EU has published some of their evidence in the Intel case

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

I totally agree the emails from the customer side are rather damning. But they aren't proof in and of themselves are they? They are hearsay, where is the Intel agreement itself that is referred to? Signed and dated by Intel execs, that state the 5% AMD constraint?

This isn't about whether or not I believe the guy who wrote the email, I am compelled to believe them considering how many of them there are, but where is the rest of the proof? Circumstantial evidence yes, but where is the contract?

It's been made very clear by all of the OEMs that Intel never ever put these contracts in writing, so they just don't exist. The way you prove an oral contract (which is what we're talking about here) can be very difficult, but not impossible.
Incontravertible proof isn't necessary per se (that was the reason for my comment earlier on about this being a civil and not a criminal case). What's required is that the preponderence of the evidence is clear and that both parties acted as if that contract was in place.
Since all of the OEMs are agreeing that this is what Intel did (except possibly a very few who might have legal issues), and since the sales records and marketing strategies back that up with the actions taken, I am fairly sure that this will be a slam dunk at court time...

We may never see it

What does concern me is that all of these activities, if true albeit unprovable, fell under Sean Maloney's jurisdiction within Intel at the time they allegedly occurred. This is the guy who is going to lead Intel when Otellini steps down. IMO if Intel was ever going to trip up again like they did under Barrett it is going to be with a sales and marketing guy at the helm.

This could be a big favor to AMD, an opportunity for their technologist CEO (Meyer) to outmaneuver the guy who has spent his life worried about gross margins and product segmentation plus the question of whether his method of rising to power within Intel was accomplished by questionable means. (meaning his ability to repeat/continue such performance is questionable once placed in an environment where he cannot repeat past tactics given the anti-trust spotlight that exists now)

I'm just stringing together the ifs and the supposes...I hope folks here are cerebral enough to know the difference between contemplating/openly discussing the merits of both sides of the situation with the EU and Intel versus dissecting what an individual believes or feels at the personal level.

A good point...seems to me that Carly Fiorina was a marketing chick, and look what happened to HP during her reign. I believe that Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.
I'm sure that won't happen to Sean, I'm just sayin...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Idontcare

I totally agree the emails from the customer side are rather damning. But they aren't proof in and of themselves are they? They are hearsay, where is the Intel agreement itself that is referred to? Signed and dated by Intel execs, that state the 5% AMD constraint?

This isn't about whether or not I believe the guy who wrote the email, I am compelled to believe them considering how many of them there are, but where is the rest of the proof? Circumstantial evidence yes, but where is the contract?

It's been made very clear by all of the OEMs that Intel never ever put these contracts in writing, so they just don't exist. The way you prove an oral contract (which is what we're talking about here) can be very difficult, but not impossible.
Incontravertible proof isn't necessary per se (that was the reason for my comment earlier on about this being a civil and not a criminal case). What's required is that the preponderence of the evidence is clear and that both parties acted as if that contract was in place.
Since all of the OEMs are agreeing that this is what Intel did (except possibly a very few who might have legal issues), and since the sales records and marketing strategies back that up with the actions taken, I am fairly sure that this will be a slam dunk at court time...

You have a way with words that I can really appreciate. Well stated, and now that I have digested what you have stated and the way in which you state it I find myself fully agreeing with this position.

The preponderence of evidence is rather substantial in this situation.

Originally posted by: Viditor
A good point...seems to me that Carly Fiorina was a marketing chick, and look what happened to HP during her reign. I believe that Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.
I'm sure that won't happen to Sean, I'm just sayin...

The path to ruin is often littered with good intentions. I knew quite a few people who worked for HP under Carly's regime and not a single one of them had anything decent to say about Carly as a person, let alone as a business leader.

That to me is a distinguishing difference that could in many respects negate the legitimacy of analogies between Carly vs. Sean and HP vs. Intel, I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of Sean's character...but then again no one has had any reason to yet.

Carly didn't have to many overly negative character witnesses prior to her ascending the throne at HP, it was only once she got there that folks I knew had reason to speak out. So maybe Sean just needs his moment to shine yet?

At any rate, way off topic here, my only reasoning for citing Sean in this topic is that it seems to me if there were any shenanigans going on then it would be hard for me to convince myself he was unaware of them...and if he was unaware of them then what does that say about his ability to manage/lead the division he was tasked with managing at the time?

I am beyond baffled as to why Pat was not selected as a successor to Otellini given his pedigree of being a Grove'ite. I can't rationalize the decision based on the scant available data at this time.

 

[piesquared]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Idontcare

I totally agree the emails from the customer side are rather damning. But they aren't proof in and of themselves are they? They are hearsay, where is the Intel agreement itself that is referred to? Signed and dated by Intel execs, that state the 5% AMD constraint?

This isn't about whether or not I believe the guy who wrote the email, I am compelled to believe them considering how many of them there are, but where is the rest of the proof? Circumstantial evidence yes, but where is the contract?

