×

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!

AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the let-the-games-begin dept.

AMD 790

jonathan_ingram writes "As reported on GrokLaw, AMD has just filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel. AMD states in its press release that the complaint details "... 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.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

790 comments

About time... (5, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930816)


Full text of the complaint filed can be found here [amd.com] in PDF format.

Interesting read...it's high time we saw some legal action against Intel for all these shenanigans. However, I'm doubtful that this will resolve anything...in reality, Intel will probably be about as inconvinenced by this antitrust action as Microsoft was by theirs.

Re:About time... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930906)


|rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey


He's back! Where've you been for the past three days? We missed your insightful karma whoring!

Re:About time... (1)

paulschroeder (757739) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930973)

I think others will see that parallel too and I think you're right: odds are you'll still be selecting whether you want Windows XP or Windows XP and either a Celeron or P4 when purchasing a machine.

Finally (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930822)

About fucking time.

Seriously.... (1)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930827)

....isn't it a well known serect that Intel give price break to people who won't use AMD?

Re:Seriously.... (5, Funny)

Lord Pillage (815466) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930872)

My oxymoron detector just went through the roof.

What? A well known secret you say?

Re:Seriously.... (4, Funny)

bigjocker (113512) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930992)

He said a well known serect, which is a perfectly valid pertrefection to the well known affirmatization.

Re:Seriously.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930878)

....isn't it a well known serect that Intel give price break to people who won't use AMD?

Not as well known as the secrets surrounding spell check

Re:Seriously.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930947)


Intel give price break to people who won't use AMD?



Price Break is not the right word. kickbacks come to mind...

Re:Seriously.... you're an idiot (1)

PepeGSay (847429) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931042)

"Your going to use AMD? We'll give you our stuff cheaper."

That is called BUSINESS, not CONSPIRACY. Sheesh.

About Time... (1)

m3j00 (606453) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930830)

I've oftened wondered why nobody slapped Intel's wrists for their practices of penalizing vendors that use both AMD and Intel chips with high prices.

Re:About Time... (2, Insightful)

sixteenraisins (67316) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931028)

I'm sure Intel will argue that there's a fine line between "penalizing" certain vendors and "offering incentives" to others - even though the end result is pretty much the same.

Re:About Time... (5, Interesting)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931063)

I don't get this. Years ago the government put an end to tiered pricing in the auto industry. Why do they allow it in other industries? It's not as if the computer chip industry or the software industries are tint and insignificant compared to the auto industry.

For those who don't know what I'm babbling about, years ago the federal government in the U.S.A. made some laws that auto makers had to sell cars to all the dealerships for the same price. Before this, the auto companies had penalized dealers that sold other brands, and dealers in rural areas that moved smaller quantities of merchandise. What this meant was that any wholesaler(dealer) that wanted to buy a Chevy paid the same amount as anyone else regardless of whether they kissed the manufacturers butt or not.

Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (5, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930831)

Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that Apple would use AMD products where they made sense in the future, and that the Intel announcement, specifically, was intended to be one of simplicity that wouldn't rile up Wall Street and analysts, and we can see that they've succeeded in spades. However, once the transition to the x86 architecture is over, there is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD (and/or x86-64/EM64T from Intel or AMD) where appropriate... ...except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.

Since the transition of high end machines is two and a half years out ("end of 2007"), it's likely that at least some of this will have shaken out by then. So even IF there are any types of exclusivity arrangements with Intel on Apple's part, either explicit or implicit (and please note, there is nothing to suggest there is), Apple, along with many other x86 vendors, will be free to choose the best processor solutions for their products - including those from AMD.

Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier.

All that said, choice and competition is still a good thing for this marketplace.

For more on the transition, see Apple/Intel FAQ [appleintelfaq.com].

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930871)

Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier.

We always seem to quickly forget their bad processors that seem to quitely fade away into non-existance.

We also seem to ignore their attempts at privacy invasion...

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12931000)

Apple is 2% of the market share. No one gives a damn.

Re:Only a good thing for Apple (and all vendors) (1, Interesting)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931008)

Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas...

Please state which two comparatively priced chips, one from Intel, one from AMD, are actually considered in competition. I think it's been standard knowledge that most, if not all, of AMD's lineup runs cooler and is far cheaper than anything Intel has put out in the last few years.

