Comment: FTC's compiler attack on Intel is thin
Now let is try and see what the FTC is saying here.
Is the FTC saying that Intel has a duty to optimize its compiler software not only for its own processors but also for those of its competitors? And if so, which competitors should get the best treatment, because what is optimized for an AMD processor may not be as good for another x86 maker. So Intel would always be guilty of impairing someone's performance, including its own.
That does seem ridiculous. If I was being paid to create a successful processor-compiler combination I would be duty-bound to try and arrange things to my employer's best advantage and to help differentiate our product combination from those of the competition. If that meant organizing the compiler software so that procedures and the data they require flow smoothly on our processors but might incur a delay on a rival's processor, surely that is the nature of competition. Surely that is competitive rather than anticompetitive.
But wait, note the use of the word "secretly" and the phrase "failed to disclose."
It seems that the FTC is not objecting so much to fact that Intel tweaked its compiler as much as the fact that it didn't tell customers or the competition explicitly that the compiler works well with Intel processors but that it may not compile code as efficiently for other makes of processor.
The FTC's case seems to hinge on the fact that Intel said programs performed better on its processors when this was largely down to the impact of the compiler. Intel also took benefit from independent benchmark organizations that made use of the Intel compiler to create performance statistics.
But if benchmark organizations measure your products as performing well, would you choose to suppress the information?
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=222002499