EU conducts antitrust raid on Intel and retailers

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

As a human civilization we tend towards socialism, always have, every culture in history.

Why is it that americans play loosey goosey with the word 'socialist'? Technically with the advent of specialization and the inherent brutality of some employers (recall that workers were killed by employers up until the 1930's), socialism was a reaction to brute unregulated capitalism. The fact that we have the world we do today is due to 'socialist' people like Martin luther king, and unions which busted their ass to get labor laws passed so employers are not so much like the mafia like they were in times passed (although many still are in other countries).

What you really mean is: People like having slaves and abusing others for their own gain, real socialism is about helping others, if you're a stalin you're not a socialist, period. Just like how many christians are christians in name only. Many socailists/communists/capitalists/whateverists are only that in name only.
What you are is dependent on how you really behave and what you actually did, not so much what you claimed, etc. In the ideal world we need tit-for-tat, and to prevent problems getting out of control (i.e. poverty, etc) because ultimately civil war and crime is bad for everybody.

If you behave opposite of what you say you value, you can't exactly BE that value system. The truth is humans are so hypocritical no theory or word (socialist. communist, etc) can ever capture adaptive behaviour or any real system in an ever changing world.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Nope, competition is always good, for any market. The fastest internet you used to be able to get was cable. All of the cable companies swore that ~5 megabits/second was the fastest that their lines could carry. Then Verizon came out with FIOS, and within just a few months, all of the cables companies were offering 10, 15, & 20 megabit service, and not a single one of them replaced any of their lines.

Depends on where you are, markets are not perfectly competitive due to asymmetry of information and also population density, density of populations have a huge effect on whether markets work or not. Hence things like the government to build roads, libraries, schools, etc.

You should go read george soros on market capitalism, the man made billions off the imperfections of markets. He knew the efficient market hypothesis was total bullshit and made a killnig doing it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I not sure whats right or wrong here. To much gray area. But after reading this. I do see were the EU is nothing but what they always been Theivies and liars. Explain this to me . Make me understand.

IBM?s rewards program was launched last April and applied to Sparc-based Sun hardware, such as the Sparc, UltraSparc, and Sparc 64 servers, as well as Fujitsu systems that run on Sparc chips. Previously the company offered $4,000 in software and services for every Sun Spar processor replaced with an IBM Power server. The company will now offer $8,000 in software or services for every Sun Sparc processor replaced with an IBM Power server. IBM has helped 1,640 customers migrate from other manufacturers' hardware in the last year, thanks to the rewards program.

 

[Martimus]

Since Nemesis resurrected this thread; what did happen with this? Is Intel close to settling this suit now as Viditor postulated at the beginning of this thread?

Originally posted by: Viditor
As to the speed, remember that the really big suit still doesn't happen for 1 year (April 2009). I don't expect a settlement until near that time (and I DO expect Intel to settle...they aren't stupid people). A settlement might cost Intel $4 billion or so, but a judgement could be in the $30-40 billion range, and allow the FTC and Justice dept to file as well, using whatever AMD digs up.

 

[magreen]

Holy Mummies, Batman!

 

[Majic 7]

double post.

 

[Majic 7]

http://www.maximumpc.com/artic...s_hands_european_union

Here is an article on the latest. All going to EU evidently, nothing for AMD.

 

[brxndxn]

My argument would be the same as Idontcare's, although, it would probby not be worded as well.

However, I would also like to add more to the 'Intel IS a monopoly' argument.

AMD gets more performance per Research and Development dollar. AMD gets more R and D money by selling more processors. R and D spending for current performance chips began years ago. For people to argue that AMD simply isn't competitive by judging their current chips is asinine considering AMD spent less on R and D than Intel at the same time they gained the performance crown. Now, starved for cash, AMD chips are dollar-for-dollar competitive with Intel. They do not have the performance crown - but that does not make them uncompetitive when the vast majority of processors sold are 'average speed' for the time period. To make the Core 2 Duo, Intel spent nearly $5billion in R and D in less than a year (remember reading from some article.. don't have a source). If Intel had not prevented AMD from selling processors to OEMs, AMD could have had more R and D money to spend.