It's been made very clear by all of the OEMs that Intel never ever put these contracts in writing, so they just don't exist. The way you prove an oral contract (which is what we're talking about here) can be very difficult, but not impossible.
Incontravertible proof isn't necessary per se (that was the reason for my comment earlier on about this being a civil and not a criminal case). What's required is that the preponderence of the evidence is clear and that both parties acted as if that contract was in place.
Since all of the OEMs are agreeing that this is what Intel did (except possibly a very few who might have legal issues), and since the sales records and marketing strategies back that up with the actions taken, I am fairly sure that this will be a slam dunk at court time...

You have a way with words that I can really appreciate. Well stated, and now that I have digested what you have stated and the way in which you state it I find myself fully agreeing with this position.

The preponderence of evidence is rather substantial in this situation.

Originally posted by: Viditor
A good point...seems to me that Carly Fiorina was a marketing chick, and look what happened to HP during her reign. I believe that Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.
I'm sure that won't happen to Sean, I'm just sayin...

The path to ruin is often littered with good intentions. I knew quite a few people who worked for HP under Carly's regime and not a single one of them had anything decent to say about Carly as a person, let alone as a business leader.

That to me is a distinguishing difference that could in many respects negate the legitimacy of analogies between Carly vs. Sean and HP vs. Intel, I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of Sean's character...but then again no one has had any reason to yet.

Carly didn't have to many overly negative character witnesses prior to her ascending the throne at HP, it was only once she got there that folks I knew had reason to speak out. So maybe Sean just needs his moment to shine yet?

At any rate, way off topic here, my only reasoning for citing Sean in this topic is that it seems to me if there were any shenanigans going on then it would be hard for me to convince myself he was unaware of them...and if he was unaware of them then what does that say about his ability to manage/lead the division he was tasked with managing at the time?

I am beyond baffled as to why Pat was not selected as a successor to Otellini given his pedigree of being a Grove'ite. I can't rationalize the decision based on the scant available data at this time.

While there is no doubt about your technical savvy, and that you are aware that it may be intimidating to some, therefore gaining a following and support in your theories, there is an equal amount of doubt of your self proclaimed neutrality, on this subject, and of your favorite flavor of IHV's. For those standing back watching at a distance, including myself, it is undeniably obvious that you are going out of your way to poke holes in the EU's evidence for it's decision, while attempting to plug as many holes, in Intel's defense. Sorry, but that's not the definition of neutral.
I've no doubt that you'll attempt to come up with some profound explanation of how you are only reciting how the law should have interperated this, in your opinion, and try to illuminate as much doubt as possible of Intel's guilt. You may also try defend your unbiased stance, but remember, you have 5000+ posts to cover.
You might think this is overly harsh and unfair, or you might not give a crap, but the fact of the matter is you are standing up on the side of Intel. Why not just admit it?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: piesquared

Originally posted by: Idontcare


The path to ruin is often littered with good intentions. I knew quite a few people who worked for HP under Carly's regime and not a single one of them had anything decent to say about Carly as a person, let alone as a business leader.

That to me is a distinguishing difference that could in many respects negate the legitimacy of analogies between Carly vs. Sean and HP vs. Intel, I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of Sean's character...but then again no one has had any reason to yet.

Carly didn't have to many overly negative character witnesses prior to her ascending the throne at HP, it was only once she got there that folks I knew had reason to speak out. So maybe Sean just needs his moment to shine yet?

At any rate, way off topic here, my only reasoning for citing Sean in this topic is that it seems to me if there were any shenanigans going on then it would be hard for me to convince myself he was unaware of them...and if he was unaware of them then what does that say about his ability to manage/lead the division he was tasked with managing at the time?

I am beyond baffled as to why Pat was not selected as a successor to Otellini given his pedigree of being a Grove'ite. I can't rationalize the decision based on the scant available data at this time.

While there is no doubt about your technical savvy, and that you are aware that it may be intimidating to some, therefore gaining a following and support in your theories, there is an equal amount of doubt of your self proclaimed neutrality, on this subject, and of your favorite flavor of IHV's. For those standing back watching at a distance, including myself, it is undeniably obvious that you are going out of your way to poke holes in the EU's evidence for it's decision, while attempting to plug as many holes, in Intel's defense. Sorry, but that's not the definition of neutral.
I've no doubt that you'll attempt to come up with some profound explanation of how you are only reciting how the law should have interperated this, in your opinion, and try to illuminate as much doubt as possible of Intel's guilt. You may also try defend your unbiased stance, but remember, you have 5000+ posts to cover.
You might think this is overly harsh and unfair, or you might not give a crap, but the fact of the matter is you are standing up on the side of Intel. Why not just admit it?

A Zoner trying to call out IDK, now that's funny!!


FYI, in the US our mantra is "beyond a shadow of doubt", which requires the poking of holes in evidence. If you want conviction without evidence there are many countries on this planet that will suit you. You may find living in North Korea more suited to your ideology.

