# European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position



## btarunr (Sep 21, 2009)

The European Commission has today published a non-confidential version of its Intel Decision, adopted on 13 May 2009 ( IP/09/745 and MEMO/09/235 ), together with a summary of the key elements of the Decision. That Decision found that Intel broke EC Treaty antitrust rules (Article 82) by engaging in two types of illegal practice to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units (CPUs). These practices harmed consumers throughout the EEA. By undermining its competitors' ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel's actions undermined competition, reduced consumer choice and hindered innovation. On the basis of a significant amount of contemporaneous evidence and company statements, the Decision demonstrates how Intel broke the law.

Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU market by implementing a series of conditional rebates to computer manufacturers and to a European retailer and by taking other measures aimed at preventing or delaying the launch of computers based on competing products (so-called 'naked restrictions'). The Commission's Decision outlines specific cases of these conditional rebates and naked restrictions, as well as how Intel sought to conceal its practices and how computer manufacturers and Intel itself recognised the growing threat represented by the products of Intel's main competitor, AMD.



*Conditional Rebates*

The conditional rebates were as follows:
Intel rebates to Dell from December 2002 to December 2005 were conditioned on Dell purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs. For example, in an internal Dell presentation of February 2003, Dell noted that should Dell switch any part of its CPU supplies from Intel to its competitor AMD, Intel retaliation " could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]." In a February 2004 e-mail on the consequences of the possible purchase by Dell of AMD CPUs, a Dell executive wrote: " Boss, here's an outline of the framework we discussed with Intel. (…) Intel is ready to send [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel executive] /[Intel executive] to meet with [Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Senior Executive]/[Dell Executive] . (...) Background: [Intel Senior executive] /[Intel Senior executive] are prepared for [all-out war] 1 if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP [name of Intel rebate to Dell] 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 [Dell product series for corporate customers] , they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us. ".
Intel rebates to HP from November 2002 to May 2005 were conditioned in particular on HP purchasing no less than 95% of its CPU needs for business desktops from Intel (the remaining 5% that HP could purchase from AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below). In this regard, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that " Intel granted the credits subject to the following unwritten requirements: a) that HP should purchase at least 95% of its business desktop system from Intel …". By way of example, in an e-mail written in July 2002 during the negotiation of the rebate agreement between HP and Intel, an HP executive wrote: "" PLEASE DO NOT… communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5% AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement".
Intel rebates to NEC during the period ranging from October 2002 to November 2005 were conditioned on NEC purchasing no less than 80% of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook segments from Intel. For example, in a May 2002 e-mail (when the arrangement was concluded), an NEC executive specified that " NEC will (...) increase [worldwide] Intel market share from [...] % to 80%. Intel will give NEC [support] and aggressive [...] price.".
Intel rebates to Lenovo during year 2007 were conditioned on Lenovo purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook segment exclusively from Intel. For example, in a December 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive stated: " Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD based products in 2007 for our Notebook products".
Intel payments to Media Saturn Holding (MSH), Europe's largest PC retailer, were conditioned on MSH selling exclusively Intel-based PCs from October 2002 to December 2007. For example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated: " It was clear to MSH in this regard that the sale of AMD-equipped computers would result at least in a reduction of the amount of Intel's contribution payments per Intel CPU under the contribution agreements (and thus in a reduction of the total payments received from Intel, even if the total volume of Intel-CPUs sold by MSH would have remained the same as in previous periods), although MSH never actually tested the issue with Intel.".

*Naked restrictions*

The naked restrictions uncovered by the Commission were as follows:
Between November 2002 and May 2005, Intel payments to HP were conditioned on HP selling AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises, only via direct distribution channels (rather than distributors), and on HP postponing the launch of its first AMD-based business desktop in Europe by 6 months. For example, in an internal September 2004 HP e-mail, an HP executive stated: " You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high ".
Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. For example, in a September 2003 email, an Intel executive reported: "good news just came from [Acer Senior Executive] that Acer decides to drop AMD K8 [notebook product] throughout 2003 around the world. We've been talking with them all the way up to [Intel senior executive] 's […] level recently including [Intel executive] , [Intel senior executive] … and [Intel executive]… . They keep pushing back until today, after the call with [Intel executive] this morning, [Acer Senior Executive] just confirmed that they decide to drop AMD K8 throughout 2003 around the world. [Acer Senior Executive] has got this direction from [Acer Senior Executive] as well and will follow through in EMEA [Europe Middle East and Africa region]".
Intel payments to Lenovo were linked to or conditioned on Lenovo postponing the launch of AMD-based notebooks from June 2006 to the end of 2006. For example, in a June 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive reported that: "[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (…). […] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (…) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (…) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD".

*Concealment*

The Commission found that Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers and MSH. For example:
The rebate arrangement with Dell was not subject to a written agreement but was concluded orally at various meetings. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, Dell stated that " there is no written agreement between Intel and Dell concerning the MCP [rebate] discount, rather, the discount is the subject of constant oral negotiations and agreement".
There was a written agreement with HP but the relevant conditions remained unwritten. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that the " unwritten conditions (...) were stated to be part of the HPA1 agreement by [Intel executive] , [Intel executive] and [Intel senior executive] in meetings with HP during the negotiations;
The written agreement with MSH contained a provision that the deal was non-exclusive. However, the evidence demonstrates that at Intel's request, the arrangement was in fact exclusive. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, MSH stated that " It was clear to MSH that despite the non-exclusivity clause the exclusive nature of the relationship remained, for Intel, an essential element of the relationship between Intel and MSH. In fact, [MSH executive] recalls that Intel representatives made it clear to him that the changes in the wording of the agreement had been requested by Intel's legal department, but that in reality the relationship was to continue as before, including the requirement that MSH sell essentially only Intel-based computers."

Other statements from computer manufacturers and MSH outline how the various Intel conditions were an important factor in their decisions not to partially switch to or buy more x86 CPUs from AMD, Intel's main competitor in the x86 CPU market. For instance, in a submission to the Commission, HP stated that it " can confirm that Intel's inducements (in particular the block rebates) were a material factor in determining HP's agreement to the unwritten conditions. As a result (...) HP [Business desktop PC division] stayed at least 95% aligned to Intel."

*AMD's growing threat*
The evidence in the Decision indicates the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel, and that Intel's customers were actively considering switching part of their x86 CPU supplies to AMD. For example, in an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive stated that " AMD is a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors] . We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years." In a submission to the Commission, Dell also stated that as regards Opteron, " in Dell's perception this CPU generally performed approximately […] better than the comparable Intel Xeon CPU at the time." As regards AMD's Athlon PC CPU, an internal HP presentation from 2002 stated that it " had a unique architecture", was " more efficient on many tasks" , and had been " CPU of [the] year [for] 3 consecutive years".

The fact that AMD had improved its products is also recognised by Intel itself. For example, in a 2005 submission to the Commission, Intel stated that " AMD improved its product offerings dramatically with the introduction of its successful Opteron processor". This is also confirmed by contemporaneous documents from Intel. For example, in a 2004 internal Intel e-mail, it is stated that " Opteron is real threat today… Opteron-based single WS [Workstation] benchmarks beat [Intel's] Xeon in all cases."

*Procedure*
Before the Commission adopted its final Decision, it carried out a comprehensive investigation of the facts. During the proceedings Intel was able to comment fully on all the Commission's evidence outlined in the Decision. Indeed, the Commission went beyond its legal obligations in safeguarding Intel's rights of defence. For example, despite the fact that Intel chose not to reply to the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections (see MEMO/08/517 ) by the extended deadline of 17 October 2008 but instead sought to suspend the Commission's case, the Commission took full account of Intel's belated written submissions relating to the supplementary Statement of Objections.

The full text of the decision, together with a summary, is now available on the Europa website here.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## thraxed (Sep 21, 2009)

I bet by the time they're done battling it out in court, the x86 cpu market will be legacy.


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 21, 2009)

Pwned.


----------



## wiak (Sep 21, 2009)

Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. For example, in a September 2003 email, an Intel executive reported: "good news just came from [Acer Senior Executive] that Acer decides to drop *AMD K8 *[notebook product] throughout 2003 around the world. We've been talking with them all the way up to [Intel senior executive] 's […] level recently including [Intel executive] , [Intel senior executive] … and [Intel executive]… . They keep pushing back until today, after the call with [Intel executive] this morning, [Acer Senior Executive] just confirmed that they decide to drop AMD K8 throughout 2003 around the world. [Acer Senior Executive] has got this direction from [Acer Senior Executive] as well and will follow through in EMEA [Europe Middle East and Africa region]".

Drop Athlon 64 ??? in 2003 
that directly makes customers get slower pcs


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Sep 21, 2009)

A fine of EUR 1 060 000 000 has been imposed on Intel Corporation for the infringement

Ow^^
that must have hurt someone


----------



## Easo (Sep 21, 2009)

wiak said:


> Drop Athlon 64 ??? in 2003
> that directly makes customers get slower pcs



Exactly...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 21, 2009)

Here goes another 50 pages of nerd rage fighting points no one truly understands.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 21, 2009)

It's sad to see that this was happening in 2004 when AMD really had the top of the rung CPU's, you can see Intel was shaking in their boots. The market share they could have snatched if this crap wasn't going on, it would have been a lot


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Here goes another 50 pages of nerd rage fighting points no one truly understands.