I mean, the Xeons might have been something to brag about if they weren't a minimum of double the price of the AMD equivalents.

No more business from AMD (-1, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930834)

That settles it. No more business from myself or my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic. I think that this is disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost our business.

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

m3j00 (606453) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930867)

I'm sure they're very upset to have lost the business of an obvious Intel fanboy. Go buy a clue, Intel has been using underhanded tactics to steer vendors away from using competitors chips for years now.

Re:No more business from AMD (0, Troll)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930876)

>>That settles it. No more business from myself or
>>my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly,
>>at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this
>>as a business tactic. I think that this is
>>disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost
>>our business.

Agreed, it's about choice and I've always had it, I'm tired of companies suing each other over little things with little to no proof. Intel is big, but they aren't Microsoft and there are competitors. AMD has done a good job but if they're going to take the legal route franky I'm not interested in any of their products as the Intel versions will work fine for me.

I'm cancelling my new shipment of new AMD machines as soon as I get to the office this morning.

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

WebHostingGuy (825421) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930918)

You're kidding right? Despite what I think personally business is business. Whether I like the company or not really does not impact my decision as to whether the tool or product they supply fulfills my needs. If I hated AMD but they had the product I needed at the price point I need I would purchase from them.

Re:No more business from AMD (0)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930969)


You're kidding right?

No, he's not kidding. He's astroturfing.

Try to ignore him.

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

AlgebraicRing (472402) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931059)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=astroturf ing [reference.com]

Oh Wow, I never heard of that word before, but it definitely fits what he's doing. He's claiming to have performed a specific action in hopes that other people will imitate him. He's also trying to generate a perception of AMD which would be infectious to other people. An excellent and very cunning ploy to exploit people's imitative natures.

And there's my contribution to the anti-meme. An explanation of what astroturfing is goes further than just saying what its called.

Re:No more business from AMD (4, Interesting)

yeremein (678037) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931045)

FWIW, my boss, who is a former Intel employee, told me quite frankly several months ago that Intel is guilty of all of this and more. I'm surprised that AMD has waited this long to take action.

Re:No more business from AMD (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930880)

Why do I have the feeling you weren't an AMD customer before?

Re:No more business from AMD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930890)

You are such an idiot.

Re:No more business from AMD (2, Insightful)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930898)

You should study business practises a little more carefully. Intel has had a history of being just as predatory as Microsoft on and off through the years. Dell, Gateway, and Micron all have complained over the years that they wanted to sell other chips, but were threatened support/pricing from Intel if they did.

Re:No more business from AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930907)

Because 81.7% of the market isn't a monopoly!

At least you answer the lingering question of who still buys inferior Intel chips at inflated prices.

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930917)

You've got to be kidding. Most non-technical people equate the PC with Dell. The last time Dell even hinted about going with AMD, they started backpedaling immediately. You just have to believe the Intel called with an updated price list in order to convince Dell to change their minds.

I'm pretty sure that AMD will call witnesses from Dell in this case.

Oh and your comment is so far fetched that I'd almost guess you work for Intel. Of course then it goes without saying that your company wouldn't buy AMD.

Re:No more business from AMD (5, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930924)

Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips.

Intel has a higher market share than IBM did during the height of the mainframe wars, by almost 20% -- the question isn't whether they have the market share, it's whether they have the power to command the market.

If proven, the allegations in AMD's suit would constitute a slam-dunk finding of market power and abuse of that power.

If you're of the John Carroll "there is no such thing as monopoly" school, none of this matters. On the other hand, most of us prefer a market where there is honest competition on the merits, not one where a competitor is frozen out by under-the-table payments and other dirty tricks.

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

spune (715782) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930929)

AMD presents rather firm evidence that Intel does indeed engage in monopolistic practices, if you'd RTFA rather than issue a reactive Spew. The disgusting and abhorrent thing is the fashion in which Intel has been manipulating the market for years; it's high time that AMD aim to seek justice in the matter.

You are a horrible troll and a fucking idiot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930946)

That is all.

Re:No more business from AMD (5, Insightful)

myrick (893932) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930950)

I don't understand what is wrong with countering one 'business tactic' with another 'business tactic.' If Intel really is strongarming AMD out of the market with illegal rebates and incentives based on how much business a vendor does with AMD, how is it wrong of AMD to start an investigation? If Intel is coloring within the lines, then AMD looks like a desperate struggling beggar, and Intel is all the better for it. But if AMD's allegation are true, then don't they have the right to fair competition?

