Slashdot: News for Nerds


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 Calls on Microsoft for Intel Antitrust Case

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the weird-little-triangle-here dept.


Rob writes "As part of its ongoing antitrust case against its chief rival Intel Corp, AMD said it had subpoenaed Microsoft Corp for documents pertaining to its case." From the article: "AMD filed subpoenas with 32 companies, asking them to retain and forward documentation that may pertain to the lawsuit, including computer companies, microprocessor distributors, and electronics retailers. Most of these companies agreed to comply with AMD's requests, including Acer, Gateway, Lenovo, NEC, Sony, Sun Microsystems, Tech Data Corp., and Circuit City. The only firm that refused to cooperate with AMD in any capacity was Toshiba, although others have been slow to respond."

cancel ×


Right now (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150291)

Microsoft has a bunch of reasons to give up any info they have to hurt Intel if possible. With Intel's recent gung-ho approach and partnering with RH and SuSE anything to hurt them would benefit MS in some small way. Don't be surprised if Ballmer hand delivers the documents himself.

Re:Right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150524)

Is there any big business endeavour that *doesn't* involve constantly suing your competitors? It's so pervasive in America it's approaching a modus operandi - sue your way to the top, then sue to stay there.

Re:Right now (1)

ToasterofDOOM (878240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152434)

IBM? Also, it's not suing, but suing successfully. Look at SCO. They try to sue to the top, but they're failing. badly.

Re:Right now (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150533)

Yeah, but the sheer irony of it's like seeing Senator <senator> on an Ethics panel...

Re:Right now (1)

IntelliAdmin (941633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151124)

It makes one wonder also if the Intel/Apple alliance will have any bearing on Microsoft's decision to give them any help. One other thing to note is Microsoft's lackluster support of Intel 64 Bit processors, but their huge support of AMD 64 bit processors.

Re:Right now (1)

CYDVicious (834329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150685)

Don't be surprised if Ballmer hand delivers the documents himself.

The documents, no doubt, will be included with the chair...

Re:Right now (2, Insightful)

hihihihi (940800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150865)

I think it is not wether they agree to hand-over the documents is that big of an issue, also matters is what and which documents to submit.
there is always a possibility that they may actually start hading over only documents which might have some beneficial value for them in some or the other ways.
the same also holds true for all other corporations who have agreed. between disclosing and non-disclosure, there is always a chance of willfull partial disclosure for own benefit.
AMD must be extra-carefull.

Re:Right now (2, Funny)

wbren (682133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150885)

Don't be surprised if Ballmer hand delivers the documents himself.

Oh Ballmer won't just "deliver" them, not in the traditional sense. He will duct tape the documents to a chair and throw it at Intel, thereby "f**king killing" Intel.

Oops! Wrong corporation...

Re:Right now (2, Interesting)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151171)

WinAMD, or even better, linAMD, just doesn't have the same ring to it as wintel.

Oh well, never too fond of either companies business practices.

I don't know which hi-tech corporate quarrel I like best, there are so many that evoke such varied emotional responses.

AMD vs. Intel, great I've always been a fan of the underdog, but AMD has had their day in the sun coming for a long time.

I do however find it ironic that Microsoft and Intel are all slings and arrows these days.. As both companies still depend on each-other to a degree.

One one hand it's Better than a soap opera, like 2 drunk hillbilly brothers shooting at each-ther over who gets the last lucky lager. Or ex-lovers shooting the evil eye at eachother from across the technical landscape. Or suicidal siamese twins... It's funny sad, scary, all at the same time, and who cares which one wins, because, it's just fun to watch, even if the action is a bit slow. /too many analogies.

Re:Right now (2, Interesting)

PastAustin (941464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151961)

Microsoft has a bunch of reasons to give up any info they have to hurt Intel if possible. With Intel's recent gung-ho approach and partnering with RH and SuSE anything to hurt them would benefit MS in some small way. Don't be surprised if Ballmer hand delivers the documents himself.