Public damages could be calculated by finding the following:

average R and D dollars spent per average performance per average cost of processor for amd and intel for 1999-2007 (per quarter)
average R and D dollars spent per average revenue (AMD wins this easily)
average number of total processors sold (per quarter)
average market demand percentage for amd (per quarter)
average market demand percentage for intel (per quarter)
average amount of money Intel spent on exclusivity agreements (per quarter)
average effect on market of exclusivity agreements

then.. use these figures to calculate what speeds of processors we would have per dollar by using an economic model where AMD and Intel are 10% of the total market..

From what I've read, it seems that anyone that is not completely ignoring the time-factor in competition would see that the math overwhelmingly supports the premise that 'the public has been cheated out of processor performance.' In other words, stop judging AMD's ability to compete simply by taking a single slice of time and ignoring the effects on R and D spending.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Could you tell me how many research dollars AMD spent on INtels AVX instruction set and the Years it took to develope. AMD grabs free ride. As they have all alonfg . Other than AMD 64. Nothing useful from them . From DEC another story.

On Sandy VS. Bulldoozer even now people are saying there should be 1 standard. YA right. Intel can stand on its own . I doubt AMD can so they want to be Intels peresite for ever. Not happening. Sandy starts the the seperation. IVy ends it with Ondie vector units.

I doubt IVY will be an X86 design . After all Larrabee is laying ground work for recompiles . So no need for IVY to be held back . Intel will finely be free.

The EU case against intel If they get 1.3 billion out of Intel . Thats bad for AMD as they get nothing. It will also hurt here Americans believe fare is fare. If EU gets 1.3 billion . US may very well tell AMD to get there Money from EU. That intel already paid. Intel will use this to there advantage . How an EU american basaed company was scammed out of billions. There factories are Idle in germany. All the the While Intel will show how IBM was using rewards to pay other companies to stop using Sparc. If intel plays this Right Amd could end with zero. An the EU gets 1.3 billion. Were is fairness involved with these EU lieing thievies. We should turn or backs on europe there only trouble for us. Be on sides the real commerace is Russia India China. Thats who Americans should play up to. EU is a small game Compared to the real fish. EU time is SUn has set . Good bye and I hope ya get what you have given. The resources are depleted they really have nothing to offer. Except skin color . I rather be Red than Dead. Freedom under British authority is No freedom at ALL . ASk Africans. They know the bastards.

Comments about race and countries on a personal level are also not allowed here. Try off-topic, and you might get a little farther, but don't try it here. I will lock this topic if this continues.

Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
IBM?s rewards program was launched last April and applied to Sparc-based Sun hardware, such as the Sparc, UltraSparc, and Sparc 64 servers, as well as Fujitsu systems that run on Sparc chips. Previously the company offered $4,000 in software and services for every Sun Spar processor replaced with an IBM Power server. The company will now offer $8,000 in software or services for every Sun Sparc processor replaced with an IBM Power server. IBM has helped 1,640 customers migrate from other manufacturers' hardware in the last year, thanks to the rewards program.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that since another company appears to be doing an illegal activity that Intel is charged with, that it makes it alright for Intel to do it? I have never known two wrongs to make a right.

Secondly, didn't IBM just buy Sun? So wouldn't they just be trying to get companies to switch over to their new processor so they don't have to support the old one from the company they just purchased? Maybe that was an unfounded rumor as I haven't been keeping up with this, but I swear I saw a IDC post that IBM bought Sun recently.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So many pointing at intel saying they selling at below cost . or rebates. Yet point out to me a year they lost money or even a qt. Seems to me they can sell at any price they want as Long as they make money on the chips.

Did you never read AMD's complaint?

Wow, now that is an absolutely fantastic read. Thanks for posting it, CTho9305.

Definitely worth a parusal when you have the time.
--------

I like the part about Intel asking to revise the pin arrangement on DDR3-SODIMM to screw AMD because back in 2004, when DDR3 was being finalized, AMD was already using an on-die memory controller, so changing the pin layout from DDR2 would require a redesign of the on-die memory controller, while Intel was still using a Northbridge, requireing a redesign, but on a much smaller scale than redesigning part of the CPU core, especially if AMD wanted to get a new part out in the near future (which would be impossible if they were waiting on the new DDR3 pin layout).

Monopoly tactics, plain and simple.