Unless you're saying that those executives from Dell, HP, and Lenovo are flat-out lying, it seems pretty open and shut to me.    Intel did a bad thing, and they got caught.  

Though, I don't doubt there's going to be 50 pages of nerd rage.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

intel did it and i dont consider it bad. my belief is that if you have a problem with a business using these types of practices then you have a problem with business in general. of course, you could always start your own business to run intel out of the market.


----------



## rpsgc (Sep 21, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Unless you're saying that those executives from Dell, HP, and Lenovo are flat-out lying, it seems pretty open and shut to me.    Intel did a bad thing, and they got caught.
> 
> Though, I don't doubt there's going to be 50 pages of nerd rage.



Oh, he's just mad because he can't troll his anti-EU drivel any more


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> intel did it and i dont consider it bad. my belief is that if you have a problem with a business using these types of practices then you have a problem with business in general. of course, you could always start your own business to run intel out of the market.



I just want to clarify this:

You have no problem with a monopoly abusing its position to force customers to buy products from it that are slower, more expensive, and worse performing?

I'm not trying to say you're wrong -- but if that's what you actually believe, I just want to make sure of it.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Sep 21, 2009)

tsk tsk tsk. greedy bastards


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> I just want to clarify this:
> 
> You have no problem with a monopoly abusing its position to force customers to buy products from it that are slower, more expensive, and worse performing?
> 
> I'm not trying to say you're wrong -- but if that's what you actually believe, I just want to make sure of it.



first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.



Merely having competition does not mean you're not a monopoly -- even Standard Oil "competed" with other companies back in the 1900's. 

A monopoly is defined as a "company, large enough so that its market position allows it to manipulate the prices of its products, instead of allowing the free market to do so."  _That's_ a monopoly.

These companies _were_ forced to buy from Intel -- AMD could not meet their massive demand, not that AMD even needed to.  They could've still bought some of their chips from Intel and some from AMD (especially considering AMD's were faster at the time), however Intel forced them not to.

I would advise you to read the entire thing up above, there -- if you're unwilling or unable to do so, either get someone else to do it for you, but otherwise I can't help you and I'm not going to try to convince you any further.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 21, 2009)

Ring around the roses. Pocket full of posies. Ashs, ashes we all blow the EU.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ring around the roses. Pocket full of posies. Ashs, ashes we all blow the EU.



Everytime you buy a company's product, you're blowing them too.  Big deal -- live with it!  

At least you get to vote in the people receiving it with government -- hell, you could even be one of them, one day.

But unless you're going to live in a cabin in the woods somewhere, you needn't bitch about having to serve masters.  Whether it's your masters in the government, or your masters in the market, you're serving someone.


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 21, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Merely having competition does not mean you're not a monopoly -- even Standard Oil "competed" with other companies back in the 1900's.
> 
> A monopoly is defined as a "company, large enough so that its market position allows it to manipulate the prices of its products, instead of allowing the free market to do so."  _That's_ a monopoly.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with this. Intel practically forced the companies not to buy AMD because AMD had the better cpu and Intel didnt want them to gain anymore market share. Which is why we have the shitty Phenom II today. Knowing this information makes things make alot more sense.


----------



## Suijin (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> intel did it and i dont consider it bad. my belief is that if you have a problem with a business using these types of practices then you have a problem with business in general. of course, you could always start your own business to run intel out of the market.



Yeah how are you suppose to compete with a monopoly again, if there are no rules and they can do anything to sink you?  I mean Intel basically paid companies to not carry AMD, not just cut their prices but they couldn't carry AMD to get the "special" pricing.  I would say it is impossible unless you have unlimited money yourself, but then why would you want to go into business and compete with a monopoly?


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Sep 21, 2009)

Velvet Wafer said:


> A fine of EUR 1 060 000 000 has been imposed on Intel Corporation for the infringement
> 
> Ow^^
> that must have hurt someone





Unfortunately that's probably nothing, compared to the profits they squeezed out because of these practices.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Merely having competition does not mean you're not a monopoly -- even Standard Oil "competed" with other companies back in the 1900's.
> 
> A monopoly is defined as a "company, large enough so that its market position allows it to manipulate the prices of its products, instead of allowing the free market to do so."  _That's_ a monopoly.
> 
> ...



no disrepect, but let me rebutt. any company can manipulate its price regardless of its market position. they simply charge more or charge less. intel cannot be a monopoly if they have direct competition regardless of how weak AMD is. vendors do have a choice other than intel which means intel is not a monopoly. 

vendors at the time requires a mass amount of chips, something AMD could not provide so they went with intel because they had no other choice. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! intel put the screws to them and the vendors caved. that is what we call business. people imagine the mafia going in there and breaking some legs and tearing up the joint. that did not happen. it was good old fashion business tactics.

intel should not be punished because of AMDs inabality to run a company. as i said before, vendors could have indeed gone with AMD regardless of what intel was doing. it would have meant some short term pain but possibly if organized correctly a long term gain for the vendors and AMD. why didnt vendors rally around AMD? because they probably saw how disorganized AMD is. i mean you have to run a pretty crappy business if you have a superior chip yet vendors still do not want to back your company because you cant provide them what they need. 

intel has shown over and over they provide a superior chip at a price vendors are willing to pay and at the end of the day consumers are willing to pay it as well. i dont see that as illegal. what i consider illegal is a bunch of thugs being hired to physically force the vendors to choose intel over amd. i guess that govt is illegal then because they created a massive fine againt intel forcing them to change their business practices to FAVOR AMD or they lose their freedom by going to jail.


----------



## Triprift (Sep 21, 2009)

Amd have been playing second fiddle to Intel ever since the core 2 duos because of there own imcometency seriously remember the original phenoms? Instead of looking for excuses Amd should be looking in there own backyard as they are seemingly now doing as there recent cpus have been much improved. Its easy to blame big bad Intel when most of there problems were self inflicted they had better cpus and were completly caught of guard by the c2d.


----------



## Frick (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont see that as illegal.



You don't, the EU does. The rules are different here. For good or bad? Don't know, don't really care.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Sep 21, 2009)

EU just wants a billion dollars ... meh


----------



## HTC (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> vendors at the time requires a mass amount of chips, something AMD could not provide so they went with intel because they had no other choice.



That's not what happened: if Intel wants to offer huge rebates should clients purchase very large amounts of their products, that's their right but, if they dictate to their clients what products to *not purchase*, be it as a condition for the rebates or not, that's not right, IMO.



Easy Rhino said:


> intel has shown over and over they provide a superior chip at a price vendors are willing to pay and at the end of the day consumers are willing to pay it as well.



Not @ the time this started: back then, AMD had better products.



btarunr said:


> *AMD's growing threat*
> The evidence in the Decision indicates the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel, and that Intel's customers were actively considering switching part of their x86 CPU supplies to AMD. For example, in an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive stated that *" AMD is a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors] . We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years."* In a submission to the Commission, Dell also stated that as regards Opteron, " in Dell's perception this CPU generally performed approximately […] better than the comparable Intel Xeon CPU at the time." As regards AMD's Athlon PC CPU, an internal HP presentation from 2002 stated that it " had a unique architecture", was " more efficient on many tasks" , and had been " CPU of [the] year [for] 3 consecutive years".


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

HTC said:


> That's not what happened: if Intel wants to offer huge rebates should clients purchase very large amounts of their products, that's their right but, if they dictate to their clients what products to *not purchase*, be it as a condition for the rebates or not, that's not right, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Not @ the time this started: back then, AMD had better products.



i mentioned that AMD had the better chip back then. yet they still could not deliver their product because they are an inferior company. that is what it comes down too. intel can dictate terms of the argreement just as the vendors can. the vendors do not have enough clought tho when they operate separately. had they organized together with AMD they could have beaten back intel. of course i guess in the eyes of some THAT would have also been illegal.


----------



## extrasalty (Sep 21, 2009)

This just made my day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYP_MgWF8hw
...and let's not forget Intel "lost" a large amount of email evidence.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 21, 2009)

Triprift said:


> Amd have been playing second fiddle to Intel ever since the core 2 duos because of there own imcometency seriously remember the original phenoms? Instead of looking for excuses Amd should be looking in there own backyard as they are seemingly now doing as there recent cpus have been much improved. Its easy to blame big bad Intel when most of there problems were self inflicted they had better cpus and were completly caught of guard by the c2d.



I totally agree, building up to the Phenoms first release I read an article in a magazine where either an AMD executive or representative was being interviewed about the new Phenoms - Intels new line of Core 2 Duos was also brought up during the interview & the AMD rep said that they werent worried at all & if anything they were fully confident in their product (1st gen Phenom) but i could tell that the intel question pushed his back against the wall. benchmarks from obtained engineering samples were taking the net by storm & all the results were clear that it would totally decimate the phenoms. the rep was also asked if after seeing the results if AMD would delay phenoms release & tweak/revise the chip a little more - to which the AMD rep refused. & thats when AMDs troubles began & their marketshare started to spiral. 

AMD set themselves upto fall - simple as.

I think AMD genuinely knew they were gonna take a hit but i dont think they expected to take that BIG of a hit. they took a gamble & put themselves in a position they couldnt recover easily from without having an 'exit stratagy' or at least some sort of fallback to cover their ass. Core 2 Duo came along & beat phenom into the next technological era then came Intels 'exploitation/Abuse' of their position which put AMD at a further disadvantage...