Originally posted by: piesquared
Anandtech is a f*****g pu**y and a shill, and what's worse, is a chicken sh*t for trying to deny it.

...I won't click on an AT link, ever.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
FYI, in the US our mantra is "beyond a shadow of doubt", which requires the poking of holes in evidence.

Except, that's the standard for criminal trials, AFAIK. The standard for civil lawsuits is much lower.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Phynaz
FYI, in the US our mantra is "beyond a shadow of doubt", which requires the poking of holes in evidence.

Except, that's the standard for criminal trials, AFAIK. The standard for civil lawsuits is much lower.

Absolutely true, but I don't believe there is the concept of guilt in a civil case either. I believe it's limited to responsibility or culpability.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: piesquared
While there is no doubt about your technical savvy, and that you are aware that it may be intimidating to some, therefore gaining a following and support in your theories, there is an equal amount of doubt of your self proclaimed neutrality, on this subject, and of your favorite flavor of IHV's. For those standing back watching at a distance, including myself, it is undeniably obvious that you are going out of your way to poke holes in the EU's evidence for it's decision, while attempting to plug as many holes, in Intel's defense. Sorry, but that's not the definition of neutral.
I've no doubt that you'll attempt to come up with some profound explanation of how you are only reciting how the law should have interperated this, in your opinion, and try to illuminate as much doubt as possible of Intel's guilt. You may also try defend your unbiased stance, but remember, you have 5000+ posts to cover.
You might think this is overly harsh and unfair, or you might not give a crap, but the fact of the matter is you are standing up on the side of Intel. Why not just admit it?

What I do here is try and engage in cerebral conversation regarding subject matters of interest and relevance to the members of this forum. It is a fluid situation, my opinions are dynamic and I like to think they can and do change over time given cordial and effective debate with my colleagues here on the forums in addition to those IRL.

If you want to critique me then lets take a walk over to PFI, shall we?

That line you just stepped over, yeah look back behind you for a moment, and now look down on the ground behind your feet, yeah that's thing called civility you just trampled all over is a line where you decided to make things needlessly personal in this thread.

If you want to critique the facts or alleged facts of Intel, AMD or the EU or the particulars of any one person's take on the situation then please proceed and enlighten us all with your wisdom and insight.

Vditor sets a good example here of how to engage in respectful and meaningful discourse, the kind that I enjoy and seek in life which is why you see me repeatedly engaging with him throughout the thread.

That anyone would bother to waste their time to stand back and assess anything I have to say on these forums though is just sad, to be honest. Who am I that you or anyone else would care about what I have to say? About anything? Its not like I set EU policy or something. I'm a nobody, please feel no threat from me and hold no fear of me.

 

[Phynaz]

Wow, that post wasn't even addressed to me and I feel bad.


Good post IDK.

 

[piesquared]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: piesquared
While there is no doubt about your technical savvy, and that you are aware that it may be intimidating to some, therefore gaining a following and support in your theories, there is an equal amount of doubt of your self proclaimed neutrality, on this subject, and of your favorite flavor of IHV's. For those standing back watching at a distance, including myself, it is undeniably obvious that you are going out of your way to poke holes in the EU's evidence for it's decision, while attempting to plug as many holes, in Intel's defense. Sorry, but that's not the definition of neutral.
I've no doubt that you'll attempt to come up with some profound explanation of how you are only reciting how the law should have interperated this, in your opinion, and try to illuminate as much doubt as possible of Intel's guilt. You may also try defend your unbiased stance, but remember, you have 5000+ posts to cover.
You might think this is overly harsh and unfair, or you might not give a crap, but the fact of the matter is you are standing up on the side of Intel. Why not just admit it?

What I do here is try and engage in cerebral conversation regarding subject matters of interest and relevance to the members of this forum. It is a fluid situation, my opinions are dynamic and I like to think they can and do change over time given cordial and effective debate with my colleagues here on the forums in addition to those IRL.

If you want to critique me then lets take a walk over to PFI, shall we?

That line you just stepped over, yeah look back behind you for a moment, and now look down on the ground behind your feet, yeah that's thing called civility you just trampled all over is a line where you decided to make things needlessly personal in this thread.

If you want to critique the facts or alleged facts of Intel, AMD or the EU or the particulars of any one person's take on the situation then please proceed and enlighten us all with your wisdom and insight.

Vditor sets a good example here of how to engage in respectful and meaningful discourse, the kind that I enjoy and seek in life which is why you see me repeatedly engaging with him throughout the thread.

That anyone would bother to waste their time to stand back and assess anything I have to say on these forums though is just sad, to be honest. Who am I that you or anyone else would care about what I have to say? About anything? Its not like I set EU policy or something. I'm a nobody, please feel no threat from me and hold no fear of me.

Anyway, do you deny that 9 time out of 10 you come down on the side of Intel, in whatever discussion is presented, such is the case in this situation? It's subtle, but i'm afraid it's not invisible. Your comments are analagous to those of counsel representing Intel in this matter.

