×

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!

New York Launches Intel Antitrust Investigation

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the chip-on-their-shoulders dept.

The Courts 66

Multiple users have notified us of reports that the Attorney General of New York has initiated an antitrust investigation of Intel. The EU served Intel with similar charges last July, and AMD has been battling Intel over antitrust issues for some time. Quoting the New York Times: "The subpoenas from Mr. Cuomo's office will seek internal memos, billing documents, and correspondence between Intel and its customers to determine whether the company engaged in a variety of anticompetitive practices, like penalized customers, primarily computer manufacturers, for purchasing processors from competitors or improperly paying customers to use Intel chips exclusively. Chuck Mulloy, a spokesman for Intel, said the company would comply with Mr. Cuomo's subpoena but denied any illegality."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

66 comments

Why can't..... (5, Insightful)

bherman (531936) | more than 6 years ago | (#21992928)

Intel pay a company to use Intel exclusively, but Blu-Ray or HD-DVD can?

Re:Why can't..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21993144)

You sue those that have the money. Once Blu-Ray or HD-DVD starts turning major profit, expect the other cartel to whine and cry about payoffs.

Re:Why can't..... (2, Informative)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993152)

That's a good point and I can only assume why it's a different case:
  1. There is no monopoly on Blue-Ray or HD-DVD. Both standards are provided by several companies
  2. Both standards offer different features. CPUs on the other hand basically perform the same tasks (ok, sometimes one of the two major manufacturers has a new instruction set, but they exchange patents regarding this to ensure interoperability)
  3. The global market for HD material is still quite small and we don't really depend on it. Both might be soft arguments, but regulation usually has a focus on essential industries
Just a few thoughts...

Re:Why can't..... (1)

MLS100 (1073958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993184)

I guess this is why AMD can't even give its chips away for free right now, Intel is one step ahead yet again!

Re:Why can't..... (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994742)

I bought a dual-core AMD X2 3500 last year for $35. While everyone is trash-talking AMD because Intel has speedier chips on the high end, people keep overlooking how damned cheap the low-end AMD processors are, and how much more bang you get for your buck. I think the educated consumers are still buying AMD for just that reason.

Re:Why can't..... (1)

pin0chet (963774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995246)

AMD has some great low-end chips, but Intel has taken over every other market segment in performance. AMD remains viable only in the sub-$75 range. Intel's $75 E2140 can hit 3Ghz easily, running circles around a $75 Athlon X2 4400+, no matter how good of an OC you get from the Athlon. Intel's Core 2 chips have much more OC headroom and much better performance per dollar all the way from the $75 E2140 to the $1000 QX9650.

Re:Why can't..... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995276)

There are people who have gotten the 3500+ up to 3Ghz on air, and again that chip is so old, you can't even buy it anymore, but last year it was $35.

Not to mention that clock speed isn't everything. People often overlook the FSB for one. AMD has a much better FSB speed.

Then there is the fact that I figured the Slashdot crowd wasn't the type to support evil anti-trust corporations like Intel.

Re:Why can't..... (1)

kelnos (564113) | more than 6 years ago | (#22003088)

That's good news for me. I refuse to spend more than $40-50 on a CPU anyway. AMD it is, then.

That's not exactly how it worked for us.... (4, Interesting)

cybersquid (24605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994110)

I once worked at a now defunct major PC maker in the late 80s/early 90s.

They developed a notebook computer. There were 2 flavors: one used an Intel low-power 386 chip, and the other an AMD low-power 286. (They were going to use an Intel low-power 286, but Intel canceled the chip.)

The next month, they got shorted their allotment of 486 chips. Which meant that they couldn't ship all the desktop computers they'd built. There was no 2nd source for 486 chips. I was told that Intel was very clear why this happened. I think the AMD version was soon discontinued.

Not long after, Intel was investigated for this sort of thing. When the authorities contacted this company, they were so afraid of Intel that they denied anything like this had happened to them.

Re:That's not exactly how it worked for us.... (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995150)

Fortunately, if such behavior really created mispricings in chips, new PC makers would offer AMD only and intel would take a beating.