- Its true, any company can lower or raise their prices, Intel are business people - & they're business people that took advantage of the market while the stocks were low just like any other good trader would do. you cant blame them for that. but possibly the way they went about doing it is the real issue here.

AMD are still licking their wounds but they are recovering slowly & despite Intels domination they are still stronger then ever before despite how small of a company they are. its unlikely they will be strong enough to rival Intel 1:1 for a long time to come still but they will eventually get there, if not then they will create a world or focus on a part of the market where they are king & continue to run in leaps n bounds.


----------



## MilkyWay (Sep 21, 2009)

Intel well what can i say i dont know legal mumbo jumbo but im sure the European Union a collaboration of the lots of European Countries knows its stuff a lot more than us plebs. If coca cola said to stores dont stock pepsi or else that is basically the same thing, its like them saying to Tesco Supermarkets dont stock Pepsi for 2 years and we will give you a bonus, by that time coca cola sales would have increased by a large amount to having its main competitor cut it would gain its potential sales or at least a big share of its potential sales, it uses the extra profit to fund the "bonuses". Its a bit underhand really, it should be up the competitor plus its not like one of those companies wasnt going to release an AMD product because it was and then Intel stopped that.

Its not like here we need 200pcs, so intel can you do it cheaper than AMD? It was far from that it was like here we are and we want to be the only choice.

Intel is an older company and has been manufacturing cpus for a lot longer than AMD ever has, so it got a head start in the market, it can take many more years for them to become equal they may not even gain much more market share. I find it quite a feat that AMD made the acquisition of ATi shows how far they have come from making Intels own cpus.

A little note Microsoft became a world leader in Operating Systems through popular choice, so when people moan about it being top dog it was us who put it there.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> intel has shown over and over they provide a superior chip at a price vendors are willing to pay and at the end of the day consumers are willing to pay it as well. i dont see that as illegal. what i consider illegal is a bunch of thugs being hired to physically force the vendors to choose intel over amd. i guess that govt is illegal then because they created a massive fine againt intel forcing them to change their business practices to FAVOR AMD or they lose their freedom by going to jail.



Yeah, except for the _entire Pentium IV era_, right?  

You either didn't read the evidence like I asked, or you're ignoring facts that you don't like.

Neither one surprises me.  :shadedshu


----------



## Yukikaze (Sep 21, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Which is why we have the shitty Phenom II today.



What's shitty with my X3 720BE again ?


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 21, 2009)

Read the specs bucko.

AthlonXP and 64 where top notch and Intel couldnt shake a stick at them. Then AMD went downhill and now they still barely compete with Yorkfield (Q9***). With i5 and i7 (both sockets) tearing away at both mainstream and enthusiast id say...shitty. Its good, but shitty compared to those performance AND price.


----------



## Yukikaze (Sep 21, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Read the specs bucko.



:shadedshu

I did, I own one. 

The 720BE does great for its price point. Sure, AMD might not wear the performance crown, but their CPUs are fine for just about everyone. Calling them shitty is really selling them short, even if it is a "relative shitty" (Which isn't even true anyway).


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 21, 2009)

Take it easy their tiger, all ive run is AMD since the Thunderbird era. They are good CPUs but in todays market, yes they are falling short of performance. 

AMD cant even compete in the price to performance era anymore because the 965 is 245 and the i5 is 205 on Newegg. Also, you can get p55 boards cheap too.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Read the specs bucko.
> 
> AthlonXP and 64 where top notch and Intel couldnt shake a stick at them. Then AMD went downhill and now they still barely compete with Yorkfield (Q9***). With i5 and i7 (both sockets) tearing away at both mainstream and enthusiast id say...shitty. Its good, but shitty compared to those performance AND price.



Not when you factor in the price of the corresponding motherboards, it ain't.  

The i5's stats aren't even _that_ great, and the motherboard is pricy to go along with them.  

All cost aside, yeah -- even I'd like an i7 920 system, but if I had to choose between Phenom II and an i5, I'd choose the PII.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Yeah, except for the _entire Pentium IV era_, right?
> 
> You either didn't read the evidence like I asked, or you're ignoring facts that you don't like.
> 
> Neither one surprises me.  :shadedshu



uh, ive got two diff threads going here. i already mentioned how at the time AMD had the superior chip but it didnt matter since they are the inferior company. vendors wouldnt take AMDs side because AMD simply cannot run at the level the vendors required. intel was smart and putting the nail in the coffin with those rebates strategies.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i mentioned that AMD had the better chip back then. yet they still could not deliver their product because they are an inferior company. that is what it comes down too. intel can dictate terms of the argreement just as the vendors can. the vendors do not have enough clought tho when they operate separately. had they organized together with AMD they could have beaten back intel. of course i guess in the eyes of some THAT would have also been illegal.


I think this case was moreover about "Innovation BLOCKING" which would serve who's best interest?...A few Greedy Crooks?...Laws exist to keep civil Morals and Business in CHECK..This is simply a case of THE PEOPLE SAYING ENOUGH.
Money is not the ultimate authority!!! If you believe it's ok  for business's to conduct Collusion, then problem here is not the Verdict it's your Ignorant misguided Moral Views that is the problem, your argument is "the other guy should have resorted to collusion as well" REALLY? WTF dude you have some serious issues, i really don't get your point here, do you really believe it's ok to cheat, just because the other guy did?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> I think this case was moreover about "Innovation BLOCKING" which would serve who's best interest?...A few Greedy Crooks?...Laws exist to keep civil Morals and Business in CHECK..This is simply a case of THE PEOPLE SAYING ENOUGH.
> Money is not the ultimate authority!!! If you believe it's ok  for business's to conduct Collusion, then problem here is not the Verdict it's your Ignorant misguided Moral Views that is the problem, your argument is "the other guy should have resorted to collusion as well" REALLY? WTF dude you have some serious issues, i really don't get your point here, do you really believe it's ok to cheat, just because the other guy did?



no, im saying that it should not be illegal to offer rebates to companies when they do not go with the competition.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> no, im saying that it should not be illegal to offer rebates to companies when they do not go with the competition.



Clever wording there.  You forgot the "or else" part of the issue, which is what the charges against Intel were all about in the first place.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Clever wording there.  You forgot the "or else" part of the issue, which is what the charges against Intel were all about in the first place.



again, the vendors could have gone with AMD. obviously the better business move was to go with intel. that is business.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> no, im saying that it should not be illegal to offer rebates to companies when they do not go with the competition.


And i agree with that and if that's all that they did I'd be with you, but they did a lot worse then that, they basically said "Take this discount or were gonna cut off your supply of Our stuff, you already invested millions in producing and give your competition an even better price" AKA. COLLUSION


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> And i agree with that and if that's all that they did I'd be with you, but they did a lot worse then that, they basically said "Take this discount or were gonna cut off your supply of Our stuff, you already invested millions in producing and give your competition an even better price" AKA. COLLUSION



which is business. clearly the vendors didnt do their homework. the lawyers should have written up a business contract that would have atleast covered their asses so that if intel did cut them off they would be covered financially.


----------



## Andy77 (Sep 21, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> WTF dude you have some serious issues, i really don't get your point here, do you really believe it's ok to cheat, just because the other guy did?



One thing that btarunr and co. taught me was not to give into their narrow-minded view... let the fanboy talk, cash his dough out so intel can pay up the fines.

BTW... what about the investigations from FCC and in Asia?... any bits of news about them?


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i mentioned that AMD had the better chip back then. *yet they still could not deliver their product because they are an inferior company*. that is what it comes down too. intel can dictate terms of the argreement just as the vendors can. the vendors do not have enough clought tho when they operate separately. had they organized together with AMD they could have beaten back intel. of course i guess in the eyes of some THAT would have also been illegal.



*NO*, AMD couldn't deliver as many chips as Intel did, but with A64's superiority and given enough time (let's say 6-12 months) they could have matched and even surpased Intel in market share. Chip manufacturing is all about volume, the higher it is the lower that you can sell your products and you can invest in another fab, etc. But you just can't create as many chips as Intel, because you are not going to sell them in your first attempt, so disproportional investment prior to having them sold is out of the question. You can, however, make a small amount of superior chips and let the free market, the customers, do the job. Once you start selling your superior product you can ramp up the production. That's free market.

To fight that phenomenon, that is nothing more than the only consecuence of a free market, Intel paid the biggest PC vendors so they didn't use AMD's superior product for 3 years. At the time, HP and Dell being almost a duopoly, none of them could afford to not obtain Intel's rebates, in case the other one was getting the rebate, because they simply couldn't meet their demmand with AMD chips. The important thing here is that they were not allowed to use AMD products, even when they clearly wanted. This way the consumer didn't ad the choice to use AMD. Should Intel let them use AMD chips, a lot of people would have bought AMD based PC's up to the max that AMD could offer. Let's say a 25% of the market, at first. Obviously in a year that number would have been much bigger.

Sorry I don't know where you think you live, but that's illegal everywhere. Just because they have not been punished in the US (yet), doesn't mean the Federal Trade Commission doesn't think that's illegal. It just means they are still looking for more proofs to meet the overprotective requirements that are needed to punish a monopoly in the US.


----------



## gumpty (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> again, the vendors could have gone with AMD. obviously the better business move was to go with intel. that is business.