@Phynaz: time to get up off your knees....

[edit]
@IDK: I do apologize for getting personal. Even though i've seen you mention elsewhere many times that you are unbiased and neutral in the matter of hardware, and are just interested as an enthusiast and consumer. While I disagree with that after reading many posts from you to the contrary, I should not have made any personal attacks. Life is too short....

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
What's with the "duh" comment?

The "duh" comment was my expression of a blatant how can you say that reaction.

In any legal situation your past transgressions are weighed with the current situation. It was ironic that you used the "serious ethical issues" in the same paragraph with "precedent." As far as I could tell the original paragraph was meant to somehow paint Intel as this company that has all of a sudden found its self in a unusual legal situation, one that Intel has never come across before. I simply pointed out a couple rocks to look under to get your head straight.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Idontcare
What's with the "duh" comment?

The "duh" comment was my expression of a blatant how can you say that reaction.

In any legal situation your past transgressions are weighed with the current situation. It was ironic that you used the "serious ethical issues" in the same paragraph with "precedent." As far as I could tell the original paragraph was meant to somehow paint Intel as this company that has all of a sudden found its self in a unusual legal situation, one that Intel has never come across before. I simply pointed out a couple rocks to look under to get your head straight.

Couldn't be at all that you misinterpreted what it was that I was attempting to communicate?

Nah, the only rational logical explanation for my post is that my head isn't straight and I need to be chastised with flippant duh-styled comments...

FWIW my references to precedent are to that of the court's, not to that of Intel's, wherever I used them in my posts in this thread.

I am well aware of Intel's history but that wasn't at all what I was talking about.

I was attempting to talk about the legal precedent it would set in the courts if all it took to penalize Intel in this specific situation was handful of emails from people who were not eye-witnesses (nor willing to stand in a court of law and testify as such) to the alleged illegal activity.

I am not trying to claim this makes Intel guiltless, I am not trying to claim that this is all that the EU's case amounts to, I am just saying IF what Intel is saying in their PR is true then it gives me pause for concern regarding the precedence we are going to set in the court's efforts to appease the people with using less than rigorous evidence/testimony to punish Intel for its past transgressions.

From what Viditor is telling me it sounds like they do have more rigorous evidence, super, then this should be an open and shut case and my concerns were for naught.

I really don't get why I am some sort of lightening rod for the negativity in this thread just because I don't blindly join in on the pitchfork parade.

I want to discuss the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of both sides of the case, to do that we have to first understand the claims made by both sides and all I've tried to do here is attempt to explain my understanding of the claims as they were stated by Intel.

My attempting to explain the claims does not mean that I believe the claims, it does not mean that I agree with the claims, it does not even mean that I am convinced that I correctly understand the claims. It merely means I want to talk with people about the claims in a rational civil discourse so that eventually I can solidify a personal opinion regarding the situation, and enjoy some conversation the stimulates my mind in the meantime.

Originally posted by: piesquared
Anyway,

Indeed.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Idontcare
What's with the "duh" comment?

The "duh" comment was my expression of a blatant how can you say that reaction.

In any legal situation your past transgressions are weighed with the current situation. It was ironic that you used the "serious ethical issues" in the same paragraph with "precedent." As far as I could tell the original paragraph was meant to somehow paint Intel as this company that has all of a sudden found its self in a unusual legal situation, one that Intel has never come across before. I simply pointed out a couple rocks to look under to get your head straight.

Couldn't be at all that you misinterpreted what it was that I was attempting to communicate?

Nah, the only rational logical explanation for my post is that my head isn't straight and I need to be chastised with flippant duh-styled comments...

FWIW my references to precedent are to that of the court's, not to that of Intel's, wherever I used them in my posts in this thread.

I am well aware of Intel's history but that wasn't at all what I was talking about.

I was attempting to talk about the legal precedent it would set in the courts if all it took to penalize Intel in this specific situation was handful of emails from people who were not eye-witnesses (nor willing to stand in a court of law and testify as such) to the alleged illegal activity.

I am not trying to claim this makes Intel guiltless, I am not trying to claim that this is all that the EU's case amounts to, I am just saying IF what Intel is saying in their PR is true then it gives me pause for concern regarding the precedence we are going to set in the court's efforts to appease the people with using less than rigorous evidence/testimony to punish Intel for its past transgressions.

From what Viditor is telling me it sounds like they do have more rigorous evidence, super, then this should be an open and shut case and my concerns were for naught.

I really don't get why I am some sort of lightening rod for the negativity in this thread just because I don't blindly join in on the pitchfork parade.

I want to discuss the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of both sides of the case, to do that we have to first understand the claims made by both sides and all I've tried to do here is attempt to explain my understanding of the claims as they were stated by Intel.

My attempting to explain the claims does not mean that I believe the claims, it does not mean that I agree with the claims, it does not even mean that I am convinced that I correctly understand the claims. It merely means I want to talk with people about the claims in a rational civil discourse so that eventually I can solidify a personal opinion regarding the situation, and enjoy some conversation the stimulates my mind in the meantime.