There could be another explanation for the DDR3 pin remapping proposal (Which was ultimately rejected by JEDEC). However, given the other claims in there, I find it unlikely.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Martimus
Secondly, didn't IBM just buy Sun? So wouldn't they just be trying to get companies to switch over to their new processor so they don't have to support the old one from the company they just purchased? Maybe that was an unfounded rumor as I haven't been keeping up with this, but I swear I saw a IDC post that IBM bought Sun recently.

Hey Martimus, update on that is that SUN didn't like IBM's offer so they they held out for more (ala Yahoo/Microsoft style) and IBM bailed on the whole thing.

Then Oracle swooped in and is now the leading candidate for buying SUN.

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr...unflash.20090420.1.xml

And you are right on the two wrongs thing, an example of equally questionable behaviour does not exonerate the first offender, nor the second.

 

[magreen]

1. Nemesis, you cracked me up with that last post. And for the record, Mark, his point wasn't racist. He was making a cynical comment about other people's racist views that only white people are the right color, and he's saying that that's all the EU has going for it.

2. @Martimus: IBM was flirting with buying Sun, but it fell through. In the end, Oracle bought Sun (did it get the final stamp of approval by the board?)

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: magreen
1. Nemesis, you cracked me up with that last post. And for the record, Mark, his point wasn't racist. He was making a cynical comment about other people's racist views that only white people are the right color, and he's saying that that's all the EU has going for it.

2. @Martimus: IBM was flirting with buying Sun, but it fell through. In the end, Oracle bought Sun (did it get the final stamp of approval by the board?)

The comments sure didn't sound that way. We can drop the sarcasm in this case.

I think I got my point across. This IS the CPU forum, not P&N, you do need to realize that also.

 

[r31ncarnat3d]

Now folks, let's try to leave corporate politics to CSPAN, and leave only technology on here

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So many pointing at intel saying they selling at below cost . or rebates. Yet point out to me a year they lost money or even a qt. Seems to me they can sell at any price they want as Long as they make money on the chips.

Did you never read AMD's complaint?

Damn. I had no idea Intel was that evil. I'm almost ashamed to be using an Intel CPU and chipset.

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The EU case against intel If they get 1.3 billion out of Intel . Thats bad for AMD as they get nothing. It will also hurt here Americans believe fare is fare. If EU gets 1.3 billion . US may very well tell AMD to get there Money from EU.

Winning a lawsuit in one country does not mean you automatically lose a lawsuit in another. This would be like robbing a bank in Canada, doing jail time, then trying to rob a bank in the US and claim "I already did my time!"
It doesn't work that way. Each antitrust case gets its own trial.

All the the While Intel will show how IBM was using rewards to pay other companies to stop using Sparc.

How does this even relate to the topic? Intel can get away with antitrust bullcrap just because someone else did it first? If only all law worked like that. I wouldn't need to pay speeding tickets because someone else in the world is guilty of the same thing.

We should turn or backs on europe there only trouble for us

You would willingly turn your back on at least 1/3 of the global economy?

The resources are depleted they [Europe] really have nothing to offer.

Nothing except trillions upon trillions of dollars. I would be happy to take even 1% of a trillion dollars.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
So many pointing at intel saying they selling at below cost . or rebates. Yet point out to me a year they lost money or even a qt. Seems to me they can sell at any price they want as Long as they make money on the chips.

Did you never read AMD's complaint?

Wow, now that is an absolutely fantastic read. Thanks for posting it, CTho9305.

Definitely worth a parusal when you have the time.
--------

I like the part about Intel asking to revise the pin arrangement on DDR3-SODIMM to screw AMD because back in 2004, when DDR3 was being finalized, AMD was already using an on-die memory controller, so changing the pin layout from DDR2 would require a redesign of the on-die memory controller, while Intel was still using a Northbridge, requireing a redesign, but on a much smaller scale than redesigning part of the CPU core, especially if AMD wanted to get a new part out in the near future (which would be impossible if they were waiting on the new DDR3 pin layout).

Monopoly tactics, plain and simple.

There could be another explanation for the DDR3 pin remapping proposal (Which was ultimately rejected by JEDEC). However, given the other claims in there, I find it unlikely.

I'll be honest and say that I was planning on buying an i7 processor once Windows 7 is released, but after reading through about half of that complaint I can't bring myself to buy anything from Intel. It was an upsetting read to me, especially considering the environment I work in.