AMD vs. Intel Antitrust lawsuit

juane414 · May 5, 2008

Saw this in the news today.

Apparently AMD submitted 200 Million pages of evidence that Intel paid computer manufacturers not to buy AMD processors.

I always wondered why you could never get a Dell home desktop with an Athlon xp even though they Spanked the Pentium 4 that Dell was selling like crazy.

"Intel denies it engaged in anticompetitive conduct and argues the microprocessor market is a competitive one." -from article

LOL competitive... thats why Intel makes billions and AMD looses millions, if not billions. If thats healthy Laissez-faire capitalist competition then our economy is ****ed.

dealmaster · May 5, 2008

Intel is very well known to be a very nasty, aggressive, and even unethical company when it comes to competition. This is not a new story in terms on Intel's behavior, this was brought up in the past, when they were accused (and rightly so) of paying retailers (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) to give AMD products less shelf space. That's disgusting.

I don't care how big a company Intel is, they aren't above the law, and I fully believe that these allegations are very likely true. If they are, I hope Intel gets nailed to the wall and is held for all the crimes they committed. Again, if it isn't true, then that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Shiggity · May 5, 2008

The sick part is Intel can AFFORD to pay these massive lawsuits.

They already got owned by the European Union about anti-trust laws, twice.

If the evidence is there, more power to AMD.

ratbuddy · May 5, 2008

dealmaster said:
Intel is very well known to be a very nasty, aggressive, and even unethical company when it comes to competition. This is not a new story in terms on Intel's behavior, this was brought up in the past, when they were accused (and rightly so) of paying retailers (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) to give AMD products less shelf space. That's disgusting.

Please. If Frito-Lay is allowed to buy space on grocery store shelves, and Utz has a hard time finding placement because of that, is that really grounds for a lawsuit? Stupid protectionism..

juane414 · May 5, 2008

Well, I'm sure that some Intel fans will argue that these are garbage allegations and that AMD has inferior products so Intel should be annihilating them. Well, maybe thats true. The United States has a "hands off" policy when if comes to government's involvement in politics as a part of having a capitalist free market. Its a great thing because companies can basically do whatever they want to succeed. But even in the United States you can't get away lying and cheating in business, *cough* Enron *cough* Martha Stewart... If this is true then Intel better get punished. I'm sure that AMD has its share of corruption as well, its part of being rich and greedy, which is a big deal in the technology sector. But seriously, shame on you Intel!

dealmaster · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
Please. If Frito-Lay is allowed to buy space on grocery store shelves, and Utz has a hard time finding placement because of that, is that really grounds for a lawsuit? Stupid protectionism..

Read the article you linked to. Here, I'll help:

CNN said:
Underneath the ink are highlights from documents AMD has gathered during the suit's discovery phase, totaling more than 200 million pages that show "Intel pays people not to deal with AMD," said AMD's lead outside counsel, Charles P. Diamond of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in Los Angeles. Included, he said, are passages from email exchanges between top executives at large computer makers and at Intel proving that Intel took illegal measures to exclude AMD from the marketplace.

Intel wasn't "buying shelf space" as you put it. They were allegedly trying to prohibit AMD from getting shelf space, which is, in our country, illegal. If they did do it, they deserve to get what's coming to them. Also, you referenced an industry where there are many different players, not one in which there are only two. Not a good comparison.

juane414 · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
Please. If Frito-Lay is allowed to buy space on grocery store shelves, and Utz has a hard time finding placement because of that, is that really grounds for a lawsuit? Stupid protectionism..

Unfortunately, you have a point. Free Market ≠ Fair Market

But, the government will always support competition and oppose monopoly.

dealmaster · May 5, 2008

juane414 said:
Unfortunately, you have a point. Free Market ≠ Fair Market

But, the government will always support competition and oppose monopoly.

He doesn't have a point. Read my post. His point is void.

Edit:
This appears to be business as usual for Intel. They've had offices in Germany and South Korea raided on suspicion of stifling competition. You also may want to check out the previous antitrust case that involved Intel and AMD:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/AMD_files_antitrust_lawsuit_against_Intel_in_US_federal_district_court

Automata · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
Please. If Frito-Lay is allowed to buy space on grocery store shelves, and Utz has a hard time finding placement because of that, is that really grounds for a lawsuit? Stupid protectionism..

That situation is quite a bit different. You are assuming there is open space on the shelves that are available for purchase. If Frito-Lay were to pay the grocery store to NOT CARRY Utz, then that would me a completely different situation.

jonspd · May 5, 2008

this has been talked about for yrs now and I would like to see what will end up happening

it is known that Intel didn't exactly do Right.

ratbuddy · May 5, 2008

dealmaster said:
He doesn't have a point. Read my post. His point is void.

Lol you can't 'void' a point just by saying so.

Intel: You will not sell AMD processors. If you sell AMD processors, you will not sell Intel processors.

Dell: OK, we'll sell Intel processors.

AMD: NO FAIR!!! *WHINNNNNNEEEEEEE*

I really see nothing wrong with this situation. You don't see Toyota dealers being forced by the government to sell Hondas.. The fact that there are only 2 competitors in the industry isn't true, and doesn't matter if it were. You can get microprocessors from companies other than Intel and AMD, they just aren't as fast. Big whoop.