Microsoft also has a lot of reasons to not cooperate with AMD. They work practically side-by-side with OpenSuSE and do all sorts of kernel optimization for their hardware with Linux.

Microsoft doesn't have too many friends these days.

Re:Right now (1)

invader_allan (583758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15153419)

... don't forget their recent partnership with Apple, the only large software competitor to M$ that can damage them.

...! w00t (1, Funny)

arashf (940486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150307)

gogo amd

Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150872)

Im all for AMD. as an AMD 'Fan' i'll support them all the way trough...

i can care less for Intel, theve been ripping people off for a long time, its about time they get ripped off.

Re:...! w00t (1)

Cryssen (959305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151379)

Is that anything like "gogo power rangers" ?

Payback Time (5, Interesting)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150330)

Intel testified against Microsoft in their anti-trust trial. AMD testified in support of Microsoft's monopoly. I'm sure that Microsoft will be happy to return these favors.

Re:Payback Time (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150496)

Ah yes, it's good to see large multinationals resorting to playground ethics...

Wasn't it Gandhi who said; "Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"?

Re:Payback Time (1)

the real darkskye (723822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15153639)

Wasn't it Gandhi who said; "Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"?

Close it is recorded as:
"An eye for an eye will make us all blind"

Re:Payback Time (2, Interesting)

Bamafan77 (565893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150767)

I'm interested in slashdotter's opinions on current antitrust legislature. Should the government step in when vendors have the ability to dictate prices/terms to people who control sales channels or should other businesses be forced anticipate these actions and so innovate in different ways (new channels, lower prices, new tech, etc) to get their sales?

Re:Payback Time (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151177)

I think when a company becomes more like a bunch of armed thugs threatening you about using someone else's product and less like a vendor... Then yeah.

Re:Payback Time (1)

Bamafan77 (565893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152815)

"I think when a company becomes more like a bunch of armed thugs threatening you about using someone else's product and less like a vendor"
Well, they're in no shape or form like "armed thugs". That's just being sensationalistic. The vendor presents the channel operator with a set of terms and the channel operator is free to comply or ignore them (naturally, one choice may make more business sense than another). Competing vendors and channel operators have to think of creative solutions around this roadblock - a normal part of any business.

Re:Payback Time (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15155436)

Yes, however, I believe that Intel isn't acting like a gang of thugs, however, Microsoft was.

And to complete the summary... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150342)

From TFA:

"AMD may be requesting documents from Microsoft that show that Intel tried to convince the software company not to support x86 64-bit in Windows. This might be a tricky thing to prove, as Microsoft has offered 64 bit versions of Windows for both Itanium and x86 64-bit for some time now."

And also, that Microsoft is complying with the request.

I wish summaries are more complete. Only if wishes were horses....

Re:And to complete the summary... (1)

Ragnarrokk (906696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150528)

We'll all be eatin' steak.

(Firefly, Objects in Space)

Re:And to complete the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15154546)

I wish summaries are more complete. Only if wishes were horses....


Yipee? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150349)

*looks at green badge around neck*.... I guess this is good.

Personally I'm happy for AMDs courage of conviction not just because of where I work ... [hint hint] and not because it's morally superior but because it's good for the gander.

Intel is not evil but they do have an awful stance of we're the best and there is no reason to consider anyone else. They demonstrate this by the way they package their kits (e.g. you need an Intel northbridge/southbridge) to the way they develop software (IPP is not friendly on AMD nor is ICC). They'll claim it's for superior performance but consider AMD.

AMDs stance is they want as many people developing around AMD as possible. This is why VIA and Nvidia (to name two) are major developers of chipsets. AMD is partnered with development shops (won't say which) where the attitude is "be great on AMD but not at the expense of being great on Intel". Basically we want the best performance we can get so long as we don't create problems for the competition.

I hope other companies can stand up and just admit for a change that competition is great, it's a good idea and furthermore the future of the computing industry demands it.

Vive la choix!