Rhino, are you actually happy that Intel behaved that way (irrespective of personal opinions about free markets etc)?
You do realise that if AMD had had a bit more cash from those days they might have been able to come up with chips that could compete with Intel's Core2 architecture? You realise then that you may not have had to pay what you did for those chips you have and you could be hundreds of dollars better off now?

Right or wrong ... it is all of us that are worse off, even now, because of what happened back then.


----------



## mechtech (Sep 21, 2009)

Well anywho, to all the above rants.  

This really has nothing to do with chip production, chip superiority, or other.  It it just basically Intel not adhereing to the Laws of Europe, which are quite different from North America and probably every other nation.  I see Rhino mention buisness lots, well that may be buisness in the U.S. but not evreywhere on the planet.  I do agree that the vendors (dell, h.p., etc.) should have had some balls and reported Intel's ""threats"" from day one, but when the CEO's make millions per year, one can only assume that they get some kind of payoala on top of everything else, and it would be the company getting the fine not them.  Only time will tell after the Governing body in the U.S. does their investigation of Intel.

The bottom line I read from all this is that they did affect the "free" market, and probably hindered competition, and from what I understand from the very few economics classes in university, in Europe that's enough to be fined under their laws.

Maybe if the CEO's, etc. would have to pay the fines out of their own pocket, then trade might be more fair, who knows.

As they say that's life.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> again, the vendors could have gone with AMD. obviously the better business move was to go with intel. that is business.



Nooo... The better business move for the vendors would have been to buy a 20% of their chips from AMD and if Intel still wanted to sell the volume of chips that previously was 100%, they would have needed to offer a better rebate. That is, if the vendor had projected they would sell 100 chips, they wanted to buy 20 from AMD and 80 from Intel. If Intel still wanted to sell them 100 chips as they were doing previously, they would had to offer a rebate good enough, so that the vendor didn't mind buying 120 chips instead of the projected 100. That is bussiness.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Nooo... The better business move for the vendors would have been to buy a 20% of their chips from AMD and if Intel still wanted to sell the volume of chips that previously was 100%, they would have needed to offer a better rebate. That is, if the vendor had projected they would sell 100 chips, they wanted to buy 20 from AMD and 80 from Intel. If Intel still wanted to sell them 100 chips as they were doing previously, they would had to offer a rebate good enough, so that the vendor didn't mind buying 120 chips instead of the projected 100. That is bussiness.



but the vendors still had a choice. THAT is business.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 21, 2009)

gumpty said:


> Rhino, are you actually happy that Intel behaved that way (irrespective of personal opinions about free markets etc)?
> You do realise that if AMD had had a bit more cash from those days they might have been able to come up with chips that could compete with Intel's Core2 architecture? You realise then that you may not have had to pay what you did for those chips you have and you could be hundreds of dollars better off now?
> 
> Right or wrong ... it is all of us that are worse off, even now, because of what happened back then.



yea, i dont want to talk about this anymore! afterall it is a tech site and i dont want to piss anyone off or give the wrong impression. 

if anything i am pissed at intel for either 

A) knowing the law and breakng it anyway or 

B) not knowing the law and being retarded about defending themselves.

i dont condone breaking the law. i think that it should not have even been law and if intel knew about it they should have gone through the proper channels to challenge the law rather than resort to this tactic. im just pissed it came to this and i hope that AMD can organize itself and grow into a profitable company that makes great chips and creates more competition pushing intel to make even better chips.


----------



## CyberDruid (Sep 21, 2009)

Intel is finally getting their skeletons dragged out of the closet. We've all heard about this for years but now we finally see some action.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i mentioned that AMD had the better chip back then. yet they still could not deliver their product because they are an inferior company. that is what it comes down too. intel can dictate terms of the argreement just as the vendors can. the vendors do not have enough clought tho when they operate separately. had they organized together with AMD they could have beaten back intel. of course i guess in the eyes of some THAT would have also been illegal.



If you are stating Intel was superior just because they could go out and buy the market, then you must be a Yankee's fan. "What we can't beat them in speed?, well then just buy the players"

I'm sorry you look forward to buying from the company with the biggest bank roll I personally buy the best I can for the price I'm looking at.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> but the vendors still had a choice. THAT is business.



They had no choice at all. It wouldn't be profitable for them to sell those 80 OVERPRICED Intel PCs because the competition would be selling them 25% cheaper. They had to choose, sell 100 PCs or sell AMD. That is not free market, and forcing every PC vendor into that situation is ILLEGAL because it hinders competition, no matter how much you hate it. No law system in the world supports your view of what (fair) bussiness is anyway, so it's a moot point anyway. You are wrong about all this and there's very little more that we can do for you.

What you don't understand is that, while you can offer special rebates and even exclusivity deals in order to strenghten your bussiness relations with one company, you can't do it with every single customer out there, using your huge market dominance as your main (only one) selling point and with the clear intention of pushing your competition out of the market. Infact it doesn't have to be the 100% of the customers, there are different configurations comtemplated in anti-competitive laws regarding what a monopoly is, and HP+Dell+Lenovo probably exceeds the requirements.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 21, 2009)

Ohhh I so want to fight everyone on this. Alas Ill stay in the shadows. Mwahahahaha!


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 21, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.





I'm taking this as a joke.


----------



## ghost101 (Sep 22, 2009)

Wow at Easy Rhino's attempts to defend Intel. Basically giving free reign to market dominant players to crush the competition.

Think about what would have happened if Intel continued to do this upto the present day. There would be no AMD alive today. Intel would be free to charge whatever they wished.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

gumpty said:


> You do realise that if AMD had had a bit more cash from those days they might have been able to come up with chips that could compete with Intel's Core2 architecture?



Alright, Im posting this and jumping ahead a page and a half but let me stop you right there bud. Not that I don't want to put my foot in Rhino's ass for his views (I do love ya bro don't get me wrong and it is only metaphorically speaking, you da man! ) but really I have to differ with you on that statement I quoted. No disrespect and apologies if I offend anyone here, but AMD rested on the K8 laurels while Intel for 2 years got their ass handed to them. AMD kept making newer chips with more speed (though never matched the p4 speed which doesn't really matter) and never really did any architectural changes or go to work on making a new architecture or core at all. If they did, it wasn't noted anywhere. What AMD did do was enjoy the 2 years of 999 procs (in quantities of 1000) like Intel did. Then when Intel got tired of licking its wounds (and yes it still had more chips out there, but that really is marketing, not better product) they went back to the drawing board. OF course, they did have folks in Israel working on a different route before all this happened, but that is shits and giggles. AMD was more than taken aback by Intels Core architecture, and I was one of the first naysayers on these boards saying AMD shouldn't worry and that Core wont be that great and wait for the Phenom. Boy were we all wrong. Was cash an issue for AMD then? I don't think it was and I would like to believe it wasn't, but I have been known to be wrong before and could be here. AMD should have continued the innovation while kicking Intels ass for those two years with the 64. They didn't do that and it bit them in the end.

Now as for the judgement, yes Intel was wrong, but if you aren't giving the money to the companies and AMD then really you aren't helping the problem that was there. Now Intel is making an awesome chip and charges a little more, but because of competition with AMD, they have, in all fairness, dramatically lowered their prices on their chips. Sorry for any feelings I may hurt or accidental insults I hurled, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Carry on


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 22, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.




Anything over 70% market share is a monopoly... I think you need a lesson in economics.




Easy Rhino said:


> no disrepect, but let me rebutt. any company can manipulate its price regardless of its market position. they simply charge more or charge less. intel cannot be a monopoly if they have direct competition regardless of how weak AMD is. vendors do have a choice other than intel which means intel is not a monopoly.
> 
> vendors at the time requires a mass amount of chips, something AMD could not provide so they went with intel because they had no other choice. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! intel put the screws to them and the vendors caved. that is what we call business. people imagine the mafia going in there and breaking some legs and tearing up the joint. that did not happen. it was good old fashion business tactics.
> 
> ...



*cough* SNDS *cough*


----------



## ghost101 (Sep 22, 2009)

The semantics surrounding what a monopoly is and isn't doesn't even matter.

ANYONE with large market power can abuse their position.

As for comments about the fine only hurting Intel currently and not reversing the past. It is a punitive punishment which is supposed to put people off doing it in the future. If there are no repercussions, what's to stop Intel doing it again? If you want to operate a 2nd chance rule, then everyone will know that they get one free attempt to do something wrong and therefore will do it.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

My comment didn't say that, so I know it isn't me you are referring too but I agree with you on future instances being quarantined, hopefully. I would love for AMD to get a billion dollars to help them, but realistically, that won't happen. However, I hope future business don't follow Intel's poor example.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

btarunr said:


> *Concealment*
> 
> The Commission found that Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers and MSH. For example:
> The rebate arrangement with *Dell was not subject to a written agreement* but was concluded orally at various meetings. In this regard for example, in a submission to the Commission, Dell stated that " there is no written agreement between Intel and Dell concerning the MCP [rebate] discount, rather, the discount is the subject of constant oral negotiations and agreement".
> ...


As I figured, the allegations are based on hearsay.  No contract = no evidence = no proof = not guilty.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

But that hearsay came from the executives and former executives in the company. Personally, they shouldn't have admitted that part though Ford, I agree with you if that is your point.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

No business conducts business without terms (e.g. a contract).  There is a logical hole here.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Funny thing is, why admit to an oral contract when you have nothing to gain or lose. They said that is what they did, I don't understand why.