A monopoly doesn't mean that a company has 100% of the market, it just means that they have an overwhelming majority such that they can exert pressures against smaller companies by threatening customers. This is not the same as Intel underpricing AMD because they have a better capacity than AMD. That is legitimate business, and a gain from having the kind of production capacity that Intel has (an economy of scale). The allegation here is that Intel is witholding incetives only for people who specifically buy AMD products, meaning that Intel is using its position in the market to limit competition by not only providing incentives to use Intel products, but to provided disincentives to use AMD products. That seems like a pretty shady deal to me. Doesn't that strike you as disgusting and abhorrent?

I'm sure they'll be very upset... (0, Flamebait)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930964)

... to lose your custom, which must amount to what, 3, maybe 4 processors a year, so you and your kiddie mates can play games on your l33t overclocked PCs.

Re:No more business from AMD (3, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930985)

No idea how that got moded Interesting, much more like troll.

Intel doesn't have a monopoly

First is the obvious point that this is irrelevant! Anti-trust laws have no requirement you have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anti-trust behaviour! Anti-trust is about trade practices that undermine competitiveness or are considered to be unfair. Intel is certainly guilty of this.

Second is if its OK for Intel to use anti-competitive behaviour why not MS? Neither have 100% market share. What percent market share does it start being wrong to use anti-competitive tactics in your mind?

I'm glad MS got busted for these EXACT SAME anti-trust practices (prefered pricing for only using their product) and I hope Intel will as well.

Re:No more business from AMD (5, Informative)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930989)

" Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic."

Here is a list of specific allegations:

  • 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.

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

dgos78 (881140) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931026)

AMD is simply using this as a business tactic

There you have it: most ignorant quote of the day.

First of all, Intel is basically forcing big companies into using only their products. Fair competition in consumer products can get ugly sometimes, but once one side starts going things the way Intel is, it's no longer fair, nor competition. Intel is trying to strong-arm their competition out. They realize they have something to fear from AMD. Underhanded business practices to drive them out is utter crap.

If AMD has no proof, why would they be suing in the first place? How could they? AMD is a big name, and doubt they are just crying wolf. If they are struggling, I doubt they would falsly make the claims they have and create a PR nightmare for themselves and only make things worse.

Re:No more business from AMD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12931030)

That is one of the best trolls I have ever had the pleasure of reading. You've pissed off a shitload of idiots. Nice!

Re:No more business from AMD (1)

cakesy (886563) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931044)

That settles it. No more business from myself or my company for AMD. Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips. AMD is simply using this as a business tactic. I think that this is disgusting and abhorrent. AMD has permamently lost our business.

Come on Andy, can't you find anything better to do during your retirement?

Forget the money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930836)

As some of the articles on this topic state, the money AMD might get for damages isn't that important. They just need to get their products in the hands of resellers.

Japan (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930837)

When the Japanese commission slapped Intel Japan, the word was that the management there had been out of control.

Looks like that explanation may have been a bit premature.

Could the be the way for Dell to finally ship AMD? (5, Interesting)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930838)

Didn't Dell complain one time that this was part of the reason they don't sell AMD?

I wonder if.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930841)

Apple are on the list?

Marketing Strategy (0)

Evil W1zard (832703) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930844)

1. Coerce Customer 2. ??? 3. Profit!

Re:Marketing Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930991)

Sadly or fortunately, there are no intermediate steps between coercion and profit.

Re:Marketing Strategy (3, Funny)

gwayne (306174) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930996)

Actually, it's more like:
  1. Coerce customers and suppliers
  2. Drive all competitors under
  3. Inflate prices due to monopoly power
  4. Create vast hoardes of minimum-wage slaves
  5. ???
  6. Profit
  7. Take over planet

Wow, I just described Wal-Mart [blogspot.com].

Welcome to the new world. (2, Funny)

soulhuntre (52742) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930845)

If you can't compete, legislate!

Re:Welcome to the new world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930905)

sweet now I can legislate when I have a problem, all by myself.

Oh maybe you meant 'litigate'...

Nah just rate him up without reading it, it's all good.