Re:That's not exactly how it worked for us.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999770)

When talking about monopolies, free market people always seem to ignore barriers to entry.

Re:That's not exactly how it worked for us.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999126)

In the 80's we were using a TI DSP chip that was popular. Supplies were allocated, which meant that the TI rep visited us and told us we would only get any of them if we bought all of our digital logic chips from TI as well. It's the way the sales guys do business.

Re:That's not exactly how it worked for us.... (1)

cybersquid (24605) | more than 6 years ago | (#22008344)

That's a similar scenario. May I ask a question?

Did the sales rep tell you this before you were buying, or after you'd gone into production?

Nice story, but... (1)

rajafarian (49150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000960)

They developed a notebook computer. There were 2 flavors: one used an Intel low-power 386 chip, and the other an AMD low-power 286.

Notebook? I think they were too big to be that, are you sure you don't mean suitcase computer?

Re:Nice story, but... (1)

cybersquid (24605) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001838)

Interesting: what are the criteria?

As it happens one sits in my office as a dust collector. My tape measure says:

Width: 11.25"
Depth: 9"
Thick: 2.25"

I've read on-line that the weight is ~6.5 lbs.

Larger than most notebooks of today, but still I think a notebook.

Re:That's not exactly how it worked for us.... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22008844)

AMD did produce a 486 clone and it lasted for many years it just took them a bit longer because IIRC they had to reverse engineer it.

The only reason there was competition in the PC processor market in the first place was because IBM insisted on it. As IBM lost power there was noone with the clout to pressure intel into releasing it's designs so the other manufacturers of PC processors had to switch to reverse engineering or making thier own designs.

Re:Why can't..... (1)

Lunatrik (1136121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994430)

IANAL, but in order to practice this kind of business I believe you have to meet certain regulations. For instance, its OK for Coke to offer a fast food joint a discount on Coke products if they buy in quantities so large that it would be foolish for them to stock Pepsi at all. While they are driving pepsi out of the market, its "under the table". However, Coke going to that same store and signing an agreement that says "only sell coke and we'll sell it to you cheaper" -- I think thats where the line is crossed.

Antitrust investigations go nowhere (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21993014)

Try an anti-nigger investigation, Jew York.

improperly paying customers to use Intel chips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21993022)

"improperly paying customers to use Intel chips exclusively"

Yeah, like, don't get caught, idiots.

Cash grab (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21993040)

Nig York embarrasses the rest of the USA once more.

NYC: Niggers Yellowskins Coons.

Chuck had this to add to his statement: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21993050)

"Also, I hate niggers. Thank you."

I'm not sure he really said that but I am sure that niggers smell stinky.

This is patent infringement! (5, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993058)

Andrew Cuomo is infringing on Elliot Spitzer's patented method of going after any big "bad" company (conveniently based OUTSIDE of New York to not rile up local interests) in order to get political credentials as "crusading for the people" while doing nothing to actually help anybody. Oh, and the planned Fab that AMD was going to build in New York (but is probably not going to because its market capitalization is less than the value of a new fab post-Barcelona) has absolutely nothing to do with his "heroic" interests in going after Intel.

Re:This is patent infringement! (2, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993530)

To use a term from the lexicon of the average New Yorker, why don't those companies, which are based OUTSIDE of New York, politely tell the attorney general of New York to go f*** himself?

Re:This is patent infringement! (0, Flamebait)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994140)

To use a term from the lexicon of the average New Yorker, why don't those companies, which are based OUTSIDE of New York, politely tell the attorney general of New York to go f*** himself?

The average New Yorker doesn't know what "lexicon", "politely" or "OUTSIDE of New York" means.

Disclaimer: I've been to New York. I loved the people. Didn't like the atmosphere. Don't plan to go back.

Re:This is patent infringement! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21994200)

We don't want you here. fucker. =)

Re:This is patent infringement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21995344)

Precisely.

Re:This is patent infringement! (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999244)

To use a term from the lexicon of the average New Yorker, why don't those companies, which are based OUTSIDE of New York, politely tell the attorney general of New York to go f*** himself?