Re:Yipee? (1)

TheJediGeek (903350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150502)

"Intel is not evil but they do have an awful stance of we're the best and there is no reason to consider anyone else."

A great example of this happened several years ago. I was at an Intel show around the time the P4 was released. The Intel reps were takling up their 128MB MP3 player which had a price of $199. Creative had recently released their first Nomad Jukebox. A 6GB MP3 player for, you guessed it, $199.

I asked an Intel rep why someone would want the Intel 128MB MP3 player instead of the 6GB Creative MP3 player for the same price. The answer I got was...
"The Intel MP3 player has better sound quality"

I had no response, I was trying to keep from laughing in the rep's face.

Re:Yipee? (3, Insightful)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150557)

Basically we want the best performance we can get so long as we don't create problems for the competition.

Surely you mean end user?

Re:Yipee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150616)

Well by extension that means end user.

Say we partnered with a compiler vendor. Would we want them to lose their Intel customer base? Why would they work with us if that was the case. They make more sales to Intel users than AMD.

Re:Yipee? (1)

bubkus_jones (561139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152661)

No, he means Intel. What I gather he's getting at is AMD wants developers to code their programs to work better on AMD systems, but Intel systems will still run it without trouble. Intel may not run it as smoothly/quickly, but it will be stable and functional.

A positive experience for the end user is the goal, AMD would prefer AMD chips provide that experience, but they don't want anyone to suffer if they use Intel.

You see it with ATI and Nvidia. Some games have a "Designed to run with ATI" but they'll still run great with an Nvidia card, and some have "Designed for NVidia/GeForce", but will still run great with ATI.

Re:Yipee? (1)

MooUK (905450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15153915)

I think he meant what he said. "Make it run better on ours WITHOUT making it run worse on theirs."

In other words, differentiating your product make making yours better, rather than making the comptetion's seems worse. Playing fair. More or less.

Re:Yipee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150622)

I am sorry to tell you, but I get better offer at Intel research lab than AMD's design center.

Not so good (1)

vivin (671928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151105)

I don't see this as good at all. And I don't say this because of where _I_ work...

Competition is good. That I can see. AMD did show up Intel more than a few times and Intel is responding and changing. That's what business and competition is all about. I have to admit that I lost some respect for AMD once they did this. I have always thought that they provided good processors at good prices and at times I have even bought AMD. But the lawsuit? I don't think so.

Think about this, AMD fanboys. If Intel were to disappear today, do you think AMD will have ANYWHERE near the capacity to supply the market? The answer is a plain and simple "No". Intel has a large amount of fabs that churn out processors for its supplies. AMD doesn't have that strength. The fact is that Intel supplies a majority of the market and keeps it going. AMD is an excellent competitor and keeps Intel on its toes. And that is what we need to see. Not lawsuits. I wonder how much this is actually going to cost consumers.

Re:Not so good (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151544)

Except there would be morehn enough people offering them loans for them to quickly ramp up production. Maybe a year of tight proc. production, possibly 1.5. Not any more really, especially since they'd be able to buy and convert Intel's facilities.

Re:Not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15155293)

Think about this, AMD fanboys. If Intel were to disappear today [..]
Who says we want Intel to disapeer. I'm an AMD fanboy, but I was at least three big players in the market--that means a bit more marketshare for AMD a lot less for Intel and a lot more for someone else who doesn't really exist yet.

Re:Yipee? (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152416)

I hope keeping anonymity wasn't too important, tomstdenis (446163).
Signing an AC post isn't terribly helpful if you wish to remain anonymous.

signing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15153295)

I have done that before myself, signed an AC post, because I wanted to post, and didn't care that people could see who wrote it, but wanted an option to come in at a 0 threshold (because of high temp content or off-topicness, etc) instead of default 1 or 2. At least semi responsible posting in other words.

but, I am not doing that now.... the signing part..I don't care to follow the sub-thread, don't need the karma at all, and got other things to do...