Re:Welcome to the new world. (2, Funny)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930916)

I read AMD's press release and think that the attitude of Intel is anticompetitive, but the actual transgressions did not seem wholly worthy of anti-trust litigation. I wouldn't go so far as to say you lines of "if you can't compete, legislate", but I doubt AMD will have success with this.

Tha would be a shame, because being able to buy a notebook computer from Dell with a Turion in it and without the Microsoft Tax would make a nice political message.

Re:Welcome to the new world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930930)

That's LITIGATE, jackass.

Re:Welcome to the new world. (5, Insightful)

cyclopropene (777291) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930967)

If you can't compete, legislate!
You mean litigate? They're not writing the law...

Re:Welcome to the new world. (1)

infinitex (686637) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930993)

I really don't believe that this is just a frivilous lawsuit for competition. AMD has had far superior products for some time now, but has not been able to distribute it as widely because of Intel. All AMD is asking is for a fair playing field for BOTH to compete in. I fail to see how this is a bad thing?

Re:Welcome to the new world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12931043)

while i agree that the parent is correct in how the new world works (as demonstrated by the RIAA and MPAA) this is not an instance of what the parent implies, AMD is just trying to show that what intel does violates current legislation and is already illgal, they aren't trying to make it illegal sinceit already is

Interesting (4, Informative)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930846)

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.


That sounds pretty damning.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930998)

Perhaps, but there's a reason these things are settled in court, and not by press release...

Re:Interesting (1)

mfh (56) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931057)

That sounds pretty damning.

This is the typical old-boy-network shit. I don't believe Intel is worth fighting for, so I'll be always spend my money on the least of evil, although these days it might be most ethical to use an abacus -- and just give up on the whole lot of them. I don't know how to pluralize abacus [wikipedia.org]. No seriously... I am not very fond of what keeps happening in the tech markets and I place the blame squarely on those who would employ traditional/evil marketing approaches to solve/quash/kill emerging challenges.

You'd think the whole of silicon valley walks around with swords and daggers, getting ready to win initiative.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

ILikeRed (141848) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931066)

It makes me sad to say this, but we really do need some kind of law against "rebates" and, what does Microsoft call it, "matching marketing funds"? These companies can not play fairly, and these accounting tricks need to be outlawed because that is all they are - accounting tricks to obscure bribes. Maybe something along the lines of outlawing these shady accounting practices for all publicly traded companies.

it's about bloody time (1, Funny)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930854)

It's about damned time that AMD show down Intel's evil empire. AMD's Athlon64 is far superior to P4, they've got the fab capabilities to begin supplying OEMs, and after their new fab is done they'll be ready for the big time. All that stands in their way is Intel's anti competitive practices. I mean, Intel has been known to set pricing on Intel chips based on how many AMD chips your company purchases.

The good thing is that... (5, Interesting)

DeafDumbBlind (264205) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930862)

At least while the lawsuit is ongoing, Intel will likely be more careful about its practices, so vendors might offer more AMD systems. I doubt that Dell will jump on board, but it's be nice to see some Thinkpad or Viao A64 based systems.

In the end, Intel will pay a fine and agree to not do anymore what they never admitted to doing in the first place.

Re:The good thing is that... (1)

tweek (18111) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930901)

I've actually bitched at our IBM xSeries marketing rep about this already.

I don't expect them to drop in Opterons into the x446 models because that had so much in the way of custom enginering (used to be called Summit - not sure of the new name) but damnit I'm tired of ordering my x336 and x346 models with EMT64. I would much rather have Opterons.

Then again I'd love to have dual-core dual proc opterons in xSeries line soon too.

AMD can't compete? More likely... (5, Insightful)

The_Isle_of_Mark (713212) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930864)

They need to drum up more exposure, what better way that an anti-trust case? I'm not saying they don't have one, I am sure they are privy to info I am not, but isn't it great AMD advertising?

Re:AMD can't compete? More likely... (5, Insightful)

Iriel (810009) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931018)

And there's more. While I'm not the expert on this, it seems quite possible that AMD has had this case ready to go for some time now. There was a sudden rush for 64-bit (despite many software shortcomings to suit the architecture), and then the realtively short gap before the dual-cores hit the market. With this kind of CPU war that I've been seeing, it's not only (great | just plain) publicity, but it's well timed. How many of the major online custom PC builders offer the AMD X2? Not as many as the Intel dual-core.

Methinks, AMD hopes to turn the tide from being the niche market of gamers/power users to a gereral audience.

