The Associated Press November 30, 2006, 10:10PM EST
AMD gets subpoena in graphics chip probe
SAN FRANCISCO
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. said late Thursday that it had received a subpoena from the Justice Department regarding an investigation into possible antitrust violations in the graphics processors and cards business.
Sunnyvale-based AMD, the world's No. 2 maker of the microprocessors that act as the core calculating engines of computers, entered the graphics chip market earlier this year with the $5.4 billion acquisition of ATI Technologies Inc.
The move was seen as a strategic blow to AMD's larger rival, Intel Corp., and one that would allow AMD to broaden its product portfolio and shed its image as a boutique player that sells only microprocessors and flash memory chips. The deal was completed in October.
AMD said that the Justice Department has not made any specific allegations against AMD or ATI, and that the company intends to cooperate with the investigation. An AMD spokesman declined to comment beyond the press release.
The scope of the Justice Department investigation was unclear. A call to a spokesman for Santa Clara-based Nvidia Corp., the other dominant maker of graphics chips, was not immediately returned.
Shares of AMD closed up 16 cents at $21.57 on Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange before the news was announced. AMD shares declined by a penny in after-hours trading.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
I'm presuming the linked article is related to the SGI case (full details not known yet), unless ATi has some more skeletons rattling around the legal closet seeking a way out.
AMD gets subpoena in graphics chip probe
The Associated Press November 30, 2006, 10:10PM EST
AMD gets subpoena in graphics chip probe
SAN FRANCISCO
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. said late Thursday that it had received a subpoena from the Justice Department regarding an investigation into possible antitrust violations in the graphics processors and cards business.
Sunnyvale-based AMD, the world's No. 2 maker of the microprocessors that act as the core calculating engines of computers, entered the graphics chip market earlier this year with the $5.4 billion acquisition of ATI Technologies Inc.
The move was seen as a strategic blow to AMD's larger rival, Intel Corp., and one that would allow AMD to broaden its product portfolio and shed its image as a boutique player that sells only microprocessors and flash memory chips. The deal was completed in October.
AMD said that the Justice Department has not made any specific allegations against AMD or ATI, and that the company intends to cooperate with the investigation. An AMD spokesman declined to comment beyond the press release.
The scope of the Justice Department investigation was unclear. A call to a spokesman for Santa Clara-based Nvidia Corp., the other dominant maker of graphics chips, was not immediately returned.
Shares of AMD closed up 16 cents at $21.57 on Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange before the news was announced. AMD shares declined by a penny in after-hours trading.
Unless the infringement has caused a monopoly, nothing, absolutely nothing.What in the :evil: does an antiitrust case have to do with patent infringment.
The scope of the Justice Department investigation was unclear. A call to a spokesman for Santa Clara-based Nvidia Corp., the other dominant maker of graphics chips, was not immediately returned.
Originally posted by: josh6079
So what is a monopoly again?nvidia however, proudly stands alone.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: josh6079
So what is a monopoly again?nvidia however, proudly stands alone.
Have I ever mentioned to you that you (and yourbeloved ATi) are scum?
Besides which, I think the Business Week is just a tad more credible in matters such as these than dailytech...
And that answered my question how?Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Originally posted by: josh6079
So what is a monopoly again?nvidia however, proudly stands alone.
Have I ever mentioned to you that you (and yourbeloved ATi) are scum?
Besides which, I think the Business Week is just a tad more credible in matters such as these than dailytech...
Yet you also said:NVIDIA isn't a monopoly.
That's a pretty neat talent, to be "alone" in the graphics card industry yet not be a monopoly.nvidia however, proudly stands alone.
DailyTech isn't credible? Just because you feel another site is more credible than DailyTech doesn't mean DailyTech isn't credible at all.Also, nvidia hasn't been mentioned (except) in passing in any *credible* article...
I wasn't talking about their corporate solitude in a monopoly discussion, you were.Stop trying to deflect attention to nvidia...
VIDIA Receives Subpoena from U.S. Department of Justice Regarding Investigation Into Market for Graphics Processors
For further information, contact:
Michael Hara
Investor Relations
NVIDIA Corporation
(408) 486-2511
mhara@nvidia.com
Calisa Cole
Corporate Communications
NVIDIA Corporation
(408) 486-6263
ccole@nvidia.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SANTA CLARA, CA?DECEMBER 1, 2006?NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA) has received a subpoena from the San Francisco Office of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in connection with the DOJ's investigation into potential antitrust violations related to graphics processing units and cards. No specific allegations have been made against NVIDIA. NVIDIA plans to cooperate with the DOJ in its investigation.
About NVIDIA
NVIDIA Corporation is the worldwide leader in programmable graphics processor technologies. The Company creates innovative, industry-changing products for computing, consumer electronics, and mobile devices. NVIDIA is headquartered in Santa Clara, CA and has offices throughout Asia, Europe, and the Americas. For more information, visit www.nvidia.com.
Certain statements in this press release including, but not limited to, statements as to the allegations made in the DOJ investigation and actions by the Company, are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause results to be materially different than expectations. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include actions and determinations by the DOJ or other governmental entities and statements or other information provided by third parties or otherwise discovered. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof, and, except as required by law, NVIDIA disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances.