Oh and yes, there are some business, more than we know, that do oral contracts at first or for shady reasons or other reasons, however, I digress.


----------



## ghost101 (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> My comment didn't say that, so I know it isn't me you are referring too but I agree with you on future instances being quarantined, hopefully. I would love for AMD to get a billion dollars to help them, but realistically, that won't happen. However, I hope future business don't follow Intel's poor example.



The EC doesn't exist to protect firms but consumers. The fine helps European consumers. It is upto AMD now to launch a civil case in Europe. However I'm not sure exactly how it will work.

The EC is a fairly new institution and therefore things like this set new precedent.

As for unwritten stuff. Most illegal activities, like cartels, illegal collusion all happen without written record. As someone who is supposed to prevent this and just give up, and say "oh well nothing is written".

Would also be interesting to see how the Federal Trade Commission follow the European Commission.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

You can take any statement and make it look for or against your case.  Such is the way of hearsay (rumors, speculation).

The EC was out for blood money so they used every statement Intel made against them, naturally.  Their position, as I said some time ago, is indefensible (circus court).


Oral contracts only stand in court if there is evidence of the existences of a contract.  It is very rare for oral contracts to come up in the case of corporations.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Alright, Im posting this and jumping ahead a page and a half but let me stop you right there bud. Not that I don't want to put my foot in Rhino's ass for his views (I do love ya bro don't get me wrong and it is only metaphorically speaking, you da man! ) but really I have to differ with you on that statement I quoted. No disrespect and apologies if I offend anyone here, but AMD rested on the K8 laurels while Intel for 2 years got their ass handed to them. AMD kept making newer chips with more speed (though never matched the p4 speed which doesn't really matter) and never really did any architectural changes or go to work on making a new architecture or core at all. If they did, it wasn't noted anywhere. What AMD did do was enjoy the 2 years of 999 procs (in quantities of 1000) like Intel did. Then when Intel got tired of licking its wounds (and yes it still had more chips out there, but that really is marketing, not better product) they went back to the drawing board. OF course, they did have folks in Israel working on a different route before all this happened, but that is shits and giggles. AMD was more than taken aback by Intels Core architecture, and I was one of the first naysayers on these boards saying AMD shouldn't worry and that Core wont be that great and wait for the Phenom. Boy were we all wrong. Was cash an issue for AMD then? I don't think it was and I would like to believe it wasn't, but I have been known to be wrong before and could be here. AMD should have continued the innovation while kicking Intels ass for those two years with the 64. They didn't do that and it bit them in the end.
> 
> Now as for the judgement, yes Intel was wrong, but if you aren't giving the money to the companies and AMD then really you aren't helping the problem that was there. Now Intel is making an awesome chip and charges a little more, but because of competition with AMD, they have, in all fairness, dramatically lowered their prices on their chips. Sorry for any feelings I may hurt or accidental insults I hurled, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Carry on



Not trying to argue with your post. Just wanted to point out that AMD didn't rest in K8 laurels. You don't make a chip over a night, they were working on Phenom for long or in the tech behind Phenom. It just didn't work, end of story. And even if they were not as agressive on the R&D department, you can't blame them, in fact, it has a lot to do with what we are discussing about Intel. They spent a lot on K8, but thanks to Intel's cheating they couldn't harvest the rewards of that investment. They could do that much, investors are not known for being devoted. The small company can't spend as much as the big company in R&D for too long unless the investment gives it's fruits. That's how the market works, if you are not good enough you disapear. The problem at hand is that AMD had the fruits technologically speaking, but that was not translated into sales because Intel cheated.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jumping in the fray.......

1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?

2. Everyone names Intel as the aggressor. However OEMs benefited from these backdoor dealings also. Why didn't the EU go after them? Maybe because they needed some "hearsay" in court?
Think not? Then why didn't these OEMs go to the authorities back then?

3. Where is this fine going? Are members of the EUs population going to get a tax break? Is AMD going to get a little slice of the Intel pie for a few years to come? Hmmmm who gets this money? Not the people it allegedly effected thats for sure.

Really this is theft disguised as justice.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

apparently they play by a different set of rules Ford. I don't think they should have been admitted for evidence.


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 22, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> but the vendors still had a choice. THAT is business.



Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
They didn't have a choice...
A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
That OEM would then be forced to offer VIA parts to prevent from being a monopoly for AMD parts...
So which one would you choose?
-
I really don't get you rhino, your speech sounds like a fanboy but at the same time it sounds like a FAR RIGHT (the bad right) business man who supports razing cities to build factories (AKA- Murdering 20,000+ and burning down their houses and schools and parks to build your factory)
---


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> apparently they play by a different set of rules Ford. I don't think they should have been admitted for evidence.


Exactly why the FTC will rule in favor of Intel.  Besides, bringing this issue five years after it happened is quite suspicious.  Every year you wait, the less solid evidence you will find.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Alright lets not throw the fanboy statement around, he is discussing his point. Besides, lets not upset the mods. I do believe AMD rested on the K8, regardless of money coming in. I know it doesn't happen overnight, but the changes to Phenom I were not that significant in comparison. The Phenom 2 is what the phenom 1 should have been and I cannot wait for their new procs to come out.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Jumping in the fray.......
> 
> 1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?
> 
> ...



1. Testimonies are more than enough for convicting in almost every charge, providing they are coming from more than one place. You don't need to find any physical proof if 10 different people saw you killing someone. Why should this be different?

2. They didn't benefit. First of all, rebates based on volumes are common. The fact that Intel put their conditions to them doesn't mean the vendors wouldn't obtain them anyway in a fair market. In a competitive market, Intel would probably need to offer them even lower prices. And second, they could have sold the AMD systems with a greater margin probably, they were better after all.

3. The fight against monopoly provides us with a free competitive market, which lowers the prices and increases innovation and progress.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Agreed Ford but I wonder if it took 5 years to make a claim or it took 5 years of investigation. From the supposed "concrete" proof they have, they seem to have a decent bit of it. I was sure they were gonna have a hard time finding evidence. Im curious as to what the FTC is going to do.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
> They didn't have a choice...
> A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
> B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
> ...


If Dell, HP, and/or Lenovo truly felt strong armed by Intel, they should have brought it to court at the time it happened.  They shouldn't have waited until 2-7 years and have the EU do the talking for them.  Either the arrangements were mutually beneficial and both parties are guilty or the arrangements were completely legitimate and both parties are innocent.

Remember, Dell and HP were segment leaders during this period so they are as guilty as Intel on accounts of anti-trust law (assuming they are guilty).




Benetanegia said:


> 3. The fight against monopoly provides us with a free competitive market, which lowers the prices and increases innovation and progress.


The moment a governing body intervenes in a market, it is no longer "free."  Free markets only exist in theory.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

I Agree with HP and Dell should help shoulder some of this stuff too. It took Dell forever to come out with an AMD system, and HP presumably less time. I know Gateway used to offer AMD systems, then they quit doing it directly from their site for a few years. I know cause I Tried to get me another AMD "Thunderbird" system, aside from the 1200 mhz one I had. Maybe that has something to do with this. Either way, Im sure Dell and HP made more money from the bonuses and such.


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If Dell, HP, and/or Lenovo truly felt strong armed by Intel, they should have brought it to court at the time it happened.  They shouldn't have waited until 2-7 years and have the EU do the talking for them.  Either the arrangements were mutually beneficial and both parties are guilty or the arrangements were completely legitimate and both parties are innocent.
> 
> *Remember, Dell and HP were segment leaders during this period so they are as guilty as Intel on accounts of anti-trust law (assuming they are guilty).
> *
> ...



I know they were, but it was in the middle of a big PC Market boom, decisions had to be made very fast with little overhead. The CEO's going to the EU would have had drastic side effects of affordable PCs getting to the market.  So on one hand, you have supply and the other you have demand... which hand do you want the EU to cut off?   

I think that they should have had a % of their profits over the next so many years going towards offsetting the total damages done to consumers (selling products for less profit margin than they would originally) (both parties, Intel and the OEM) on top of the fine.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If Dell, HP, and/or Lenovo truly felt strong armed by Intel, they should have brought it to court at the time it happened.  They shouldn't have waited until 2-7 years and have the EU do the talking for them.  Either the arrangements were mutually beneficial and both parties are guilty or the arrangements were completely legitimate and both parties are innocent.
> 
> Remember, Dell and HP were segment leaders during this period so they are as guilty as Intel on accounts of anti-trust law (assuming they are guilty).
> 
> ...



It's there where you are extremely wrong. The market without any intervention is not fair, is not equal for everybody and is inclined to monopoly. Maybe it was free in the XIX century when companies were local and small and didn't have so much power, but today a company like Intel can do whatever they want with the market. HP and Dell couldn't do anything. An open action against Intel, as has been mentioned here, would have terminated their bussiness. Their bussiness was to sell x amount of PCs and they just couldn't do it without Intel.

And speaking of evidences... How do you all think that the EU has all these e-mails? Do you really think that the companies save all those e-mails forever? If the EU has those e-mails is because they were investigating at the time. And t wouldn't even surprise me if it was one of the PC vendors who first brought to light all this. AMD had no way of knowing anything about this, if they were not told. 

In fact I do believe the implication of AMD in all this, legally speaking, is just a mere formality. In the EU, at least, the executive (in any form) can't present a legal complain unless they are the victims. So even if the EC had evidences to form a case, they couldn't do anything unless there was a complainant, hello AMD.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Benet I didnt think of it that way at all, that makes sense though. If they weren't investigating them then, then they may indeed not got the emails. Wow.