I just hope, for thier sake, that this all works out. I hope, for my sake, that an X2 will finally be affordable for me :)

AMD File Antitrut Againt Intel (0, Offtopic)

n01 (693310) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930866)

AMD File Antitrut Againt Intel.. What' up? Doe the letter ' ' not work on your keyboard?

This is fun (4, Funny)

KrisCowboy (776288) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930869)

We got 64-bit processors, dual-core processors and dual-core dual processors. Now we got a legal fight. This sure is fun. Wait a second, either one of them planning to lower the prices? I'm all for the spoils :-)

Well that just about wraps it up for Intel (1)

James_Aguilar (890772) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930870)

At this point, it seems like the microprocessor market is on the cusp of becoming truly competitive. My friends, do you know what this means!? Innovation will skyrocket. More pixels, more flops, more cycles, more registers, more cache, more cores. Yes, the future is bright!

Thirty-two cores on one chip by 2010. You heard it first here.

Re:Well that just about wraps it up for Intel (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931029)

It doesn't seem that the lack of competition has really hurt innovation. Intel might have been sorta slacking off for a while, but then AMD gave them a kick in the ass and Intel started picking back up.

If you want to see lack of innovation, it seems to me that the hard disk market is it. Sure they are still advancing capacity at a pretty good clip, but there are several questionable things going on there that look like collusion.

Re:Well that just about wraps it up for Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12931046)

Thirty-two cores aought to be enough for anyone. ;)

AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Againt Intel (1, Redundant)

fizze (610734) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930873)

well, while we should "check those links" and really _use_ that preview button, CmdrTaco doesnt have to do so, apparently ;)

It should read "AMD Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Intel" of course. JFYI.

Perhaps I'm wrong (2, Funny)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930874)

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.

I was under the assumption that most homemade PCs were AMD systems. Is that statistic including those?

Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (1)

Tune (17738) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930944)

>I was under the assumption that most homemade PCs were AMD systems. Is that statistic including those?

Unfortunately, and as much as I'd like to believe the opposite, most computers are not homemade. In fact, it's wasn't even more than a margin in the early micro's glory days (1975-1980).

Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930958)

My homemade PC's are all Intel... friends of mine have had bad problems with the quality control of AMD chips.
Case in point, friend of mine bought 2 identical AMD chips and 2 identical motherboards, to build a computer for himself and his wife. For some reason his wife's computer was screaming, and his was slow as hell. He switched processors, and all of a sudden it was his computer that was screaming ...
-everphilski-

Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930959)

yes

Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (2, Insightful)

Twanfox (185252) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930988)

You mistake something. AMD can count it's sales per chip to whomever, OEM or home builder, just like Intel can. It doesn't matter to whom the chips go. When you talk about 'per unit' sales, for Intel and AMD, they're talking about 'processors' as the unit, not OEM PCs.

Re:Perhaps I'm wrong (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931032)

by "critical market" they meant prebuilt pc's I do believe. Also, how many PC's do you really think are homemade? Sure, if you look through the eyes of slashdot, 70%, but then again 70% of slashdots run a *nix of some sort.

Patent insanity (4, Insightful)

Theo de Raabt (893376) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930879)

I wonder if situations like this will ever come about in future, where global patents will ENSURE monopolistic practice, legitimised through legislation. No appeals or crying foul against the sort of practices Intel and Microsoft appear to favor, only the patent holder gets protection. Consider a 1980's where Intel had patented-down the hatches on the x86 architecture - there'd be no AMD, there'd by not Cyrix, Winchip, Transmeta, VIA etc....at least not making the same architecture. Maybe this would have been a good thing, the x86 bastard-child architecture we've all ended up with is nothing to be proud of. It's not too late for CPU diversity, come on AMD time to make something new!

NOT TO FEAR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930881)

The case will end up in the Supremes court and Intel will see the that everyone has a free laptop

Read the document (3, Informative)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930903)

It's amazing how much dirt AMD has on intel if you read their suit document. I think it's safe to say that the only way intel will win this one is if they pay off the judge...which given their history they just might try... ;-P This has been a long time coming and it's definatley about dang time...

Mac & Monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930912)

What do Intel's monopolistic practices mean for Mac lovers? Will they jump on the "I hate monopolies" bandwagon against Intel like they so enjoyed doing against MS? We're all waiting for a response from the Mac crowd . . .