Re:Yipee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15152855)

(IPP is not friendly on AMD nor is ICC)

Don't know if you've seen it, but there's a nasty expose on freenet about ICC deliberately disabling SSE support for AMD chips in some circumstances with the result that P4's run the uncrippled version of the code considerably faster. Hex editing the CPU check out results in SSE'd code that works perfectly every time on AMD. It's not a bug workaround, it's deliberate.

Re:Yipee? (1)

Dan Guisinger (15506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15155304)

Excuse me for saying this...but that "packaging" you refer to, buy our cpu, our northbridge, and our south bridge.......heck, even buy our a GoodThing(tm).

I have had various AMD-based boards over the years, and the reliability of an AMD processor, various chipset and foreign motherboard manufacturers has been half baked to say the least. I've heard its gotten better, HOWEVER......this has convinced myself and many others I know NOT to buy AMD until AMD offers a total, 100% guarenteed and backed solution because when we put a computer into our business we expect it to work, no problems what so ever. We don't want freeze ups, crashes, driver issues, etc. And the worst part is, if you have 4 vendors in the cookie jar, no one ever admits its their problem, they point at Microsoft and say see, Windows is buggy, its their fault.

I'm not going to pass the blame at anyone in particular; HOWEVER I will say that had AMD actually had a AMD-only and fully backed & supported platform, we would once again consider AMD for all our computing needs.

This would be a non-issue (0)

.Bruce Perens (150539) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150444)

This would be a non-issue if both AMD and Intel would open up the code to their CPUs. Open souce, open code, and the free sharing of information is good for the community, and I don't just mean the computing community either. I mean the global community. I should know, I'm the inventor of open source. Hobbyist programmers could re-write Windows for both AMD and Intel CPUS to increase the efficiency and productivity of ALL the products, and then no antitrust lawsuit would exist.


Do We Pay? (4, Insightful)

MudButt (853616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150466)

FTFA"As the Intel-AMD lawsuit drags on, there's no telling what kind of picture the documents it brings to light will eventually paint about the computer industry."

Every time I see these antitrust lawsuits "drag on" in the news, I wonder how much of the cost of these fights gets passed onto us, the consumer? It must cause a ripple effect when Company A sues Company B which impacts Companies C, D, etc. in terms of attorney fees, internal audit, research, and strategic analysis. Are we footing the bill?

Re:Do We Pay? (1) (936869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150677)

Of course we are footing the bill. Unless the company is printing money... it has to come from somewhere.

Re:Do We Pay? (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150837)

Be gratefull, now your shoe shining business can charge those lawyers more, it's the "trickle down effect".

Re:Do We Pay? (1)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151695)

Are we footing the bill?

Of course. But the real question is, do we pay more if a company is allowed to abuse a monopoly?

Re:Do We Pay? (1)

frieko (855745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151700)

Competition is costly. If nobody's interests overlapped there would be no litigation, crime, war, divorce, etc. It's just the price humans pay due to the fact that there's more than one of us. So basically, of course we're footing the bill.

Re:Do We Pay? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15154106)

What do you mean, are we footing the bill? If you mean does AMD generate revenue by selling things, and then use a portion of that revenue for the lawsuits, then, well.. duh. There's no AMD Legal Offense fund accepting donations that I'm aware of. I doubt their attorneys are working pro bono.

If you meant is AMD jacking up prices to subsidize their legal campaign, well, perhaps, but that question is equally meaningless. You'd really need to do a study of price including past and present depreciation, and then compare that to inflation and the past and present depreciation of competitive products. Even that wouldn't tell the whole story, and you'd end up doing some speculation. The bottom line is that if you need to to that much work to figure out if the prices have "increased" to support litigation, then they essentially haven't. Even if you're paying a few cents/bucks more per processor, you're still likely saving money over Intel. Additionally, they're working in the best interest of the company to help level the playing field thereby, theoretically, increasing distribution which, through economies of scale, would mean you might pay less for your next processor. Assuming they didn't just keep prices roughly the same and realize a greater profit. Also assuming they don't lose, or fail to capitalize on a win, and subsequently go bust, in which case you'll definately be paying for it, although your money will be going to the only competitor left -- Intel.