Gerald Ford told NYC to drop dead once, and it didn't work out too well for him come 1976.

If Intel were to decide it would rather discontinue doing business in the state of New York altogether than halt these alleged anticompetitive practices, they'd be fools.

Re:This is patent infringement! (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993560)

Oh, and the planned Fab that AMD was going to build in New York (but is probably not going to because its market capitalization is less than the value of a new fab post-Barcelona) has absolutely nothing to do with his "heroic" interests in going after Intel
Damn, I was just going to post something like this. AMD's been waffling on that project for over a year now. Some extra "incentive" for them to start the project, perhaps?

Re:This is patent infringement! (2, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995994)

If you think Spitzer didn't go after any New York based interests, you must not be paying attention [wikipedia.org]. He ended up collecting huge fines from (among others) Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup, all of which are based in New York City.

Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21993082)

Natural monopolies aren't morally wrong as artifically-created or sustained ones are.

Intel grew to dominance by selling their product well, and advertising it to stay-at-home moms, professional coders, milkmen, niggers, babysitters, mall security and anyone that could use a computer.

They're the architects of the PC revolution, not IBM or Microsoft - and now they're being punished.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993290)

Intel was no more than architect of the PC revolution than IBM or Microsoft. That title belongs to MOS. MOS because they sold a right cheap CPU, and Apple because they put together the first real consumer-friendly multipurpose computers; the Apple II and the Commodore PET. Oh yes, and let's not forget VisiCalc, which probably can be credited as much as anything with sparking the PC revolution because a) it was a pretty damned innovative idea and b) it was an instant hit with small businesses, and created the core market for the PC revolution.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993350)

Grrr... fucked that up. What I meant was:

Intel was no more than architect of the PC revolution than IBM or Microsoft. That title belongs to MOS. MOS because they sold a right cheap CPU, and Apple and Commodore because they put together the first real consumer-friendly multipurpose computers; the Apple II and the Commodore PET. Oh yes, and let's not forget VisiCalc, which probably can be credited as much as anything with sparking the PC revolution because a) it was a pretty damned innovative idea and b) it was an instant hit with small businesses, and created the core market for the PC revolution.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995106)

The other popular consumer-friendly multipurpose computer of that period was the Radio Shack TRS-80, which ran on a Zilog chip, an improvement of an Intel design. However, these were not the first home computers. The success of the Altair and Imsai computers with Intel chips showed that the idea could actually work. (Back then, the bar for personal computing was a bit higher than now; I read a review that praised a kit for being easy to assemble, on the grounds that the reviewer only had to dig out his oscilloscope once.)

Since Intel invented the microcomputer chip, and Intel chips were in two of the computers that kicked off the whole movement, it would seem reasonable to give Intel a good deal of the credit.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

hl2.exe (1135699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22008858)

Is anyone aware of the fact that monopolies are ILLEGAL in the United States?

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993424)

Natural monopolies aren't morally wrong
I don't think Natural Monopoly means what you think it means."An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms" [wikipedia.org] The term you are looking for is a technical monopoly. That is a monopoly that can survive "even in the absence of legal regulations or "predatory" measures by the monopolist".

The thing is it CAN be argued that Intel uses predatory measures. If they pay people like Microsoft does to carry only their product then they are using predatory measures.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (2, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993694)

Tell that to MIPS, Motorola, Zilog, MOS, Digital, Cyrix, Rockwell....

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (5, Interesting)

ElBeano (570883) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993844)

Yes, Intel has a long history of anticompetitive behaviour. I've read other posts basically saying "...AMD has created their own problems" but what people seem to forget is the incredibly capital intensive (and long term) nature of the processor business. When AMD had a real performance lead with the Athlon, Intel used their monopoply position to keep them from selling to as many OEMS as they might have. This likely depressed the prices and reduced capital that could have been used to build for the future.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (5, Insightful)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995156)