Re:Mac & Monopoly (2, Funny)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930976)

Intel is their new hero. They'll probably brand AMD as a vile corperation bent on destruction of all things pretty or some garbage like that. :-)

Intel/Microsoft Monopolies (4, Interesting)

Theo de Raabt (893376) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930942)

One good thing about AMD CPUs... I can select AMD and it will be transparent to me as a user. Thus I am free to choose my CPU based on price and other considerations, if I can find one offered.

The Microsoft monopoly is entirely different. Locked in by habit to Windows, most users have a very difficult time switching to Linux. It is also nearly impossible to buy a mainstream computer without Windows. Now that is a monopoly!

All Intel users should be very thankful for AMD. Just think how much Intel chips would cost, if not for AMD. Likewise, Windows users should be very thankful for Linux. Without Linux, Microsoft (which has never innovated in its history) would not even have to play catch-up and improve its product (see IE vs. Firefox).

So, I say go AMD and Linux (I use both) and you should agree even if you use WinTel.

Has Happened Before (3, Interesting)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930955)

Intel clearly has a monopoly on x86 chips. The FTC got Intel to join a consent decree because Intel had responded to a patent infringement suit by Intergraph by cutting off data and data kits to Intergraph. So Microsoft has been sued, now it's Intel's turn.

Dell would be on the list (1)

Slashcrunch (626325) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930968)

Why would a company not want to offer AMD as an option? I would put money on it that Intel are offering incredible deals to Dell as long as they don't ship Intel.

One company I work for wants AMD 64, so Dell are losing a rather large customer.

it's not like the symptoms weren't there... (1)

aendeuryu (844048) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930972)

Intel produces chips that are inferior to and more expensive than their AMD counterparts, and yet they still have a stranglehold on many major PC and laptop vendors.

Apart from really, really shitty customer service on AMD's part, what other explanation could there be?

Actually, as an aside, I wanted to buy an AMD processor over here in Korea, and the guy said that AMD had lousy customer service. Has anybody found this to be the case? If not, it would make Intel's prominence in the chip field even more ludicrous...

Intel & AMD comapny merge! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12930983)

You heard it here first!

Intel and AMD are joining forces! Why? Well because they are the same company, owned by the same people. One was just created as 'competition' for the other so that a monopoly was not gained!

The newly merged company name is 'Inteam'!

[ Inte(l) + am(D) ]

P.S. this is not true! (or is it?)

This will be a long and difficult case to prove (3, Interesting)

Theo de Raabt (893376) | more than 8 years ago | (#12930997)

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to wrongdoing by Intel. But there's a big gap between us all 'knowing' that Intel is engaging in arm-twisting and proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Some of the points mentioned in the linked complaint will be very difficult to prove unless AMD has direct, clear evidence.

I think the timing of this complaint is interesting as well. AMD's latest processors have a technical and price-point edge over Intel, hurting a potential Intel argument that customers buy Intel for its "technological superiority". It's profitable, so it has the money to spend on the case. (And trust me, this will take some ca$$$h.) Last, AMD has proven itself to be a viable choice from both a business and technical perspective. This is important for executives called in this case -- they may be a little more willing to testify as witnesses against Intel if they feel they have a "backup plan" (AMD) should Intel try to threaten/punish their business for testifying. (Which is all done very politely and business-like, I'm not talking about TV/Movie style drama with dressed-in-black characters showing up with guns.)

I'm confused (0)

HomerJayS (721692) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931054)

Someone help me here. Am I supposed to cheer or boo this lawsuit.

After all, Intel is going to be in Apple's soon (good), but their trade practices are Microsoft-like (bad).

I long of the good ole days when we could easily tell the good guys from the bad.

AMD and Dell (4, Interesting)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#12931070)

... Dell uses the AMD argument just to f*ck with intel. I mean seriously. Think about it. Why would they introduce another chip line into low end machines, when their customer base is 90% clueless about computers? They say "oooh, lets look at AMD chips" to get Intel riled up into offering them a deal on the next batch of chips.

Intel? A Monopoly? Not a chance. 80% market share isn't a monopoly. Incentives don't make you a monopolist. You can't compare Intel to DeBeers (who won't put an office in the US cause they know the second they do, their ass is gone). Not even to Microsoft.
-everphilski-
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...