Re:Do We Pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15154652)

Well, Historically, AMD has been running a very tight ship with very tight margins, with it's growth limited by it's credit line. However, since the opteron line has taken the server market by storm, profit margins for AMD have gone up, way up.

Which has enabled them to grow, and add many new fabs, and pay for the legal bills.

Re:Do We Pay? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15155876)

What do you think companies are going to do with their money anyway - give it to charity, spend it all on research to make the world a better place? This is the cost of doing business.

Re:Do We Pay? (1)

archer, the (887288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15157045)

Good question. When a patient wins a malpractice case, who foots the bill? The doctor? Nope. The doctor just pays a smaller fine or loses his license, not the big multi-million dollar award. Probably all doctors' Malpractice Insurance fees go up tho. Can't imagine why health care costs are always going up.

Who's going to repay all the money lost by Enron employees? The upper management folks? Nope, they already spent it and won't be pulling in even a six-figure from salary behind bars. (Assuming that happens...)

What if a large company used anti-competitive practices to shut down a small company? Maybe a class action suit from somewhere. If the suit wins but the small company has failed, will the court order it rebuilt?

I'd really like to see the people who made the decisions be held accountable for the magnitude of the effect they have on the victims.

Yeah, ok, I'm ranting & probably not making too much sense. Down 1.

Innovate or Sue? (1, Interesting)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150509)

I lose respect for any company that engages in lawsuits like this.

AMD has great products, and they are succeeding in the marketplace. A lawsuit just seems to come from jealousy. Why not spend their efforts competing with better products?

I know everyone is thinking about things like Intel's market control. But AMD is big enough to stand on its own feet and just keep going.

A nice, clear-cut lawsuit that acheives a real remedy can be healthy for a company, and is sometimes very necessary. But this type of litigious behavior can only corrupt. And that will destroy the innovation at AMD.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150568)

They've had better products for a long time. They've been innovative. As I understand it, all they want is a fair chance at getting a major computer vendor contract, like with Dell for example.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15152345)

You understand it wrong. Dell is not interested in signing a contract with somebody that cannot meet their volume demands. Fab capacity doesnt magically appear out of no where, and AMD doesn't have enough of it right now to make them a viable alternative for Dell.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15153971)

I understand your point, but just to play devil's advocate:

Dell must pick someone. I suppose they could offer both chips, but they don't want to confuse their customers, or their tech support personnel. Is whoever Dell picks the monopolist?

Re:Innovate or Sue? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150657)

Well, Gateway doesn't sell AMD on it's website, Dell sells AMD no where. Dell is one of the best selling computers. Dell and intel have a contract I don't know the terms but I'm pretty sure dell is prohibited from selling AMD computers and Intel offers deep discounts. So basically the consumer has no choice. Some companies and universities offer a % off any dell computer. They must select between celerons , p4, pD, xeons or whatever it is that they have.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (4, Insightful)

vodkamattvt (819309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150661)

AMD has been doing just what you are saying for years. They *have* had the best CPUs for years now. If the playing field were even, AMD would already be in a position where this lawsuite would not even make sense.

The playing field is *far* from even. Intel had such dominance for so long, and cuts deals to specifically hamper AMD that this lawsuite is needed.

I dont see any stagnation in their drive for innovation. What they are doing is making sure their efforts are not wasted on a marketplace in which Intel has created barriers all over the place to stop AMD market penetration. Why would you continue to innovate just to sell chips in a market where you can never hope to compete with an Intel that violates anti-Trust and keeps you from competing in the marketplaces that you need.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (3, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150831)

AMD has been doing just what you are saying for years. They *have* had the best CPUs for years now. If the playing field were even, AMD would already be in a position where this lawsuite would not even make sense.

"Best" is a blanket statement.