Originally posted by: piesquared
Anyway,

Indeed.

piesquared, you need to go back and re-read IDC's posts some more...
His opinions and posts are (IMHO) invariably fair and well reasoned, and I sense very little if any bias from him at all.
In this case, he was looking at Intel's response and trying to see things from their perspective (I have found he does this from ALL perspectives). He voiced an opinion on legal jurisprudence in general as he thought it may have applied here...you will note that after that he examined the other perspective and his determination was that it did not.

No matter what he may judge to be truth, I have found him to be invariably honest and forthright in all of his dealings...I always read his posts first (can't compliment any better than that...).

 

[piesquared]

Originally posted by: Viditor

piesquared, you need to go back and re-read IDC's posts some more...
His opinions and posts are (IMHO) invariably fair and well reasoned, and I sense very little if any bias from him at all.
In this case, he was looking at Intel's response and trying to see things from their perspective (I have found he does this from ALL perspectives). He voiced an opinion on legal jurisprudence in general as he thought it may have applied here...you will note that after that he examined the other perspective and his determination was that it did not.

No matter what he may judge to be truth, I have found him to be invariably honest and forthright in all of his dealings...I always read his posts first (can't compliment any better than that...).

Maybe. It's possible that the posts I haven't read are different from the ones I have, but that doesn't seem to likely to me. What i've seen is IDK always comming down on the side of Intel, and eager to jump to there defense in whatever conversation it is. BTW, and this is pretty important, i'm not saying there is anyting wrong with that!! Hell, I have no problems admitting that i'll never purchase ANYTHING made by Intel, until they can stand up and admit that what they did was wrong, and award fare compensation to those that were harmed. And i'll continue to reject anything and everything Intel until that happens, which won't be anytime soon. So those that defend their actions, are in the same category as Intel as far as i'm concerned.

And on that subject, here's something from Dr. Ruiz that hits the nail on the head AFAIC

In a stunning four-page document -- the first time, to my knowledge, the company has publicly discussed the facts of its behavior -- Intel has apparently embraced the advice dispensed by the playwright Oscar Wilde: "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame."

http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...n-chip-case-2009-09-23

 

[Idontcare]

(Viditor my apologies for my involvement in this thread turning out to play a role in its derailment from the topic, you wanted to talk about the emails and their contents and instead the thread turned into a "what's wrong with IDC" thread, had I had any inklings this might happen I would have chosen my approach to the topic much differently, situational awareness is not my strong suit)

From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
?[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ?investigates the details? (?) We?ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."

What I find intriguing about the DELL situation in particular is that their house was being ran so crooked they had to restate earnings and spent nearly a year not officially filing their earnings statements because their books were so cooked it took so long to unravel the mess.

Preliminary Results Subject to Change

Due to the questions raised in connection with the Audit Committee investigation, the company has not filed the Form 10-Q for the second quarter of fiscal 2007 (ended August 4, 2006), the Form 10-Q for the third quarter of fiscal 2007 (ended November 3, 2006), or the Form 10-K for fiscal 2007 (ended February 2, 2007). As a result, all financial results described in this press release, as well as the previously announced financial results for the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2007, should be considered preliminary, and are subject to change to reflect any necessary corrections or adjustments, or changes in accounting estimates, that are identified prior to the time the company is in a position to complete these filings. In addition, the preliminary results for the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2007 and the first quarter of fiscal 2008 could be affected by any restatements of prior period financial statements that are required as a result of any conclusions reached by the investigations. As stated above, no determination has been made as to whether restatements of prior period financial statements will be required.

http://www.dell.com/content/to...05_31_rr_000?c=us&l=en

Computer company Dell has said it will restate four year's worth of accounts because figures were tweaked so that the firm could meet earnings targets.

http://www.corp-ethics.com/com...ofits-after-probe.html

I'm not a big believer in coincidences, not when human beings are involved at least, so I see dots here that leave me wondering just how connected is the backstory? As I said above usually a rotten regime doesn't confine its illicit activities to just one aspect of their endeavors. If DELL had these kinds of issues, I wonder what else remains in Intel's closet waiting to be uncovered.

But it begs another question - if Intel is guilty then aren't these other players culpable as well? Didn't DELL and HP seek to leverage the margins advantage offered by Intel's exclusivity deals as a means to reduce competition on their own market (retail sales, killing off the small(er) guys like Gateway?). Collusion like this requires multiple points of abuse of power in the chain, I see lots of blood on a lot of hands here.

 

[Phynaz]

However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions].

I'd love to know what those conditions were!

 

[Senpuu]

Originally posted by: piesquaredWhat i've seen is IDK always comming down on the side of Intel, and eager to jump to there defense in whatever conversation it is. BTW, and this is pretty important, i'm not saying there is anyting wrong with that!! Hell, I have no problems admitting that i'll never purchase ANYTHING made by Intel, until they can stand up and admit that what they did was wrong, and award fare compensation to those that were harmed. And i'll continue to reject anything and everything Intel until that happens, which won't be anytime soon. So those that defend their actions, are in the same category as Intel as far as i'm concerned.