This is an incredibly naiive view to take- the industry is much more complicated than that. Here are 3 things that come to mind:
  • At its heart, the semiconductor business is a manufacturing business. In many ways, a company's ability to manufacture the chips is more important than the features of the chip itself. When the larger OEMs announce that they will require 10 million units in the next quarter with DPM of less than 500, there are only a few companies that can meet that kind of demand. Intel has spent tens of billions of dollars to build their manufacturing capabilities and keep them at the leading edge. AMD, on the other hand, has made a series of strategic blunders in this regard over the past 15 years (remember the UMC debacle?). As a result, AMD's has never been able to produce the quantity and quality of product that the larger OEMs demand, and have shut themselves out of the bigger markets. You can't blame Intel for this.
  • When the OEMs design products, there is a lot more involved than just picking the CPU. They need to build a whole platform, and problems anywhere in that supply chain will directly impact the OEMs ability to produce and sell that platform. So even if AMD had been able to supply the 10 million Athlon CPUs with the required defect rate to an OEM, would the OEM be able to get enough chipset components within the required defect rate as well? Once again, Intel took charge of its own destiny here as well by designing and making their own chipsets that are backed by the same manufacturing capabilities as their CPUs, and OEMs respond by using the Intel-branded chipsets 90% of the time.
  • The supply of the product is one thing, but the quality is another. I'm not talking about the chip's performance, but functional bugs that cause stability issues or data corruption. Slashdot likes to joke about the Pentium FDIV bug, but the truth is that bug scared the crap out of Intel, so they throw enormous resources into their CPU and chipset validation. This translates to direct value to the OEMs in the form of faster time-to-market and lower support costs. If OEMs perceive that on company is validating their products more than the competition, they are going to be more likely to chose that company's design. Remember, this goes for any component of the platform (not just the CPU!), so a flaky northbridge from VIA or NVidia could cause an OEM to drop the AMD platform in favor of Intel as well.
In other words, even though AMD had a superior performance in the Athlon, there were other completely competitive reasons for an OEM to select Intel over AMD, and most of those are a direct result of choices that AMD made.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21996084)

I am somewhat shocked that most Slashdot posters are actually defending Intel's business practices. Especially in light of the recent OLPC news. The two stories are related. In one case Intel wants to maintain its monopoly in the industrialized world, and in the other, it wants to block competition - of a non-profit group - in the developing world.

Intel's behavior is a textbook case of abuse of monopoly. And, yes, 90% of revenue and 75% of unit sales of a market is a monopoly.

Intel's "incentive" program effectively blocked AMD from getting the revenue from their superior Athlon chips in order to build the billion dollar fabs necessary to compete. Why buy 25% of your chips from AMD when Intel will basically give you the same number of chips for free via loyalty incentives if you buy the other 75% of your chips from them as well? Intel knows that it must keep AMD's processor prices to an average price of less than $65 each (wholesale) so that AMD will have poor margins and will be perpetually unable to compete. And without fair competition it means CPU prices will once again rise and development progress will slow down.

But luckily for the consumer this will soon change. Japan, EU, Korea and now New York state is wise to Intel's business practices.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

khanyisa (595216) | more than 6 years ago | (#21996228)

Even by your own description, this is not entirely a result of choices AMD made. Part of the challenge is building your capacity so you can supply what OEMs need as you describe. But you have to have enough capital to do this - the variations in profit that could have been produced by the anti-competitive practices may have prevented AMD from building up the capital. Yes it's not a sure thing that they would have done it, but it does mean that these practices are worth investigating

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

mechlo (1100975) | more than 6 years ago | (#21997302)

It seems cheezedawg's arguments still stand well. Asserting any kind of leveraging is anti-competitive works if you make a single act or event from Intel and the OEM's as the cause for all of AMD's problems. I can't buy that. The argument that a series of decisions made over changing business conditions got Intel to where they are now is valid. To Intel's credit, they understood danger and responded to it. Just as importantly they understood their unique advantages as a company to extend their market power. No one can deny Intel's immense manufacturing power. Their business partners understand all the implications of that (I'm sure Intel constantly reminds them also). Having a flexible and CONSISTENT supplier is what businesses dream of. Putting aside conspiracies and fanboism, I have to take everything at face value. What I see in Intel is a company that's run pretty damn well and I would want some of those guys working at my company. Jeez, I have to stop slathering over Intel right now.

