OT: Latest in the Intel antitrust investigation

craftech wrote on 1/11/2008, 4:36 AM
Most of you probably aren't aware of this because of the usual news media coverups, but one of the many corruption and antitrust investigations by the Democrats is progressing against Intel.
Last October Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) publically asked the FTC to investigate Intel's conduct saying that "Intel used its market dominance in both US markets and those abroad as leverage to make exclusivity deals with some of its principal customers -- deals for purchasing Intel's CPUs only and excluding all of AMD's."

As usual the FTC of our current government refused to comply with the request:

Senator Schumer's statement:
"Antitrust investigations into Intel are springing up everywhere except Washington," reads the Senator's statement this afternoon. "It's high time the FTC woke up and started looking into practices that are harming American consumers and technological innovation. The FTC needs to stop looking the other way on Intel and start getting serious about enforcing antitrust law. The FTC is moving at a megahertz pace, in a gigahertz world."
Attorney General of New York Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a subpoena:

Beta News


"Protecting fair and open competition in the microprocessor market is critical to New York, the United States, and the world," wrote Cuomo. "Businesses and consumers everywhere should have the ability to easily choose the best products at the best price and only fair competition can guarantee it. Monopolistic practices are a serious concern particularly for New Yorkers who are navigating an information-intensive economy."
Later, he stated without any reservation that his investigation will determine whether Intel was in violation of both state and federal antitrust law, in a clear implication that federal authorities were either unwilling or incapable of investigating the matter on their own"
John



Comments

farss wrote on 1/11/2008, 5:58 AM
Saw it elsewhere and I agree with what 90% of the comments I read. If AMD ever built something that worked they might have been viable competition. Glad to say we've stayed AMD free after being burnt twice over the years.

Bob.
JJKizak wrote on 1/11/2008, 6:02 AM
I have three computers with AMD processors and have no problems with them.
JJK
DrLumen wrote on 1/11/2008, 11:05 PM
I think it's just a bunch of sour grapes on the part of AMD.

If there is something inherently illegal by offering advertising "rebates" for using intel exclusively, shouldn't the manufacturers share the blame also? AMD is not going to after them though as that is their customers too. That leads me to believe it's just a bunch of hooey.

I just see it as a way for intel to entice the OEM's to use their procs exclusively, kinda like you not being able to get a new Chevy from a Ford dealership.

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

craftech wrote on 1/12/2008, 7:31 AM
I think it's just a bunch of sour grapes on the part of AMD.

If there is something inherently illegal by offering advertising "rebates" for using intel exclusively, shouldn't the manufacturers share the blame also? AMD is not going to after them though as that is their customers too. That leads me to believe it's just a bunch of hooey.

I just see it as a way for intel to entice the OEM's to use their procs exclusively, kinda like you not being able to get a new Chevy from a Ford dealership.
==========
I don't get that analogy?
Maybe you should look into this a little more to see what seems to be going on here:

Dell facing investor lawsuit over shady Intel kickbacks

Use Google.

John
DrLumen wrote on 1/12/2008, 9:51 PM
Ok, let me put this in a more simple way... why is it that you can only get Coke or Pepsi at a restaurant and VERY rarely able to get both? Maybe because Coke has the restaurant sign an exclusive deal? At times, Coke will even give a small business a sign which they can use for the restaurant name that includes the Coke name on it.. Where are the Pepsi anti-trust complaints for this? For those that only have Pepsi, why does Coke not file suit?

Why is it not illegal for Apple to only use intel? Where was AMD when IBM was the only one supplying Apple?

And exactly what was the outcome of the Dell investigation? That was an issue of some possible enron accounting. Was intel proven guilty in Dells' accounting practices?

This issue with intel has been dismissed by the FTC more than once.

Since we are following kickbacks and rebates and the like, perhaps you need to google why New York is the only state to bring this up at this time - during the elections I might add...
----
n August, Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the company. A letter to the FTC from the two New York Democrats said: "If the allegations against Intel are true, the potential harm to consumers could be profound."

In a response in September, the FTC told legislators the agency is barred by law from disclosing investigations.

Schumer has met with AMD representatives about the company's plans to build a $3 billion semiconductor plant in upstate New York, a project strongly backed by state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno -- a Republican whose district includes the proposed site -- and Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/01/10/us.intel.ap/

I don't need google as comp tech is my business.


intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

farss wrote on 1/13/2008, 1:24 AM
Isn't the real issue much more complex than Coke and Pepsi?

Anyone could design a uP but that's pretty useless without an OS and even that's not going to go very far without applications etc, etc. And all those applications would probably need to read all the files that someone has created in the past i.e. maintain backwards compatibility or else again you're kind of going to have a hard time selling your product.
So Intel got lucky, M$ keeps writing code for their uPs, even Apple gave up and went Intel. To me the x86 is a real dog, I used to hand code the 68000 but the x86, yuck.
So the only way AMD compete is by building a CPU that exceutes the same instruction set. I find it remarkable that they're allowed to, if I can't hum someone else's tune in my movie how can I copy someone else's instruction set. And having gotten away with that then complain that the other guy isn't playing fair.
So the really big problem isn't the antitrust issue which is a joke really. Even if AMD had 50% of the market it's not really competition, where's the innovation in two CPUs that run the same instruction set. The only way we'd have real competition is a new CPU design with a new instruction set, OS and applications. So far I've not seen anyone even trying, we seem to be too far down the track for it to happen. 15 years ago there were lots of options, today they've just faded away, not because Intel cheated, they just kept making their silicon go faster and faster. We invested a bundle in SPARC systems and they got trounced. We'd used just about every CPU and OS, even wrote our own OSs and the Wintel monster just drove over us. Sure it sucked but the best guy won, more by brute force than by innovation.

Bob.
DGates wrote on 1/13/2008, 4:50 AM
Until the Core 2's came out, AMD had been soundly kicking Intel's butt for at least a couple of years.

Much like the old Charles Atlas ad, Intel got beat up and limped home. Then they worked out, got stronger, and came back to the beach to open up a can of whoop-ass on AMD.

Intel found out that they couldn't simply dominate the market with intimidation and unfair business practices alone. They actually needed the best PRODUCT to regain market share. What a novel approach.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/13/2008, 1:35 PM
Amen to that.

And Intel's 64-bit instructions?

Copied straight from AMD which was first out of the gate.

Intel created a new incompatible 64-bit instruction set (that didn't even have IA-32 as subset), but Microsoft said they were not going to support two different sets, and they we're sticking with AMD's as they already had it.

Let's all pray that AMD survives their recent seemingly poor management decisions. They are needed to keep Intel sharp, and they are also coming out with some products that Intel can't be bothered with but that are important for Hollywood (and that may trickle down to us mortals).

apit34356 wrote on 1/13/2008, 3:20 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amen to that.

And Intel's 64-bit instructions?

Copied straight from AMD which was first out of the gate.

Intel created a new incompatible 64-bit instruction set (that didn't even have IA-32 as subset), but Microsoft said they were not going to support two different sets, and they we're sticking with AMD's as they already had it.

Let's all pray that AMD survives their recent seemingly poor management decisions. They are needed to keep Intel sharp, and they are also coming out with some products that Intel can't be bothered with but that are important for Hollywood (and that may trickle down to us mortals).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second that!!! Intel seriously needs AMD (zilog in the beginning) or someone similar to spur improvements or they be producing 400Watts single core cpus "8080"s