----------



## troyrae360 (Sep 22, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
> They didn't have a choice...
> A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
> B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
> ...



I Agree!! 
It is this mentallity that keeps OUR WORLD (Not Intels, not Microsofts and definitly not the god damn US govenments!!) down and suppressed, its the sole reason there are people diying form starvation and disease in our world yet some people/busness have everything and some, 

Greed is killing people!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> I know they were, but it was in the middle of a big PC Market boom, decisions had to be made very fast with little overhead. The CEO's going to the EU would have had drastic side effects of affordable PCs getting to the market.  So on one hand, you have supply and the other you have demand... which hand do you want the EU to cut off?
> 
> I think that they should have had a % of their profits over the next so many years going towards offsetting the total damages done to consumers (selling products for less profit margin than they would originally) (both parties, Intel and the OEM) on top of the fine.


Why would consumers need a % for damages?  They got what they wanted for the price they wanted.

AMD whethered the storm (in fact, they did very well up to late 2005) as well so the argument for anti-trust during this period is very weak.  In order for a case to be anti-trust, the competition has to be measurably effected by the agreements.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 22, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> Ok, so... you are very much an Intel fanboy...
> They didn't have a choice...
> A. Buy Intel now, have access to Intel later and get VERY cheap CPU's from them.
> B. Buy AMD and lose Intel forever.
> ...



i am not a fanboy, i just am pro free market. nobody was threatened physically or forced into a situation in which they had no choice. the convenient point everyone is forgetting is that the vendors could have gone with AMD. they didnt though because AMD is an inferior disorganized company that you simply would not risk your business on!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> It's there where you are extremely wrong. The market without any intervention is not fair, is not equal for everybody and is inclined to monopoly.


I never said a free market was fair.  Everyone in second place will say it isn't fair.  That's how the cookie crumbles.




Benetanegia said:


> Maybe it was free in the XIX century when companies were local and small and didn't have so much power, but today a company like Intel can do whatever they want with the market.


False, the FTC would not let Intel buyout AMD which *is* anti-trust.




Benetanegia said:


> HP and Dell couldn't do anything. An open action against Intel, as has been mentioned here, would have terminated their bussiness. Their bussiness was to sell x amount of PCs and they just couldn't do it without Intel.


By terminating their business, Intel would incite an anti-trust response.




Benetanegia said:


> And speaking of evidences... How do you all think that the EU has all these e-mails? Do you really think that the companies save all those e-mails forever? If the EU has those e-mails is because they were investigating at the time. And t wouldn't even surprise me if it was one of the PC vendors who first brought to light all this. AMD had no way of knowing anything about this, if they were not told.


The EU can't obtain emails without permission unless they have a warrant.  I found no evidence that a warrant was ever issued.  Either the emails were handed over by someone willfully or they are a forgery.  Their sources aren't given aside from the testimonies.  As for the testimonies, the Intel execs may say "we gave Dell/HP/Lenovo a rebate."  EC says, "A rebate! Anti-trust!"  The EC, with this ruling, basically has set the precedent that rebates are anti-competitive in the EU. 

As to your last statement: that is proof this isn't anti-trust.  Look at Standard Oil for an example of a real anti-trust scenario.  You'd have to be dead not to know it was happening.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> 1. Testimonies are more than enough for convicting in almost every charge, providing they are coming from more than one place. You don't need to find any physical proof if 10 different people saw you killing someone. Why should this be different?
> 
> 2. They didn't benefit. First of all, rebates based on volumes are common. The fact that Intel put their conditions to them doesn't mean the vendors wouldn't obtain them anyway in a fair market. In a competitive market, Intel would probably need to offer them even lower prices. And second, they could have sold the AMD systems with a greater margin probably, they were better after all.
> 
> 3. The fight against monopoly provides us with a free competitive market, which lowers the prices and increases innovation and progress.



1. Again why did they have a change of heart? Because they got caught also?  Please.

2. Of course they did. They got a better deal than they ever would with Intel being "regulated". You know how I know? Because they took the F#$KING DEAL. If it wasnt a good one they would have reported Intel on the spot. No guns were held to any OEMs head. Of course this is all assuming any of this happened. I wonder what kind of kick backs the OEMs got for turning against Intel. Maybe some fat government contracts? 

3. Whats it like in Elmo's world?

Bottom line is I see no proof other than the EU being thieves.


----------



## Frick (Sep 22, 2009)

I want someone with some insight in how these kinds of things work in the EU. All the whiners in this thread (no offence!) is from the US, and might have different views on things as the laws aren't really compatible with each other.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Frick said:


> I want someone with some insight in how these kinds of things work in the EU. All the whiners in this thread (no offence!) is from the US, and might have different views on things as the laws aren't really compatible with each other.



Are from the U.S. Not "is". Sorry I had to


----------



## Frick (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Are from the U.S. Not "is". Sorry I had to



 ^^


----------



## troyrae360 (Sep 22, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am not a fanboy, i just am pro free market. nobody was threatened physically or forced into a situation in which they had no choice. the convenient point everyone is forgetting is that the vendors could have gone with AMD. they didnt though because AMD is an inferior disorganized company that you simply would not risk your business on!



Is AMD really a disorginised company? It would seen that they are first onto the DX11 market, and first to have a 12core CPU I think they have done very well latley, Just think how well they would be doing if it wernt for intels bullying tactics!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Frick said:


> I want someone with some insight in how these kinds of things work in the EU. All the whiners in this thread (no offence!) is from the US, and might have different views on things as the laws aren't really compatible with each other.


As for the EU, we'll see how many companies offer rebates anymore, especially those in a dominant position.  This ruling set the precendent for any rebate offered by a large company to be grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit.




troyrae360 said:


> Is AMD really a disorginised company? It would seen that they are first onto the DX11 market, and first to have a 12core CPU I think they have done very well latley, Just think how well they would be doing if it wernt for intels bullying tactics!


They were disorganized from about December 2005 through mid-2008. They may have gotten their organization set straight by getting rid of Ruiz and completing the acquisition of ATI but they still aren't anywhere close to making up for all the ground they lost.


----------



## Frick (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As for the EU, we'll see how many companies offer rebates anymore, especially those in a dominant position.  This ruling set the precendent for any rebate offered by a large company to be grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit.



I can't remember I've ever seen a rebate. Some promotional codes sometimes, but a rebate? Never.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Even more suspect.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Frick said:


> I can't remember I've ever seen a rebate. Some promotional codes sometimes, but a rebate? Never.



You don't. The OEM does which gives you a better bottom line price.

Also Frick thanks for taking my joke as a joke and not a jab


----------



## bat (Sep 22, 2009)

I just don't understand how someone so ignorant about the definition of monopoly or unethical business behavior could be be on the staff here.  I guess I've just always read the news mostly and not paid much attention to most of the comment sections here (registered just to respond to this thread).

If ANY of the businesses went with AMD they would have gone out of business.  Intel would have cut them off from the high majority of their supply and AMD was not big enough to supply the numbers of CPU's that would have been needed to fill the gap (let alone your theory of them ALL going to AMD at the same time and colluding with them).

Not one single business out there starts large.  Starbucks, McDonalds, Best Buy, name any company and they all started small and gradually grew their business.  Any company can put any other company out of business if they had enough production capacity and money.  All they would have to do is undercut their competitors price enough till the other company was out of business.  That is unethical, illegal, and immoral.  If I had enough money I could build a car company (factories, dealerships, etc), and put all the other companies out of business by selling all my cars for $1 for 5 years (putting a random figure out but if money is no object then I can go however long I need).

Stating anything is ok in business is just outrageous to say the least.  Why stop at saying monopolies are ok?  Why not say industrial espionage is ok or just bumping off the competition?  The world has morals and most sane people see that business ethics is good for all and the practices such as you stated earlier are in fact not.  It scares me that there are people like you out there that support such practices.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I never said a free market was fair.  Everyone in second place will say it isn't fair.  That's how the cookie crumbles.



Fair for the consumer, man. See you are not even able to understand this is all about the consumer...



> False, the FTC would not let Intel buyout AMD which *is* anti-trust.



What they did *is* anti-trust.



> By terminating their business, Intel would incite an anti-trust response.



I don't see how. The one thing they can do is do bussiness with whoever they want. As long as they were not ceasing bussiness with some to give an advantage to others, there's no anti-competitive behavior in that at all.



> *The EU can't obtain emails without permission unless they have a warrant.  I found no evidence that a warrant was ever issued.  Either the emails were handed over by someone willfully or they are a forgery.  Their sources aren't given aside from the testimonies.  As for the testimonies, the Intel execs may say "we gave Dell/HP/Lenovo a rebate."  EC says, "A rebate! Anti-trust!"  The EC, with this ruling, basically has set the precedent that rebates are anti-competitive in the EU. *



That's why I said that it wouldn't surprise me that the PC vendors were involved from the beginnning. Let's be clear, it's obvious that someone inside the PC vendors gave that information, it's the official involvement of the vendors which is in question.

Finally, regarding the rebates and whatnot. Please... a rebate is not anti-competitive. A rebate with the condition to cease bussiness with the competitor is. It's not that hard to understand that. This ruling only sets a precedent for the later.