Automata · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
I really see nothing wrong with this situation. You don't see Toyota dealers being forced by the government to sell Hondas.. The fact that there are only 2 competitors in the industry isn't true, and doesn't matter if it were. You can get microprocessors from companies other than Intel and AMD, they just aren't as fast. Big whoop.

How is there no difference, your points DON'T make sense :eh?:

Dell does not make Intel processors, therefor you can't compare Toyota to them since Toyota DOES make their own vehicles.

jonspd · May 5, 2008

LOL you can't use a car dealer as a example it would be wrong and VOID

however something like carmax, or a auto dealer or the like would be ok.

A specific car deal isn't gonna sell another make if they can help it.

can you go to evga's website and buy a MSI card?

dealmaster · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
Lol you can't 'void' a point just by saying so.

Intel: You will not sell AMD processors. If you sell AMD processors, you will not sell Intel processors.

Dell: OK, we'll sell Intel processors.

AMD: NO FAIR!!! *WHINNNNNNEEEEEEE*

I really see nothing wrong with this situation. You don't see Toyota dealers being forced by the government to sell Hondas.. The fact that there are only 2 competitors in the industry isn't true, and doesn't matter if it were. You can get microprocessors from companies other than Intel and AMD, they just aren't as fast. Big whoop.

This exact situation that you posted is ILLEGAL. Here's a couple of things that Intel has allegedly done:

wininews said:
* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer’s Chairman with "severe consequences" for supporting the AMD Athlon 64 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.

* 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.

These activities are ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. If Intel engaged in them, THEY HAVE BROKEN ANTITRUST LAW AND ARE LIABLE FOR SUIT. Your car comparison is beyond broken so I won't even address it. It is a horrible analogy. It doesn't matter what you "think is OK", it matters what the "United States law says is OK".

So I say again, because your arguments are bad comparisons and based purely on opinions, they are void.

OldSkool · May 5, 2008

If the retailers choose to not carry AMD and go with strictly Intel then it's all fair and good however if the retailers are being bought into not stocking AMD products then it is completely illegal. And Ratbuddy, to what you said, If Intel said that if a retailer were to sell AMD product they would not sell to that retailer, that's perfectly legal, but isn't what's outlined as what happened in the suit. Similar to that is you can't get a Pepsi at a Burger King, they chose to only carry Coke products.

petteyg359 · May 5, 2008

Hey, if I operated a Toyota dealership, and the Toyota corporation (or whatever they're called in Japan or wherever they're really based) were offering to pay me extra to not sell Mazdas and Hondas at my Toyota dealership, I'd glady accept the cash

Yeah, it would be massively retarded of them to pay like that, but since we're making pointless non-analogies here...

Anyway, those supposed "competitor" CPUs that aren't as fast exist only from a single company as far as I know, that being Via, and they seem to be heading away from x86 (If I'm confused, correct me). VIA CPUs are also not designed for the high-power media/game/etc desktops many people use. If you plan to really use your computer the same way you do an Intel or AMD based system, a VIA CPU just won't cut it.

ratbuddy · May 5, 2008

Intel can't bribe their own customers. The customers are the ones buying the chips. Do you guys really feel there is a difference between:

"If you sell AMD products we will charge you more for ours"

"We will charge you less for our chips if you don't sell anyone else's"

"Here's some money, don't sell the other guy's stuff"

.......

It's all semantics, the 3 statements say the same thing. If that's illegal, we have some really stupid laws.

OldSkool · May 5, 2008

As a Toyota dealer, you wouldn't be selling anything but Toyota. you'd be a Toyota representative in essence.....I fail to see your point.

petteyg359 · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
Intel can't bribe their own customers. The customers are the ones buying the chips. Do you guys really feel there is a difference between:

"If you sell AMD products we will charge you more for ours"

"We will charge you less for our chips if you don't sell anyone else's"

"Here's some money, don't sell the other guy's stuff"

.......

It's all semantics, the 3 statements say the same thing. If that's illegal, we have some really stupid laws.

You're either being sarcastic or you work for Intel and Microsoft (and possibly SCO)

dealmaster · May 5, 2008

ratbuddy said:
Intel can't bribe their own customers. The customers are the ones buying the chips. Do you guys really feel there is a difference between:

"If you sell AMD products we will charge you more for ours"

"We will charge you less for our chips if you don't sell anyone else's"

"Here's some money, don't sell the other guy's stuff"

.......

It's all semantics, the 3 statements say the same thing. If that's illegal, we have some really stupid laws.

Intel can definitely bribe and coerce their customers. They're by far the largest chip manufacturer in the world. Sure, Gateway and Compaq buy Intel chips, but if they chose to buy AMD chips in the past, Intel threatened to not sell them any more Intel processors. That's not legal.

PAYING their customers not to buy someone else's product is illegal. It doesn't matter what you think about our laws, they're there for a reason and that goodness they are. Don't ever run for Congress. Also, you must be an Intel fanboy.

Face it, you're wrong.

AMD vs. Intel Antitrust lawsuit

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Destroyer of Empires and Use

Super Speedy Senior

Member

Destroyer of Empires and Use

Super Speedy Senior

Member

Rest In Peace

Likes Popcorn

Member

Rest In Peace

Likes Popcorn

Member

Similar threads