Gikaseixas
Platinum Member
- Jul 1, 2004
- 2,836
- 218
- 106
Let's see..
and that makes me a troll.
Finally... you just discovered yourself son. Now go make a Intel can do no wrong thread
Let's see..
and that makes me a troll.
Completely ignoring the fact that it pertains to the server market ? I guess twisting facts & misrepresenting figures(literally) is your hobby not to mention the contentious point in time(P4 vs athlon) is from 2002 to roughly 2006, as evidenced by the Japanese investigation !I didn't make the chart. And it doesn't matter to the point here.
If you're implying that Intel also bribed its way into the server market, then sure whatever you say, otherwise you're lying plain & simple !Simple -- you guys are alleging that AMD's woes are because of Intel's alleged illegal activities, but those activities happened before AMD had tremendous success. They obviously did not prevent AMD from being successful, and they do not explain at all why AMD has imploded since 2006 -- and that's why the complaints are meaningless.
The way Chad and Charles are rewriting history, they could fit very well with the GWB Presidential Library campaign squad.Intel has been found guilty in several markets, that only happens when you do something really really wrong. Many people can't be wrong and yet some defend Intel when this fact comes up.
Only a blind fanboy defends such tactics
So Japan and South Korea gave Intel a slap on the wrist, despite doing something "really, really wrong"?Intel has been found guilty in several markets, that only happens when you do something really really wrong.
Many people can't be wrong and yet some defend Intel when this fact comes up.
Only a blind fanboy defends such tactics
Correcting your obvious mistakes and pointing out your failures in logic, is not rewriting history, it is trying to stop people from perverting history.The way Chad and Charles are rewriting history, they could fit very well with the GWB Presidential Library campaign squad.
So Japan and South Korea gave Intel a slap on the wrist, despite doing something "really, really wrong"?
You know I could get charged for Jay Walking in many countries, but that wouldn't mean I have done something really, really wrong.
Why don't you tell everyone what the actual damage that was done to AMD by Intel here was.
Simple -- you guys are alleging that AMD's woes are because of Intel's alleged illegal activities, but those activities happened before AMD had tremendous success. .
No need to, like i said only a blind fanboy cannot see facts and i would be wasting my time with another one of them.
LOL. How hilarious of you to think you can set ground rules for others to follow.Are Chad and Charles outright denying that Intel had any involvement in unethical business practices regarding AMD? Lets ask them.
Chad? Charles? Are either of you denying that Intel had any involvement in unethical business practices regarding AMD?
Keep in mind we are only accepting YES or NO answers because any gray area constitutes a YES. Even a little constitutes a YES. Only nothing gets you a NO answer.
Thanks.
Ok Einstein, go to google and type "amd intel settlement 2009" . The second link will give you the PDF.Correcting your obvious mistakes and pointing out your failures in logic, is not rewriting history, it is trying to stop people from perverting history.
I'll take that as a NO !LOL. How hilarious of you to think you can set ground rules for others to follow.
You tell me, how much does an AMD/OEM employee that got fired due to any of these tactics cost according to you ? Can you quantify that damage !What was the actual damage you believe that Intel did to AMD?
LOL. How hilarious of you to think you can set ground rules for others to follow.
What was the actual damage you believe that Intel did to AMD?
That is AMD's claim, Intel denies it and no Court has ever passed judgement on the matter.
Reign in your biases.
Allegations that haven't been tested by a Court where evidence and witnesses can be cross examined, remain just allegations.Ok Einstein, go to google and type "amd intel settlement 2009" . The second link will give you the PDF.
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/AMD_settlement_agreement.pdf
have fun reading it.
Agreements are made like this in the corporate world (unfortunately) often. It is perfectly legal to hide bad behavior by corporations in these kind of out of court settlements and courts as well as the legal system allows them to do that to reduce the case load burden.
Harping that it never went to court and hence everything is bogus in evidence of all that has been released is extremely disingenuous and/or downright stupid.
As AMD sold every processor they could make, I do not believe they fired any one due to any "tactics".You tell me, how much does an AMD/OEM employee that got fired due to any of these tactics cost according to you ? Can you quantify that damage !
And Intel denied they were doing any of that anyway, so they agreed to formally agree to it.Intel's restraints after the settlement:
Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to buy all of their microprocessor needs from Intel, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit or delay their purchase of microprocessors from AMD, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit their engagement with AMD or their promotion or distribution of products containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, channel, market segment, or any other basis
Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to abstain from or delay their participation in AMD product launches, announcements, advertising, or other promotional activities
Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above.
That is AMD's allegation, but never proven in a court of law.
In the mid-2000s, AMD came to believe that Intel was unfairly out to sabotage it in the marketplace once more, using money and clout to beat back AMD's technological superiority. Ruiz describes the company's view in his book:Toshiba had accepted a hefty payment from Intel in 2001 on the promise that it wouldnt use AMD processors. The market development funds totaled between $25 million and $30 million per quartera sum Toshiba executives likened to cocaine because it was a deal they just couldnt quit.AMD had already filed a similar complaint with the European Commission back in 2000, and Japans Fair Trade Commission found that Intel violated antitrust rules there.
Intel had bought Hitachis exclusivity as well. Whereas AMD had been shipping 50,000 Athlon chips to Hitachi in the first and second quarters of 2002, by the third quarter AMDs shipments suddenly fell to zero.
NECs stance was especially disappointing. By the third quarter of 2002, AMD had won 84 percent of NECs Japanese consumer desktop businessa substantial achievement given our historical position as number two in the global semiconductor market. Looking at notebooks and desktops together, we supplied 40 percent of the companys microprocessor needs. That would end shortly after Intel agreed to pay NEC more than ¥3 billion per quarter, as long as NEC would give 90 percent of its business to Intel and strictly limit its dealings with AMD. By 2003, AMDs share of NECs consumer desktop business had slid to nearly zero too.
NEC went so far as to tell us firsthand about its agreement with Intel, which dictated that AMDs share of NECs Japanese market had to be held to single digits. Globally, AMDs share of NEC business would fall from 40 percent to 15 percent.
Amid all this activity, it seemed that whenever we took one step forward, we stumbled two steps back. This was particularly frustrating because AMD had become the market leader in technology; we had been expecting advances, so the sudden retreats seemed undeserved. I knew from the start that AMDs fight for market share was going to be an uphill battle. But I held faith that the market would right itself in time.
Allegations that haven't been tested by a Court where evidence and witnesses can be cross examined, remain just allegations.
You need to grasp that Allegations aren't proof and insisting that they are is very stupid.
So rather than regard the Allegations as necessarily bogus, I find them to be indeterminate.
Key's attempts to frame the question were juvenile in the extreme.Keys asked you something straight up, a simple YES or NO
Just look at what you wrote. Your track record doesn't help your case already and this only strengthens what people think of you.
First, we don't need to prove in a court of law that Earth is not flat. It is a fact. Only a flatness fanboy would negate that.
Second, some info from the arstechnica article discussed here (part two):
They are not Court Cases where any Court Decision was made against Intel.Third, there are lots of court cases lost by Intel in America, Europe, Japan, Corea...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#European_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#United_States
Now we have all seen how AMD has done with a "level playing field"
Not by a Court where Intel gets to cross examine evidence and witnesses.Why did Intel agree to pay all that money? It was determined that what Intel did was wrong.