Maybe I'm just reading into things, but I think there is a personal attack in the above. In saying that IDC is "eager to jump to there(sic) [Intel's] defense" and that those who defend Intel "are in the same category as Intel" as far as you're concerned, you're pretty much attacking his character. As an AT lurker, I've read a ton of IDC's posts and they're generally some of the more insightful and constructive to be found in any thread I peruse. I can't say that I have ever seen this supposed favoritism you claim to find in his writing, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Another thing to notice in what you wrote -- this time implied by you and not inferred by me -- is that you've boycotted Intel based on their alleged unethical business practices. Isn't it possible that you are the source of the bias you think you're seeing in IDC's posts? I find that oftentimes it can be easy to let a bias (yours against Intel, in this case) color your opinion of those who make positive statements about the opposing side, regardless of the validity of said statements.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Senpuu

Originally posted by: piesquaredWhat i've seen is IDK always comming down on the side of Intel, and eager to jump to there defense in whatever conversation it is. BTW, and this is pretty important, i'm not saying there is anyting wrong with that!! Hell, I have no problems admitting that i'll never purchase ANYTHING made by Intel, until they can stand up and admit that what they did was wrong, and award fare compensation to those that were harmed. And i'll continue to reject anything and everything Intel until that happens, which won't be anytime soon. So those that defend their actions, are in the same category as Intel as far as i'm concerned.

Maybe I'm just reading into things, but I think there is a personal attack in the above. In saying that IDC is "eager to jump to there(sic) [Intel's] defense" and that those who defend Intel "are in the same category as Intel" as far as you're concerned, you're pretty much attacking his character. As an AT lurker, I've read a ton of IDC's posts and they're generally some of the more insightful and constructive to be found in any thread I peruse. I can't say that I have ever seen this supposed favoritism you claim to find in his writing, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Another thing to notice in what you wrote -- this time implied by you and not inferred by me -- is that you've boycotted Intel based on their alleged unethical business practices. Isn't it possible that you are the source of the bias you think you're seeing in IDC's posts? I find that oftentimes it can be easy to let a bias (yours against Intel, in this case) color your opinion of those who make positive statements about the opposing side, regardless of the validity of said statements.

Yes I noticed this, but the following below text is in a post above from piesquared:

[edit] @IDK: I do apologize for getting personal. Even though i've seen you mention elsewhere many times that you are unbiased and neutral in the matter of hardware, and are just interested as an enthusiast and consumer. While I disagree with that after reading many posts from you to the contrary, I should not have made any personal attacks. Life is too short....

So no further action is required. It also is not blatant, so its not quite as bad.

 

[Idontcare]

In chronological order:

Originally posted by: piesquared
While there is no doubt about your technical savvy, and that you are aware that it may be intimidating to some, therefore gaining a following and support in your theories, there is an equal amount of doubt of your self proclaimed neutrality, on this subject, and of your favorite flavor of IHV's. For those standing back watching at a distance, including myself, it is undeniably obvious that you are going out of your way to poke holes in the EU's evidence for it's decision, while attempting to plug as many holes, in Intel's defense. Sorry, but that's not the definition of neutral.
I've no doubt that you'll attempt to come up with some profound explanation of how you are only reciting how the law should have interperated this, in your opinion, and try to illuminate as much doubt as possible of Intel's guilt. You may also try defend your unbiased stance, but remember, you have 5000+ posts to cover.
You might think this is overly harsh and unfair, or you might not give a crap, but the fact of the matter is you are standing up on the side of Intel. Why not just admit it?

Originally posted by: piesquared
Anyway, do you deny that 9 time out of 10 you come down on the side of Intel, in whatever discussion is presented, such is the case in this situation? It's subtle, but i'm afraid it's not invisible. Your comments are analagous to those of counsel representing Intel in this matter.

@Phynaz: time to get up off your knees....

[edit]
@IDK: I do apologize for getting personal. Even though i've seen you mention elsewhere many times that you are unbiased and neutral in the matter of hardware, and are just interested as an enthusiast and consumer. While I disagree with that after reading many posts from you to the contrary, I should not have made any personal attacks. Life is too short....

Originally posted by: piesquared
Maybe. It's possible that the posts I haven't read are different from the ones I have, but that doesn't seem to likely to me. What i've seen is IDK always comming down on the side of Intel, and eager to jump to there defense in whatever conversation it is. BTW, and this is pretty important, i'm not saying there is anyting wrong with that!! Hell, I have no problems admitting that i'll never purchase ANYTHING made by Intel, until they can stand up and admit that what they did was wrong, and award fare compensation to those that were harmed. And i'll continue to reject anything and everything Intel until that happens, which won't be anytime soon. So those that defend their actions, are in the same category as Intel as far as i'm concerned.