Most industry analysts believe that Intel's costs are far below AMD's, which gives Intel much more negotiating room with major OEMs. That is, Intel can sell CPUs cheaper than AMD and still make money. This makes Intel's CPUs "best" for large OEMs like Dell even when AMD is cheaper in the retail market.

Also, AMD has marketed itself as the "alternative for low-end cheap people", even when they had faster products on the market. This effectively cut them out of high-value segements of the market. It's only recently that AMD has been somewhat successful selling into the server and workstation markets.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152084)

You are right- the playing field is not even, but not for the reasons you are thinking. The dirty little secret of the semiconductor industry is that it is more about manufacturing than it is about the actual features that are on your chips. Nobody else in the industry can hold a candle to Intel's manufacturing capabilities. Its not even close. From 300mm wafers to 65nm-going-on-45nm Fabs all over the world, they are in their own league. When we are talking about the volume that companies like Dell and HP require, Intel is the only player.

This isn't the result of sneaky or unethical behavior- this is the result of Intel investing billions of dollars in Fab capacity and manufacturing R&D every year, even in down markets! AMD hasn't made these same investments. The result? AMD has maxed out their production capacity, and they are selling every chip they make. Those barriers that you spoke of are a self-inflicted reality- AMD just can't meet the capacity that would be required for them to fully exploit their market potential. They are their only roadblock, and they can't blame that on Intel.

Re:Innovate or Sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15152624)

In one word:


Re:Innovate or Sue? (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15155134)

Yeah, most people miss the mass-manufacturing aspect of semiconductors. It has _never_ been about how fast your chip is. You can essentially make the fastest CPU you want.... that is if you want to spend $1,000,000 to manufacture one chip, and that's just the manufacture it, not even counting design costs. The important thing is who can mass manufacture something at the lowest cost? Intel still has the advantage here over AMD. Not only that, but they have more money to spend on R&D and building new fabs utilizing the latest technologies. Yeah, AMD is the popular stock right now and it's had a big run up because everyone thinks it's going to replace Intel. But I think if you were to look at the roadmaps of the two companies I still think Intel will get to 45nm and beyond before AMD. So yes, AMD has better designs now, but really I think any company can design these CPU's, all the information is out there. But who has the most fabs? That's all that matters.

And when Windows Vista finally comes out? Everyone wins! There will be huge demand from businesses to replace their computers with new ones running Vista. But the key here will be volume and Intel still has that.

Oversimplified. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150825)

You sound like the type of guy that cries and moans about how all these "frivolous" malpractice claims are the cause of skyrocketing healthcare costs.

Until it happens to you or someone you love...

Then you're the guy moaning about how" medical mistakes" is one of the top 10 killers in America and the problem has been ignored for too long.

There are two sides to every coin... if something strikes you as outrageous you should take that as a clue that there is probably more to the story.

Re:Oversimplified. (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15154062)

Like I said, sometimes a lawsuit is necessary. I'm not really qualified to start breaking down specific medical malpractice lawsuits. I'm sure there are valid and frivilous ones just like everything else. From what I understand now, malpractice insurance is a huge cost for many physicians. Some types of doctors pay $100k/yr for malpractice insurance just because of the type of doctor they are and the state they practice in.

I guess that's fine, but then you can't complain about a $250 bill to talk to the doctor for 10 minutes (that actually happened the last time I saw the doctor, by the way). To me, it seems more economically efficient to talk to 2-4 cheap doctors than one super-expensive one.

The result is that now most people get medical advice from family members and rarely see the doctor. What do you think? I'm not asking rhetorically, I want to know. You probably know more than I do. Perhaps it might be better to limit liability, thus reducing the cost of a doctor's visit, thus allowing patients more frequent visits (or phone consultations or even house calls), and second (or 3rd+) opinions.

