• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD vs. Intel Antitrust lawsuit

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
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.

Yes those are the laws regarding the topic roughly and they are what balance out the big tough guys in business and level the playing field for the little up and comers or companies having a bit of trouble so they can gather resources and possibly come back. I'm sorry, but your backing what we are trying to kee from happening which is a Monopoly with no competition......or would you rather have to pay whatever the only processor company feels like charging you?

*Edit - You may not see it, but these "stupid" laws, are there to protect you, the consumer, as well as the not-so-powerful companies trying to compete.
 
Granted it is know that Intel has done shady business in the past. I wish AMD would stop their whining and moaning and pull their heads out of their arses and get back to working on getting back on top.
 
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.

Paying a customer not to buy someone else's product is illegal, but discounting something in exchange for the buyer agreeing not to buy from a competitor is fine? They amount to the same thing, and the government should keep it's nose out of things either way.

Face it, we have a difference of opinion. That doesn't make me wrong. Try to keep it civil, eh? Calling me a fanboy is just petty, and untrue.

Yes those are the laws regarding the topic roughly and they are what balance out the big tough guys in business and level the playing field for the little up and comers or companies having a bit of trouble so they can gather resources and possibly come back. I'm sorry, but your backing what we are trying to kee from happening which is a Monopoly with no competition......or would you rather have to pay whatever the only processor company feels like charging you?

*Edit - You may not see it, but these "stupid" laws, are there to protect you, the consumer, as well as the not-so-powerful companies trying to compete.

There aren't only 2 processor companies. There are 2 (arguably 3 if you include Via) mass market processor companies selling x86 compatible chips that will run Windows. What about IBM? Motorola? There may be others I haven't heard of.

Are you guys really saying that the government should specifically protect 1 company making processors that conform to a specific architecture from their major competition?

It's protectionism, and I'm against that in any form. The government isn't here to make things cheaper for me, it's here to pave the roads, keep the water drinkable, pay the cops and teachers, and make sure we don't get invaded. Beyond that is bloat.
 
Agree about bloat, the government is recently into many things they have no business in (illegalising a certain branch of medical research for one, funding "moral" groups with regards to population control and religious values, etc., you can see where I'm going), but if you want the world to resort to anarchy in order to be able to afford computers with CPUs, or any other industry where anti-trust issues arise, then what's the point of having government at all? I don't think you're thinking all the way through your point there, ratbuddy.
 
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.

Yes, all three are different. It both dismays and disturbs me that you do not see that difference. Effective, proper logic is an exercise in contrast and differentiation. You're showing up about as well as a ten year old CRT in those departments for reasons I suspect you will not be able to be convinced of. Take no offense from this feedback. I mean it only as (hopefully but not holding my breath) constructive criticism.
 
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.

Those are the situations being alleged.

What's important to remember here is that it's not illegal to be a monopoly or to give your customers a good deal. It's not illegal to try to put your competitor out of business by undercutting someone. It's only illegal to become a monopoly by breaking a few golden rules which the DOJ deem as anticompetitive. The way Intel screwed up was that they opened their mouths. Instead they should have just told their customers that they would have given them an awesome discount if they ordered X number of chips. If X number of chips happened to be enough to keep AMD's chips out of their computers... oh wells, they got a sweet deal.

I think this is where you're going down the wrong fork in the road ratbuddy. You're right, it's dumb if giving a customer a discount is illegal. However, thats not the issue. The issue is the reasoning behind it. You definitely can "bribe" your customers, thats what a sale or discount is anyways. If Best Buy has a TV on sale for $300 less then Circuit City, are you going to buy it from Circuit City anyways just because you like spending money? If so, please send a check for $300 to my mailing address at....

;).

A good read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
 
Paying a customer not to buy someone else's product is illegal, but discounting something in exchange for the buyer agreeing not to buy from a competitor is fine? They amount to the same thing, and the government should keep it's nose out of things either way.

Face it, we have a difference of opinion. That doesn't make me wrong. Try to keep it civil, eh? Calling me a fanboy is just petty, and untrue.



There aren't only 2 processor companies. There are 2 (arguably 3 if you include Via) mass market processor companies selling x86 compatible chips that will run Windows. What about IBM? Motorola? There may be others I haven't heard of.

Are you guys really saying that the government should specifically protect 1 company making processors that conform to a specific architecture from their major competition?

It's protectionism, and I'm against that in any form. The government isn't here to make things cheaper for me, it's here to pave the roads, keep the water drinkable, pay the cops and teachers, and make sure we don't get invaded. Beyond that is bloat.

Wow you really aren't taking this as a bigger picture. Let's try this, Say Company A has a resource the public needs and there are five other competitive companies with the same product. Should Company A be allowed to buy out all the retailers just because they have more money? No, of course they shouldn't. Do you like the idea of people being able to open businesses and sell goods? Guess what.......that wouldn't exist if it weren't for these laws. It's called free enterprise. I can't believe it's so hard to understand why these laws are so crucial.
 
ok...i know im only 19...so what i say doesnt really matter but im gonna give my 2 cents anyways.