Show me the market forces (2, Interesting)

dallaylaen (756739) | more than 6 years ago | (#21997234)

When the larger OEMs announce that they will require 10 million units in the next quarter with DPM of less than 500, there are only a few companies that can meet that kind of demand.

For this point to be valid it must be prohibitively expensive to launch a new product line totalling to say 1M units (something AMD definitely can ship).

Considering that smaller OEMs do exist (10M is what the largest sell worldwide, right?), I believe this to be false. I'd like to see the numbers though.

$10/unit must be OK for not putting all the eggs in one basket. IANAOEM.

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999430)

you is wrong

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22025588)

You do realize that Intel gained a lot of its manufacturing capability through questionable avenues, such as suing smaller silicon vendors then out-spending their law teams and refusing any solution other than to hand over their silicon plants, right? (eg DEC)

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21994312)

Okay. I can see why this comment has been modded troll, but let's get real:

Natural monopolies aren't morally wrong as artifically-created or sustained ones are.
Duh. Duh. DUH!!! Does anyone truly belive that this wasn't the business plan from day one? When Intel and the x86 crew opened their hardware standards so that every two-bit half-assed circuit board company could start cranking out hardware for their platform, did anyone at the top level (VPs and above) not clearly see exactly what the intent was?

Creating an artificially sustained monopoly, by carefully funneling American taxpayer (and government approved via massive 401(k) influx) monies into their respective satellite businesses, was always the goal. In the mid to late nineties, and even beginning in the early 90s, there was a massive technology war, fought with funding, between Motorola/DEC/HP/Sun/Apple and friends vs. Intel/MS/IBM/AT&T and friends, with companies like Commodore/Amiga trying to stay on the fringes and wait the whole thing out while doing their own thing. The social networking graph (loosely based on executive board affiliations) probably goes deep into telecom and includes companies like TW, Comcast, MCI, and Sprint (not to mention Enron by way of investment portfolio) hedging bets on various angles of the board. Guess who had more political pull? The largest of the big business good old boys. Guess who lost out? Those who didn't have the same political clout.

So why the lawsuits now? It all seems so much like a complete and utter farce. "Oh, we didn't _know_ that's what you were going to do with all of the business advantage that those multibillion dollar government contracts gave you, so now we're going to at least take the token steps of at least filing the lawsuit... after we've screwed over the American population and half the world, and the .com boom has come and gone, and we've all got our money safely stashed away while the token scapegoats (eg. Ley) have taken the media fall."

What a crock of shit.

(posted anonymously because the moderator cabal still keeps me at -1)

-HiLJ
--

Re:Intel is a monopoly, but it's a natural one (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000860)

(posted anonymously because the moderator cabal still keeps me at -1)
There might be a reason for that. A little introspective behavior is in order.

while the token scapegoats (eg. Ley) have taken the media fall
Ley was not a scapegoat. Other people were scapegoats for HIM but we finally got to him as well.

Jim Cramer Called Cuomo a Communist (1)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993124)

Maybe Cramer was right. AMD was planning to build a fab in New York [reghardware.co.uk] with heavy state subsidies. It looks like AMD can no longer afford to build that fab because they are getting owned in the marketplace. Could this deal have anything to do with the investigation? Probably.

I don't know if Intel engaged in anti-competitive behavior. I do know that the reason for AMD's troubles is at least 90% their own fault. I don't think Intel caused Phenom to be repeatedly delayed, nor did Intel cause the TLB bug in the first run of Phenom chips. Intel didn't use mind control rays on AMD CEO Hector Ruiz causing him to lie to the press at every given opportunity either.

AMD seems scared (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993230)

there stock over the last 2 years has been declining steadily, where as Intel has been increasing steadily. his is based on percentage numbers, not stock prices.(Intel is around 22 and AMD is around 6)

No AMD had a very sharp clime, but they have had fab issue and a couple of issues meeting expectation they set.

It looks like Intel is just doing better with fabs then AMD, and AMD doesn't have a plan they, or investors, are confident in. Meanwhile Intel just keeps chugging away.
I haven't heard anybody talk about anything in the industry that implies Intel is guilty of Anti-trust. While the people I know in the industry are few(couple dozen), they are scattered throughout different 'levels' . I.E. Fab workers to executives.