And on that subject, here's something from Dr. Ruiz that hits the nail on the head AFAIC

In a stunning four-page document -- the first time, to my knowledge, the company has publicly discussed the facts of its behavior -- Intel has apparently embraced the advice dispensed by the playwright Oscar Wilde: "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame."

http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...n-chip-case-2009-09-23

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Yes I noticed this, but the following below text is in a post above from piesquared:

[edit] @IDK: I do apologize for getting personal. Even though i've seen you mention elsewhere many times that you are unbiased and neutral in the matter of hardware, and are just interested as an enthusiast and consumer. While I disagree with that after reading many posts from you to the contrary, I should not have made any personal attacks. Life is too short....

So no further action is required. It also is not blatant, so its not quite as bad.

Sigh...I think that may have just been a curtain call on me folks.

When a moderator chooses these words to reflect their official position on the type of posting behaviour exhibited here I am compelled to acknowledge that I have little interest spending my time defending my integrity or putting others in situations where they feel compelled to spend their time in defense of my integrity.

That is not fun for anyone, and I don't know about you guys but my primary reason for coming to these specific forums is to have an enjoyable time conversing with you all.

I really appreciate the kind words many of you expressed here in this thread, and even more so I appreciate that some of you took time out of your day to post them. But I am compelled to ask, please don't waste any more of your time defending me, the establishment has spoken and the verdict is that there isn't anything said here in this thread that is bad enough to warrant any action on the establishment's behalf so please don't waste your time either.

Peace.

Idontcare, don't you change the channel just yet. I've cited the rules many times before, but occasionally they need the refresher. Everyone, discuss the subject matter. Attack the subject matter. Concur with the subject matter, or whatever. Do not get personal. Do not discuss what you think of any poster for having an opinion. All opinions are allowed as long as they are within forum guidelines (no mature content, etc.). Attack the subject matter, not the poster or what you think of them for having an opinion, or if you feel they like one company over another. True or not.

piesquared has apologized, and that was called for and most welcomed. Thank you piesquared.
Now please continue without even a hint of getting personal, and all will be well. - Thank you.
Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr

 

[sonoran]

Ok, I work for Intel, so I can't discuss this case. But I did want to point out something interesting related to IDC's post.

Originally posted by: Idontcare
From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
?[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ?investigates the details? (?) We?ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."

What I find intriguing about the DELL situation in particular...

You may find this even more intriguing. It's from Intel's 27 page response to the EC:

However, one important OEM, Dell, which the Decision says was coerced by fear of Intel ?punishment? to buy exclusively from Intel, has confirmed publicly that it always considered itself entirely free to choose to buy from AMD, without fear of reprisal or punishment. The record before the Commission contains sworn testimony of Dell executives that contradicts this essential premise of the Commission's case. The Decision nevertheless disregarded this evidence and instead relied on the speculation of a single lower level employee, who was not a decision maker and not even at Dell for much of the relevant period.

This tidbit from page 16 is also curious, when contrasted with your quote above:

Moreover, the evidence shows that when the OEMs did in fact purchase from AMD, there was no ?punishment? or "retaliation? by Intel such as that asserted by the Commission. It is striking that, notwithstanding evidence of recurrent "disloyalty", no actual examples of disproportionate "punishment" are cited in the Decision.?

The evidence reveals that during the relevant period, Intel responded to actual losses of OEM business to AMD by increasing rather than reducing its discounts. For example, as AMD's share at Acer increased from 9% in the third quarter of 2003 to 30% in the fourth quarter of 2005, Intel's discounts to Acer, as a percentage of purchases, increased.

Should be an interesting case, once it gets to a court where both sides have a say.

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *

 

[Phynaz]

Idontcare, don't you change the channel just yet. I've cited the rules many times before, but occasionally they need the refresher. Everyone, discuss the subject matter. Attack the subject matter. Concur with the subject matter, or whatever. Do not get personal. Do not discuss what you think of any poster for having an opinion. All opinions are allowed as long as they are within forum guidelines (no mature content, etc.). Attack the subject matter, not the poster or what you think of them for having an opinion, or if you feel they like one company over another. True or not.

piesquared has apologized, and that was called for and most welcomed. Thank you piesquared.
Now please continue without even a hint of getting personal, and all will be well. - Thank you.
Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr

Hear, hear.

That's better.

 

[Markfw]

Thanks Keys ! I thought I said the same thing, albeit, not nearly as politically correct or clearly.

 

[Idontcare]

OK ok, I get it guys, clearly my poor choice of words reflected an unflattering state of rash thinking on my behalf mea culpa. I guess I've now outed myself as not being a netbot after all. :laugh: Damn, my cunning plan almost worked if only it weren't for those meddling posters!

Originally posted by: piesquared
@IDK: I do apologize for getting personal. Even though i've seen you mention elsewhere many times that you are unbiased and neutral in the matter of hardware, and are just interested as an enthusiast and consumer. While I disagree with that after reading many posts from you to the contrary, I should not have made any personal attacks. Life is too short....