Re:Innovate AND Sue? (2, Insightful)

zzatz (965857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151556)

I think that you may be struggling with the essential paradox of antitrust suits. Antitrust law defines a monopoly as one who has market power, where market power is the ability to get away with actions that would cause loss of sales in an ordinary market. Having market power is legal. Anti-competitive behavior is legal, and normally punished by market forces. But anti-competitive acts committed with market power are illegal. The law steps in when normal market conditions fail.

The paradox is that proof of market power depends on showing that anti-competitive acts did not result in the usual harm to the alleged monpolist's sales. The acts are only illegal if the monopolist gets away with them. If the market punishes your anticompetitive acts, then you aren't a monopolist.

It's fairly clear that AMD had a superior product in the Athlon 64. In a normal market, that would mean that AMD could charge a premium price. But AMD not only had to have a better product to take sales from Intel, but they had to charge a lower price, too. That strongly suggests that Intel has market power, and that they used it to suppress competition rather than out-compete.

The suggestion that antitrust suits are motivated by jealousy is silly, and you should be ashamed of trivializing a suit that obviously exposes AMD to considerable work and expense.

I agree that it is unhealthy to use lawsuits as a replacement for sound business development. Lawsuits often indicate the presence of corruption. But that corruption may be on either side - who filed the suit doesn't tell you who is at fault. Intel lost the technology lead for a while, which reflects management problems. Did those management problems also allow illegal, corrupt behavior to cover up the loss of the technical lead?

Did AMD substitute lawsuits for innovation? Or did Intel substitute corrupt practices for innovation? Filing the suit tells us that someone had trouble competing. The sourt will tell us which party it was.

Re:Innovate AND Sue? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15154114)

You make some valid legal points. But I'm not sure how many companies really emerge from antitrust lawsuits with any real economic benefit. If I see AMD get some money in the next year or two, and then use it to make amazing products that blow away the market, you (and AMD) will be vindicated. Otherwise, not.

Let the courts decide if something is fishy first (1)

archer, the (887288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152485)

Yeah, we're all tired of the lawsuits. But sometimes, they are *required*. Only the court (and maybe objective folks with *all* of the facts) can tell if Intel really has been working AMD over unfairly, or if AMD is just SCO wanna-be.

*If* Intel has made anti-competitive contracts (Such as, "Only buy our chips or our prices double!"), I'd liked to see them smacked as hard as Microsoft. .... err, ok... maybe this is a pointless waste of time & money.

Big Picture (0, Troll)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150547)

Interestingly, at the time Windows for x86 64-bit was being developed, there were rumors that such support was a payback for the time AMD's CEO Jerry Sanders testified on behalf of Microsoft for their antitrust suit. As the Intel-AMD lawsuit drags on, there's no telling what kind of picture the documents it brings to light will eventually paint about the computer industry.Everybody is sleeping with everybody else. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Do unto others before they do unto you. That's the current state of the computer industry.

I'm all for AMD sticking it to Intel. Intel has spent a long time trying to shoehorn their processors into everything (can you say Apple?) and if it weren't for AMD, there would be no serious challenges to their dominance. Of course, Microsoft gets to play the lady-in-waiting and doesn't really care who ends up winning, but it's like the Mafia: AMD has done for MS, so MS will return the favor.

Mind you I am not biased by the fact that my Sony Vaio running XP with an Athlon processor is one of the smoothest machines I've ever run. Did I just say that?

Re:Big Picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15153022)

Did you just say Sony?

they all suck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15150571)

intel, amd, microsoft... they all suck cos theyre evil corporations after money and only money. let them all kill eachother

AdvancedMerchandisingDevices (2, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150675)

AMD filed a lawsuit against rival Intel last July, charging that the chip giant has "unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD."

There's nothing you can do, there was an Intel inside. The revelation of his presence sent some very bad signals which were chipping away your reputation.

Re:AdvancedMerchandisingDevices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15151064)

Sir, what the fuck are you babbling about?