###
Copyright® 2006 NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All company and/or product names may be trade names, trademarks and/or registered trademarks of the respective owners with which they are associated. Features, pricing, availability, and specifications are subject to change without notice.
Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on NVIDIA, please visit the NVIDIA Press Room at http://www.nvidia.com/page/press_room.html
Computerworld Security
DOJ subpoenas AMD, Nvidia in antitrust probe
Nancy Gohring
December 01, 2006 (IDG News Service) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has subpoenaed Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) and Nvidia Corp. as part of an antitrust investigation into the market for graphics processors and graphics cards.
AMD recently entered the graphics chip business with its acquisition of ATI Technologies Inc. That deal was finalized last month. The DOJ has not made any allegations against AMD or ATI, and AMD intends to cooperate with the investigation, it said Thursday.
Competing chip vendor Nvidia said on Friday that it had also received a subpoena, relating to an "investigation into potential antitrust violations related to graphics processing units and cards." Nvidia also plans to cooperate with the order, which came from the San Francisco office of the DOJ's Antitrust Division.
While the DOJ hasn't said specifically what it is investigating, one industry analyst speculated that the case could be about price fixing. The DOJ has already charged a number of chip companies in the DRAM (Dynamic RAM) memory chip market for price fixing, and is investigating several in the SRAM (Static RAM) chip market.
"If the DOJ wanted to, it could just go down every line in the semiconductor industry and find the same issue," said Gartner Inc. analyst Richard Gordon. That's because there are a relatively few number of suppliers in the chip industry and an open flow of communication between competitors and customers, who may not define price fixing the same way the DOJ does, he said.
The investigations are unlikely to benefit end users, according to Gordon. Historically, prices in the chip industry have gone up and down based on supply and demand and he doubts that such investigations will result in lower pricing.
A spokeswoman for AMD in Europe, Hollis Krym, said she did not know if the investigation has a broad scope and includes other graphics chip companies or if it is in the context of the ATI acquisition. U.S. antitrust authorities have already approved AMD's merger with ATI.
In the DRAM market, the DOJ has charged Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Elpida Memory and Infineon Technologies AG with price fixing and sentenced the companies to pay multi-million dollar fines.
Sony Corp., Cypress Semiconductor Corp. and the U.S. arms of Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Toshiba Corp. have all been asked to turn over information to the DOJ for an investigation into SRAM price fixing.
Ben Ames, of the IDG News Service, contributed to this story.
Tayyib Shah - Longbow Research
Okay .Then can you talk about the supply situation for graphics memory? How do you see that shaping up over the next quarter? And if Marv can put this in the context of gross margins, have you had to absorb some of our memory cost increase in the last quarter?
Marv Burkett
What was that last portion? I didn't hear that.
Tayyib Shah - Longbow Research
Have you had to absorb some of the memory cost increase in the fiscal third quarter?
Jen-Hsun Huang
I guess the first thing is the comment about the memory shortage. There is a memory shortage, or memory tightness. But the memory tightness is by and large alleviated at this point. But during the tightness we worked really closely with all of our add-in card partners and OEMs. And because we're such a close partner of all the memory suppliers, we have been helpful at helping them secure the memories that they needed in a price that was fair to the marketplace. We were frankly very, very helpful to the graphics ecosystem to help them secure memories during Q3. But I think the shortage is by and large stabilized at this point.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Stop trying to deflect attention to nvidia and start asking why the DoJ would subpoena AMD (ATi).
We'll worry about nvidia *if* and *when* they get a subpoena.
Originally posted by: Gstanfor
December 01, 2006 (IDG News Service) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has subpoenaed Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) and Nvidia Corp. as part of an antitrust investigation into the market for graphics processors and graphics cards.
This still has nothing to do with what I asked.Originally posted by: Gstanfor
well, if you keep reading, you'll see I've covered the "analysts" speculation, but feel free to worry about nvidia - you wouldn't be fanatics if you didn't....
And you answered,...explain to me how Nvidia can be both "alone" in the GPU industry and not be a monopoly...
which in it's content discussed nothing about lone corporations NOT being monopolies.well...you'll see I've covered the "analysts" speculation...
[*] Predatory pricing - The practice of a firm selling a product at very low price with the intent of driving competitors out of the market, or create a barrier to entry into the market for potential new competitors
The one boded and highlighted is the one I think they may have violated, but that's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
Still just avoiding the subject? Why?Originally posted by: Gstanfor
It wasn't talking to you, Mr. Scumbag.
But now you're contradicting your claim that,Whileversomeone else sells GPu's, nvidia isn't "alone in the GPU" industry.
So which is it, monopoly or just another manufacturer?nvidia however, proudly stands alone.
So you're saying they are the only--as in one--independent GPU vendor?Originally posted by: Gstanfor
as an independent gpu vendor you fuckwit. everyone else (except possibly for PowerVR) is part of a larger corporation and involved in expanding that corporations marketshare.
Definition: prefix (mono-) - one
Thus, monopoly can accurately mean, "one to sell".-poly, -pole, -polism, -polist, -polists, -polistic, -polistically
(Greek: used as a suffix; sale, selling; one who sells; pertaining to selling, to sell; trade, barter)