> As to your last statement: that is proof this isn't anti-trust.



 Maybe you are right.. NO.


----------



## LaidLawJones (Sep 22, 2009)

Just a question. It has been thrown around about how much better AMD would be doing if they hadn't lost market share and money to Intel. How does this time line coincide with the huge amount of money they put out for ATI instead of reinvesting into their own company for R&D and publicity?   

Second question. How much did they pay for ATI?


----------



## bat (Sep 22, 2009)

Wish I had the figures for sure but I think it was around either 5 or 9 billion (leaning towards 5).  Regardless if they had gained that marketshare and money they still would be a lot better off than they are now.  They would not have had to borrow nearly as much to finance the puchase and besides the ATI deal seems so far to be paying off quite a bit in current tech when they purchased it, and in tech used in their future products from what I've read.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 1. Again why did they have a change of heart? Because they got caught also?  Please.



And? Sorry but the victims of blackmail are not convicted, even if they fall for it. They are convicted for the illegal things they might do under compulsion, but not for the blackmail, which is illegal by itself. That happens because it's undertood you had no option.



> 2. Of course they did. They got a better deal than they ever would with Intel being "regulated". You know how I know? Because they took the F#$KING DEAL. If it wasnt a good one they would have reported Intel on the spot. No guns were held to any OEMs head. Of course this is all assuming any of this happened. I wonder what kind of kick backs the OEMs got for turning against Intel. Maybe some fat government contracts?



As I and many have said, they had no option but to take thier discount if they wanted to continue their bussiness, no matter how small the rebate could be. Not to mention that under a trully free x86 market, the prices for Intel CPUs would ave been much much cheaper than they were rebates included.

3. Whats it like in Elmo's world?

So now you're going to say that competition isn't good, right? That fighting monopolies (and Intel *is*) doesn't increase competition right? CPUs and GPUs are made following almost the same techniques. How is it that GPUs being much bigger and having a PCB, memory, etc. are cheaper and have much much bigger price adjustements? Hell Intel reduces the prices in a timely basis and not based on the competition at all, for God's sake...



> Bottom line is I see no proof other than the EU being thieves.



No comment, I would even take offense if that wasn't so pathetically hilarious.


----------



## bat (Sep 22, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am not a fanboy, i just am pro free market. nobody was threatened physically or forced into a situation in which they had no choice. the convenient point everyone is forgetting is that the vendors could have gone with AMD. they didnt though because AMD is an inferior disorganized company that you simply would not risk your business on!



Inferior disorganized company?  So you have firsthand knowledge of the company?  From the way your posts have read on them so far in this thread it sounds like you have an axe to grind with them for some reason or you're employed by intel.  At the very least you sound like a fanboy if neither of them are true.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Fair for the consumer, man. See you are not even able to understand this is all about the consumer...


AMD and Intel were both offering $1000+ and sub $100 processors at the time.  If it wasn't fair to the consumer in 2002-2005, it wasn't fair to consumers 1990-2001 and 2006-2009 as well.  Again, the signs aren't present that Intel behaved anti-competitively.




Benetanegia said:


> What they did *is* anti-trust.


Says the EU, South Korea, and that's about it.  In both cases, the evidence is lacking.




Benetanegia said:


> I don't see how. The one thing they can do is do bussiness with whoever they want. As long as they were not ceasing bussiness with some to give an advantage to others, there's no anti-competitive behavior in that at all.


If a monopolistic company uses their position to force a business to buy from another business at a much higher cost in order to drive that business out of the industry, that can be found as anti-competitive behavior under anti-trust laws.  The business that went under, or got close to going under, would have to prove that the monopoly holder basically priced them out of market.




Benetanegia said:


> Finally, regarding the rebates and whatnot. Please... a rebate is not anti-competitive. A rebate with the condition to cease bussiness with the competitor is. It's not that hard to understand that. This ruling only sets a precedent for the later.


Is there any proof that this condition actually took effect?  A lot of businesses drop down to only one supplier because it simplifies everything (support, installation, maintenance, logistics, etc.).  Is there any proof that these rebates Intel offered were the sole reason these businesses decided to offer Intel exclusively?

We should also remember that in 2000 is when Intel and AMD parted ways in terms of motherboard sockets (Intel went to Socket 423/427, AMD stayed on Socket A).  That introduced a lot of additional expenses in regards to building two types of machines; hence, the need to pick a side to remain profitable.  There was a small economic crash in late 2001 following 9/11 which may have easily incited the computer industry to make the change to single-suppliers heading into 2002.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

yeah Im not a fan of the disorganized company and being inferior. If they were, then Intel wouldn't have licensed the x86 tech to them and hired them to make cpus for them. What I find funny is now folks are getting mad. No sense in name calling and such.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

seems my thanks button is gone, but 10 of you have my thanks


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

LaidLawJones said:


> Just a question. It has been thrown around about how much better AMD would be doing if they hadn't lost market share and money to Intel. How does this time line coincide with the huge amount of money they put out for ATI instead of reinvesting into their own company for R&D and publicity?
> 
> Second question. How much did they pay for ATI?


Core 2 Duo came out in June 2006.
ATI buyout ($5.4 billion but there was adjustments made since) was in October 2006.
Phenom (huge disappointment) came out in 2007.

December 2005-June 2006, there was a small economic slump coupled with rumors that Core 2 Duo eats Athlon 64 X2 processors alive caused AMD to decline during that period.  Only the server market was strong for them then.  AMD's decline really started in December 2005 because of this.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

ATI buyout hurt them initially but I can say and I think most agree, they bounced back pretty great from it so far. Also, it has paid off for them, let's admit it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

AMD's processor to graphics ratio was about 4:1 in terms of total equity.  Today, it is about 2:1.  Because of the buyout, and also their uncompetitive products, AMD's value halved.  As such... some observations:
-The ATI buyout won't pay off until the GPU and CPU are one in the same (which was AMD's vision with the buyout).
-By buying out ATI, AMD forced Intel's hand into developing GPU-on-die processors.  AMD doesn't have the capital to fast track the developement where Intel does.  AMD effectively created competition for themselves when they can't afford to compete.

From those two points, I look at it as either not paying for itself until GPU-on-die processors come out or I look at it as a mistake in the first place.  Which is the better answer will only be known if and when it hits the markets.  ATI is simply too small to sustain AMD and the x86 industry.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD and Intel were both offering $1000+ and sub $100 processors at the time.  If it wasn't fair to the consumer in 2002-2005, it wasn't fair to consumers 1990-2001 and 2006-2009 as well.  Again, the signs aren't present that Intel behaved anti-competitively.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, please stop, I won't read anything more from you regarding this subject, I just read the bold letters and is enough already. It's pretty clear you can't see a proof even if you had it in front of your nose. 

We know you love Intel already, and we know how you think the bastards in the EU are stealing the oh poor boy Intel. HP, Dell and Lenovo are bastard liars and thieves too, because they have so much to gain with their allegations... (??????) And yeah everyone is so against poor Intel. 

Giving the poor excuses as to why the vendors chose to buy only from Intel is LAME. Considering you have some of the proofs on the front page. You might be used to see the legal system making things up in the US (cough* weapons of mass destruction *cough), but this doesn't happen here, sorry. I don't know if this saying is known there or if this is the proper translation but: "Thinks the thief, that everyone is of his condition (nature)."


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> ATI buyout hurt them initially but I can say and I think most agree, they bounced back pretty great from it so far. Also, it has paid off for them, let's admit it.



Yeah,
They got the gating technology from ATI.
They got the EEPROM idea from ATI.
They got the power saving features used in Phenom II from ATI.
They got a CANADIAN engineering team from ATI. 

Shall I go on?


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 22, 2009)

Yet they are still poor......:shadedshu


----------



## LaidLawJones (Sep 22, 2009)

Try it in this light. Intel saw that AMD was about to make/had made a major purchase that they really could not afford. I say they could not afford it because it left them no cash reserve. If Intel gambled/knew that their new chip was going to beat the new AMD, they might not have known by how much, then Intel saw an opportunity to drive the competition to their knees. 

Was what Intel did legal? BY EU standards, a very definite no. Was what Intel did common? You bet your Intel stock it is. We are playing with billions and billions of dollars here. The fine by the EU was a calculated risk.

We should all be thankful that all it resulted in was people getting a slow or overpriced cpu. Usually this kind of practice has far worse results culminating in a body count. Companies of this size play by nobody's rules and they do not care what the result is as long as there is a profit. 

I am not picking on Intel. Their are more than a few multi multi billion $ companies out there that have real blood on their hands and are still doing very well.  

Can AMD compete? The first saying that comes to mind is "If you want to play..."


----------



## Flyordie (Sep 22, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Yet they are still poor......:shadedshu



Lets see...
ATIC has the UAE backing it... and AMD owns a decent chunk of change of GLOBALFOUNDRIES... so I doubt AMD is "poor".   ATIC would gladly invest $$ into AMD if they were in fact truly in trouble.


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 22, 2009)

Then they should, cause Intel is still moppin them up with their new CPUs.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Yet they arent poor they dont have the cash reserves as Intel, Shall I go on? If you want to throw bait at something, that is one thing, but "poor" in this case is really not having Intel money.