AMD still makes chips (3, Insightful)

kp2sushi (638066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150694)

While an antitrust suit against intel is rather interesting, I'm more interested in seeing what cool new chips AMD comes up with next. It has since been AMD's style to come up with next big thing a whole quarter or more before intel brings it to the market. They aren't going to win market share with an antitrust suit, but they may (keyword: may) level the playing field with software and hardware manufacturers a bit. Linux users seem to be AMD's most avid fans; are we not always rooting for the underdog? AMD may not be the underdog for long as they continue to gain market share with their main feature: superior power and engineering at a lower pricepoint than their primary competitor.

Re:AMD still makes chips (1)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150970)

Linux users seem to be AMD's most avid fans

Don't forget the gamers. All of the hardcore PC gamers I know wouldn't be caught dead with an Intel CPU in their gaming rig.

Re:AMD still makes chips (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151016)

Intel is rolling out new chips a few months which will out-perform Athlon64, and AMD doesn't have much to respond with. Things look pretty bleak for AMD in the short term, so perhaps this trial really is their best chance to open up the PC market. Even if there's no decision soon, Intel and OEMs will likely be on their best behavior.

Re:AMD still makes chips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15153438)

Praising vapourware is a true sign of an intelbot.

Microsoft? (3, Insightful)

corellon13 (922091) | more than 8 years ago | (#15150917)

Mod me how you will, but something has to be said. After reading these posts, I would have thought this was a fight between Microsoft and Intel. Many of the posts are from people trying to dive into the mind of Microsoft and speculate that this is payback for Intel testifying against them. I have to ask what would happen if Microsoft went along with Toshiba and refused to cooperate? Does the term damned if you do and damned if you don't come to mind?

Re:Microsoft? (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151027)

> Mod me how you will

Do you think there is anything to the allegation that WinTEL tried to lock AMD out of the 'trusted computing' business?

Re:Microsoft? (1)

corellon13 (922091) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151154)

My comment is regarding THIS article and the lawsuit between AMD and Intel. My purpose is not to champion Microsoft (as I am not a big fan). However, I see no need to use every lawsuit and opportunity on /. to slam Microsoft for the sake of slamming them. I think this line of thinking and type of comments actually helps Microsoft by making legitimate articles and arguments become just another "M$ bash fest".

Re:Microsoft? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15155329)

Or maybe the reverse--tried to force 'trusted computing' on AMD in a way that would cost them the Linux market.

As long as AMD keeps powering my games well... (1)

Wisgary (799898) | more than 8 years ago | (#15151538)

and clocking in a couple dozen frames per second more in just about every game engine (except those suspicious ID Software engines) than Intel processors I'll keep loving them.

Microsoft? Keep documents pretaining to a case? (1)

kkovach (267551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15152425)

Heh, heh heh. That's good stuff. I can hear the shredders, er ... left clicks on the delete buttons, now.

Just ask the Burst attorneys about Microsoft's email retention policy.

Before you start cheering for AMD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15152518)

Don't forget that AMD's CEO testifed for Microsoft (against goverment) in Microsoft's antitrust trial in April 2002.

FROST PIST (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15152520)

culture> of a3use Baby take my

NIgGA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15152746)

grudges? (1)

yeruki (912949) | more than 8 years ago | (#15153013)

Microsoft holds a grudge indeed. All honesty disappears when you're a giant monopoly corporation. Why can't everyone just play fair? AMD will probably be enemies to Intel now, like how Microsoft is. Ah, the circle of corporations.

What about market share? (1)

invader_allan (583758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15153456)

Doesn't AMD's growing market share hurt their case against Intel leveraging a monopoly? This case has probably been pushing forward for a long time, but I would think that the fact that AMD is making so many inroads would hurt their case that Intel is keeping them out through unfair competition practices.

School Yard (1)

CCSPREZ (969299) | more than 8 years ago | (#15154272)

Is it just me or do all these lawsuits remind you of the playground in kindergarten. A lot of Big kids try to convince the small kids to side with them. If only they would just put the two CEO's in a boxing ring and let them go at it to decide the outcome.
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account