Easy enough to figure out why. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993302)

Do a search on "Fishkill AMD". Enough said.

Re:Easy enough to figure out why. (1)

sexybomber (740588) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994558)

Do a search on "Fishkill AMD". Enough said.

I'm pretty sure the plant is supposed to be built in Saratoga County, not Fishkill. That's what all the Albany papers have been saying, anyway.

Wrong corporate welfare recipient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21994766)

Fishkill is IBM. NY basically build a nano-tech research fab for IBM in Albany, and its massive state government spends hundreds of millions on various IBM kit.

The AMD plant that NY state is spending $1.5 billion preparing for, although AMD has not committed to it, would be in Malta, NY, which is about 30 minutes North of Albany.

Re:Easy enough to figure out why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21998168)

Yeah, this page is the fourth result on that. Thanks.

roflcopter (1)

ezwip (974076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21993320)

Hahaha, all they have to do now is say they lost it. The government lost their emails if I were an Intel lawyer that's how I'd play it. Oops... lost ours too!

I'm all in favor of trust busting (1)

photomonkey (987563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994684)

I'm of course interested in breaking up the vast majority of monopolies.

Why is a state (as opposed to a Federal unit) spending it's money on anti-trust discovery?

It would appear to me that New York, and every other state in the Union, has more pressing issues on which to spend taxpayer money.

Re:I'm all in favor of trust busting (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21995108)

Why is a state (as opposed to a Federal unit) spending it's money on anti-trust discovery?
Because it's a great way for an ambitious Attorney General to get his name in the papers? And isn't it strange how the folks that bring these charges always seem to have a competitor company operating within their borders.

Re:I'm all in favor of trust busting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22005214)

"Why is a state (as opposed to a Federal unit) spending it's money on anti-trust discovery?"

Because the attorney general is running for governor.

you know (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21994986)

This is what happens when you have a rabidly anti-regulation administration in power at the federal level; the states have to take over some of those duties.

Re:you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21995234)

Nope.

Eliot Spitzer started all this mess because he decided that prosecuting practically any company (not based in New York), if possible, would get him a lot of press and fame. He used it to propel himself to the governorship, and it's well known by those in politics that Spitzer considers himself a potential President of the United States. In fact, he and his state's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, have quite a rivalry because both of them fancy themselves the first Jewish President of the United States.

Spitzer, by the way, was elected in 1998.

Cuomo is just copying his system.

Political Sturm und Drang (1)

Catalina588 (1151475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999264)

Even the New York Times makes it easy to follow the political trail of crumbs. Cuomo's press release http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2008/jan/jan10a_08.html [state.ny.us] says he is looking for "violation of New York and federal antitrust laws". He's the attorney general of New York. What is he doing looking into federal antitrust violations? Could it be that Cuomo wants to stir up dirt for NY senator Chuck Schumer to use in senate hearings or as a bludgeon against the Federal trade Commission, which has found no reason to pursue this case. Meanwhile, AMD's federal antitrust lawsuit is moving along. http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/anti_documents.aspx [amd.com] That lawsuit would seem to cover the same ground Cuomo is going after.

At the risk if being off-topic, can anyone explain how Intel is culpable for any of the numerous missteps AMD has made dating back to the acquisition of ATI in 2006?

Re:Political Sturm und Drang (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999364)

Could it be that Cuomo wants to stir up dirt for NY senator Chuck Schumer to use in senate hearings or as a bludgeon against the Federal trade Commission

Probably not; Schumer's relationship with Albany is normally not very cordial.

Re:Political Sturm und Drang (1)

Catalina588 (1151475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22003726)

Yes, but the New York Times article about the suit stated "Among the officials who have pushed for a federal investigation into Intel are Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, both New York Democrats. A.M.D. has pledged to open a $3 billion factory in upstate New York that will employ 1,200 people."

So Schumer has an interest in protecting/promoting that AMD fab and its jobs in NY, whether California-based Intel deserves the investigation or not.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...