I dont think there is anything wrong with Intel securing the use and exploitation of their product by paying companies off to specifically use them. And the big thing i see is that AMD is throwing a fit because they are falling behind Intel in processors...im not a fanboy, i currently use a c2d e4500 and a 4200+ x2......and i would be willing to bet that my e4500 at 3.5ghz would give a phenom a run for its money....not saying its better...just saying it would be a good show....it just seems to me that AMD is doing what they can to hurt Intel because they cannot design chips good enough to provide stable competition to Intel. Just my .02 so dont bash me too much...im just a dumb kid.
 
ok...i know im only 19...so what i say doesnt really matter but im gonna give my 2 cents anyways.
Don't let age EVER stop you, your opinions still matter. Heck, I'm the same age as you ;)

I dont think there is anything wrong with Intel securing the use and exploitation of their product by paying companies off to specifically use them. And the big thing i see is that AMD is throwing a fit because they are falling behind Intel in processors...im not a fanboy, i currently use a c2d e4500 and a 4200+ x2......and i would be willing to bet that my e4500 at 3.5ghz would give a phenom a run for its money....not saying its better...just saying it would be a good show....it just seems to me that AMD is doing what they can to hurt Intel because they cannot design chips good enough to provide stable competition to Intel. Just my .02 so dont bash me too much...im just a dumb kid.
So, you are saying it is ok that AMD goes down because Intel blocks AMD from selling products? Don't you think that they should take them down by having superior products and pricing? :eh?:
 
I feel that if they cant get it right anymore and provide good competition should they be able to keep surviving at intel's cost...and i just see it as bidding for a construction job....whoever is the cheapest and gets the job done the fastest wins the job. Amd could pay to have only thier chips in computers as easy as intel could.
 
ok...i know im only 19...so what i say doesnt really matter but im gonna give my 2 cents anyways.

I dont think there is anything wrong with Intel securing the use and exploitation of their product by paying companies off to specifically use them. And the big thing i see is that AMD is throwing a fit because they are falling behind Intel in processors...im not a fanboy, i currently use a c2d e4500 and a 4200+ x2......and i would be willing to bet that my e4500 at 3.5ghz would give a phenom a run for its money....not saying its better...just saying it would be a good show....it just seems to me that AMD is doing what they can to hurt Intel because they cannot design chips good enough to provide stable competition to Intel. Just my .02 so dont bash me too much...im just a dumb kid.

This actually all started back in the AMD64 vs P4 days, when AMD was the clear performance king. Products have nothing to do with it, illegal business practices does.
 
No because ATI didn't threaten Gateway with higher prices or no more sales if they used nVidia products (as far as we know).
 
i understand the illegal business practices...but just dont see it as a problem for intel to pay people to use their product...neither of the companies are perfect...but it just seems that amd came crying at a time of their need.
 
i understand the illegal business practices...but just dont see it as a problem for intel to pay people to use their product...neither of the companies are perfect...but it just seems that amd came crying at a time of their need.
Well, paying them to use their own product is different than paying them to NOT use a competitors product.
 
Well lets start off with what the law are (this came strait from the US Department of Justice: Antitrust division).

There are three major federal antitrust laws: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Sherman Antitrust Act has stood since 1890 as the principal law expressing our national commitment to a free market economy in which competition free from private and governmental restraints leads to the best results for consumers. Congress felt so strongly about this commitment that there was only one vote against the Act.

The Sherman Act outlaws all contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade. This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. The Act is not violated simply when one firm's vigorous competition and lower prices take sales from its less efficient competitors--that is competition working properly.

Sherman Act violations involving agreements between competitors usually are punished as criminal felonies. The Department of Justice alone is empowered to bring criminal prosecutions under the Sherman Act. For offenses committed before June 22, 2004, individual violators can be fined up to $350,000 and sentenced to up to 3 years in federal prison for each offense, and corporations can be fined up to $10 million for each offense. For offenses committed on or after June 22, 2004, individual violators can be fined up to $1 million and sentenced to up to 10 years in federal prison for each offense, and corporations can be fined up to $100 million for each offense. Under some circumstances, the maximum fines can go even higher than the Sherman Act maximums to twice the gain or loss involved.

The Clayton Act is a civil statute (carrying no criminal penalties) that was passed in 1914 and significantly amended in 1950. The Clayton Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under the Act, the government challenges those mergers that a careful economic analysis shows are likely to increase prices to consumers. All persons considering a merger or acquisition above a certain size must notify both the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The Act also prohibits other business practices that under certain circumstances may harm competition.

The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce, but carries no criminal penalties. It also created the Federal Trade Commission to police violations of the Act.

The Department of Justice also often uses other laws to fight illegal activities, including laws that prohibit false statements to federal agencies, perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracies to defraud the United States and mail and wire fraud. Each of these crimes carries its own fines and imprisonment terms which may be added to the fines and imprisonment terms for antitrust law violations.

You know, you guys can read it and give your opinions, I don't think I need to try to explain it. Though this part "This includes agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers." might be seen as what Intel was doing with threatening to not sell to any company that carried AMD products.

Anyway, I wonder how this one will end up.
 
and is it actual PROVED that intel threatened or is it just someones word....and if it was such a big deal couldnt they have just switched their products to amd if they were so ****ed that intel threatened them. i know its easier said than done...but if it were a big enough concern.....go the other way. i just think this country is going to the toilet personally. its irritating.
 
Back