Apology accepted.

FWIW, if you have read posts from me which by your interpretation came across as me being to the contrary of something I claim to stand for or be representative of the person I strive to be then you should (and still can) ask me to explain my position and statements in further detail.

I don't claim to be infallible, but open-ended generic statements that simply unilaterally categorize me as a fanboy or playing favorites doesn't exactly give me anything to go on in terms of learning of how to better myself. I don't mind constructive criticism, even if it is personal, I couldn't be the person I am today if it weren't for my having received some valuable constructive criticism in the past.

At any rate, just wanted to say if you've an axe to grind with me then please don't waste your time by simply leaving it at that, presumably you want something to come of having gone to the effort to make such statements, and if you have merit in your claims then I stand to gain something (becoming a better person) by listening to your points and growing from it. Hit me up in pm if that venue is more to your liking, or if you see me posting in future threads in a manner that makes you question my motive I openly invite you to explicitly inquire as to my rational for posting whatever I posted in the relevant thread (just be mindful of TOS when doing so).

I look forward to your feedback in the future. If I am anywhere close to being as biased and non-neutral as you perceive me to be then that feedback should be frequent and easy for you to deliver.

 

[drizek]

Originally posted by: sonoran
Ok, I work for Intel, so I can't discuss this case. But I did want to point out something interesting related to IDC's post.

Originally posted by: Idontcare
From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
?[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ?investigates the details? (?) We?ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."

What I find intriguing about the DELL situation in particular...

You may find this even more intriguing. It's from Intel's 27 page response to the EC:

However, one important OEM, Dell, which the Decision says was coerced by fear of Intel ?punishment? to buy exclusively from Intel, has confirmed publicly that it always considered itself entirely free to choose to buy from AMD, without fear of reprisal or punishment. The record before the Commission contains sworn testimony of Dell executives that contradicts this essential premise of the Commission's case. The Decision nevertheless disregarded this evidence and instead relied on the speculation of a single lower level employee, who was not a decision maker and not even at Dell for much of the relevant period.

This tidbit from page 16 is also curious, when contrasted with your quote above:

Moreover, the evidence shows that when the OEMs did in fact purchase from AMD, there was no ?punishment? or "retaliation? by Intel such as that asserted by the Commission. It is striking that, notwithstanding evidence of recurrent "disloyalty", no actual examples of disproportionate "punishment" are cited in the Decision.?

The evidence reveals that during the relevant period, Intel responded to actual losses of OEM business to AMD by increasing rather than reducing its discounts. For example, as AMD's share at Acer increased from 9% in the third quarter of 2003 to 30% in the fourth quarter of 2005, Intel's discounts to Acer, as a percentage of purchases, increased.

Should be an interesting case, once it gets to a court where both sides have a say.

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *

But Dell did not sell AMD parts at all in the consumer space. IIRC, they would only sell Opterons to large business orders where they were specifically requested. When someone asks Dell for an Opteron, point blank, they won't say no, but the fact is that Dell has never offered consumers AMD systems. This is Dell! They are value-oriented and offer more customization options than anyone else. They ship Linux to consumers but won't ship AMD, doesn't that seem at least a bit strange?

As for increasing discounts as a percentage of the purchase price, that really doesn't mean anything. Purchase price for computers has been dropping significantly over the years, so even if the discount stayed the same, and the cost of computers dropped by 1%, the statement would still be true, but would be entirely meaningless. It may actually have been the case that they dropped the discount significantly, while still increasing it as a percentage of the sale price.

 

[Idontcare]

This may be a stupid question, but what exactly did Intel do that is illegal? (or allegedly do?)

Is it the rebate programs that are illegal? Is it the incentives to restrict sales of AMD products to a certain percentage of overall sales?

I get the whole "these are nasty hardball tactics" aspects of some of this stuff, even if it legal it doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it, but what part is the illegal part versus just the nasty business part?

 

[drizek]

I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the line is drawn when you are considered to be a monopoly. AMD could have pulled any of these tactics and gotten away with it, because free market competition would still come into play. If they had payed off Dell with a few million dollars to not sell Intel chips, the next day Intel will double whatever AMD payed and AMD would get a letter from Dell telling them to go F themselves. The reverse situation however could not take place, because AMD cannot afford to play that game. If Intel wanted to, using these tactics, they could drive AMD out of business by tomorrow morning. AMD is 5b in debt and Intel is swimming cash.

It is illegal to do this because, as I am sure you could imagine, AMD going out of business would be a disaster for the PC industry. The government would much rather screw Intel here and there than have to deal with a post-AMD world where they have to micromanage all the actions of Intel to make it behave as if it had competition.

Intel could actually drive AMD out of business even without doing anything illegal, but the last thing Intel wants is for the government to be directly telling them what to do. This is why Microsoft bailed Apple out in the 90s. MS would much rather lose 5% marketshare to Apple than have to put up with the government in a world where they are the only game in town.