

Re:Please state Libertarian position? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986994)

I believe one ought be free to do what one wishes with one's money, and it follows that paying someone (some people call it bribery) to persuade them to a position is fine. The problem is i haven't studied this and, not being an expert, it's difficult for me to see negative externalities that may ensue should this be brought into practice. Any advice?

The idea of a monopoly strikes at the heart of many libertarian's ideology. Their usual response is to simply claim (then angrily insist) that monopolies are the result of government. In a full free market, there wouldn't be any.

Screw intel (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29985902)

I never buy Intel CPUs. For a very long time AMD have had equivalent technology at a much better price.

Segmentation (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986044)

My boss tells me a few years ago Intel didn't have paging in their chips. So instead of working out how to do it they flew people all over the world trying to convince the best and the brightest that paging just could not work and segmentation was a better solution. It was a fools errand and they failed. Good thing too or the whole IT world would be 2 or 3 decades behind right now.

Delaware? (2, Interesting)

NullProg (70833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986046)

Cuomo's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Wednesday, alleges that Intel extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers and threatened to punish those perceived to be working too closely with Intel competitors.

Why is the New York AG filing lawsuits in Delaware?

Enjoy,

Re:Delaware? (3, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986270)

Because Intel (like most other large corps, I think) is incorporated in Delaware.

They couldn't make Microsoft stop (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986156)

Why bother? Intel is just as nasty as M$. If they couldn't make microsoft behave why do they think they can make Intel do right?

err... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29986464)

Anyone else smell bull*@#!

Fab Capacity (2, Insightful)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987060)

I think that people are either forgetting or ignoring this point:

AMD doesn't and didn't have the fab capabilities to take the market overnight. It would take a long time to start eating away the market share that Intel has. The amount of fab capacity that Intel has is enormous. They could stockpile months of chips if they wanted. AMD was selling chips as soon as they came off the production line.

AMD could not have gone to Dell and said "I'll supply all of your x86 chips cheaper than Intel, buy mine instead" if they wanted to. They wouldn't have been able to keep up with the demand.

Whos really behind the scenes on this!!! guess who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987412)

Well, one only has to think of what big computer manufacturer is located in NY state and who themselves are just as bad at monopolizing the hardware market. Yep! you gussed it IBM. The big/bad computer computer doesnt like competition, doesn't want to sign those exclusive agreements they make everyone else sign and their small computer processing division that makes the power processor and others is getting hurt since everyone wants intel/amd and not a different processor which requires all the desktop applications to be rewritten to run on them. I guess IBM can't take some of their own medicine when other great competitors give them a run for their money.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...