ATI and AMD have benefited each other, we can go on about that. Id say more ATI than AMD, because the chipset is really what AMD got from them. Fusion, the first announced and probably first planned GPU on the Chip design probably wont get up in time to compete with Intel. Anywho, Im done with this topic, but thank you all for a very enlightening discussion on this and I thank you all also for your input and points of view.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 22, 2009)

There's really nothing new about this, this happen alot in business, big fish eat small fish, dirty tricks, ect...
There is no _clean_ business.

But I'm not sure who exactly gonna benefit from this beside AMD?


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Sep 22, 2009)

Keep it coming guys, don't let the nerd rage stop!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> We know you love Intel already, and we know how you think the bastards in the EU are stealing the oh poor boy Intel.


I only "love" three companies: Systemax, Klipsch, and Lite-On.  Lite-On because I never had a product of theirs fail when so many competing products have; Systemax and Klipsch because of their execellent customer service.  It only takes one bad experience for the "love" to fade away.




Benetanegia said:


> And yeah everyone is so against poor Intel.


I'm against businesses, big or small, being bullied by governments.


----------



## PP Mguire (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Oh, but it looks so sunny!   Or is that partly cloudy? 




kid41212003 said:


> But I'm not sure who exactly gonna benefit from this beside AMD?


AMD isn't directly benefiting.  They would have to file their own suit using the EU ruling as precedent.


----------



## Frick (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Says the EU, South Korea, and that's about it.  In both cases, the evidence is lacking.



Aaaanndd that's why this happened in the EU. EU laws obviously say Intel did bad things. The evidence is not lacking, not here. In US or aussie laws? Probably.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

By "evidence is lacking" I meant most of it is based on hearsay.  There's a lot of hearsay but little of it provides grounds for a $1+ billion fine; hence, evidence of wrong-doing is lacking.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The moment a governing body intervenes in a market, it is no longer "free."  Free markets only exist in theory.



Incorrect. The government intervention here isn't to set/modify policies, it is to investigate and penalize an offense. Every 'free-market' relies on the law of the land to resolve corporate disputes, prevent laundering of money and resources, and ensure the market is running smoothly.

Testimony ≠ heresy. You don't need a affidavit signed by the murderer and the victim to certify that you saw a murder taking place.


----------



## Melvis (Sep 22, 2009)

WoW i didn't realize intel pulled that stunt with so many companies :shadedshu

So now does this mean that AMD can sue intel for compensation? since they had lost alot of money/sales in that time period?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Incorrect. The government intervention here isn't to set/modify policies, it is to investigate and penalize an offense. Every 'free-market' relies on the law of the land to resolve corporate disputes, prevent laundering of money and resources, and ensure the market is running smoothly.


The definition of "free market" varies today form what it did when the term was first coined.  The same goes for laissez-faire.  USA nor EU is a free market seeing how both governing bodies responded to this latest financial crisis.  Again, I can't name one "free market" where a government only intervenes in cases of antitrust and fraud.




btarunr said:


> Testimony ≠ heresy. You don't need a affidavit signed by the murderer and the victim to certify that you saw a murder taking place.


At least with a murder, you have a corpse as proof of wrong-doing.  No corpse means a near impossible trial for the prosecutor to win.  In this case, AMD would be your corpse but as we all know, they are alive and well.

Even if there is a witness to a crime, the defense can question the reliability of the witness (sanity, whether or not the individual was present at the time of the crime, ulterior motives, etc.).  Many potential murders have walked despite there being witnesses.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The definition of "free market" varies today form what it did when the term was first coined.  The same goes for laissez-faire.  USA nor EU is a free market seeing how both governing bodies responded to this latest financial crisis.  Again, I can't name one "free market" where a government only intervenes in cases of antitrust and fraud.



Then by your perception, 'free-market' is utopia, and it doesn't exist anywhere. American and European definitions in this context don't differ, since there are anti-trust and monopoly-abuse cases in the US too.



FordGT90Concept said:


> At least with a murder, you have a corpse as proof of wrong-doing.  No corpse means a near impossible trial for the prosecutor to win.  In this case, AMD would be your corpse but as we all know, they are alive and well.
> 
> Even if there is a witness to a crime, the defense can question the reliability of the witness (sanity, whether or not the individual was present at the time of the crime, ulterior motives, etc.).  Many potential murders have walked despite there being witnesses.



Right, here the emails are the corpses, and their recipients/senders validating them.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> At least with a murder, you have a corpse as proof of wrong-doing.  No corpse means a near impossible trial for the prosecutor to win.  In this case, AMD would be your corpse but as we all know, they are alive and well.
> 
> Even if there is a witness to a crime, the defense can question the reliability of the witness (sanity, whether or not the individual was present at the time of the crime, ulterior motives, etc.).  Many potential murders have walked despite there being witnesses.



Now you even seem to defend a murder that walks away because the legal system sucks. :shadedshu
You have no limits as to how far you can go to defend a convicted company just because it is from the US? Shame.



btarunr said:


> Right, here the emails are the corpses, and their recipients/senders *validating* them.



Wow I just realized that maybe that's something we had to explain. I thought that everyone here was able to understand that the e-mails were not the proofs themselves, that they just where the reason why the investigation started and subject to validating them through interrogations with the involving parties. 

Of course you don't convict someone based on e-mails, but once having them you search the one who wrote it and interrogate him. If he confirms wat it seen there you have a case...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

btarunr said:


> American and European definitions in this context don't differ, since there are anti-trust and monopoly-abuse cases in the US too.


Indeed, however, I can't name one US Anti-trust lawsuit that amounted to extortion like this.  You have Microsoft getting pinned with anti-trust which basically just required a 3rd party to review their source code for anti-competitive behavior to Standard Oil which got broken into dozens of smaller, regional corporations.  I can't name one time USA collected a fine under anti-trust law.  Again, highly suspicious.




btarunr said:


> Right, here the emails are the corpses, and their recipients/senders validating them.


And how many servers did those emails pass through?  How many revisions have they undergone in the years since their authoring?  I thought all the agreements Intel made were oral so why are there emails at all?  Why is AMD still around if Intel is as guilty as they say they are?




Benetanegia said:


> Now you even seem to defend a murder that walks away because the legal system sucks. :shadedshu
> You have no limits as to how far you can go to defend a convicted company just because it is from the US? Shame.


The legal system is the best man could come up with.  I see few ways of improving it.

It has nothing to do with it being a US founded/operated company.




Benetanegia said:


> Of course you don't convict someone based on e-mails, but once having them you search the one who wrote it and interrogate him. If he confirms wat it seen there you have a case...


Again, Intel says we offered rebates, some people go "ooo discount" and other people go "anti-trust."  When you're looking at a $1+ billion pot of gold, it's hard not to cry wolf.  It's asinine to believe this ruling wasn't made with greed at its core.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 22, 2009)

Just because there's another country/entity running the lawsuit, and the penalty is so huge, some of you are resorting to this jingoistic stance. Calling it an 'extortion'. The investigation is done, verdict out, time to pay up. Those 1.6 B EUR is far less that the money they would have made in perpetrating this crime.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Those 1.6 B EUR is far less that the money they would have made in perpetrating this crime.


There's no evidence of that.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Indeed, however, I can't name one US Anti-trust lawsuit that amounted to extortion like this.  You have Microsoft getting pinned with anti-trust which basically just required a 3rd party to review their source code for anti-competitive behavior to Standard Oil which got broken into dozens of smaller, regional corporations.  I can't name one time USA collected a fine under anti-trust law.  Again, highly suspicious.



First of all, the EU can't do anything like that, because it's an american company and thus the EU can't intervene. And second those actions don't change anything for future actions and don't punish the actions nor pose an exemplary punishment.




> And how many servers did those emails pass through?  How many revisions have they undergone in the years since their authoring?  Can they be validated or confirmed by other sources?  I thought all the agreements Intel made were oral so why are there emails at all?  Why is AMD still around if Intel is as guilty as they say they are?



Read above post. It's (not) funny that you are more inclined to believe, that it's more probable that the EU, HP, Dell, Lenovo, HTC... all of them lied, than admit that Intel did something wrong and was cought...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> First of all, the EU can't do anything like that, because it's an american company and thus the EU can't intervene. And second those actions don't change anything for future actions and don't punish the actions nor pose an exemplary punishment.


The EU could restrict how many units Intel sells for x number of years in EU member states.  It not only reduces Intel's bottomline but gives AMD and Via an open door to walk through.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's asinine to believe this ruling wasn't made with greed at its core.



No, what it's stupid is to believe that so many companies that rely on Intel (HP, Dell...) would risk their bussiness relations worth much much more than $1 bllion to get... what exactly? A chunk of the billion the EU is taking from Intel and that is pocket change in comparison to their annual revenue? A reduction in taxes which is an even smaller ammount of money and definately smaller than the money they can get by being friendly with Intel? Enlighten us, because I think that no one except you was able to see what are those companies getting from this.



FordGT90Concept said:


> The EU could restrict how many units Intel sells for x number of years in EU member states.  It not only reduces Intel's bottomline but gives AMD and Via an open door to walk through.



No they can't. A company can't be banned from selling their product unless there is a trully important reason to do that (health threat, patent isuues...). That definately goes against the free market and can't be done under those circumstances. *AND again you forget that the EC is for the better of the consumer... taking Intel out of the european market is not better for the consumer.*


----------



## Sugarush (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Says the EU, South Korea, and that's about it.  In both cases, the evidence is lacking.



You forgot Japan.

And yeah, the majority of the economically advanced countries found Intel guilty. So what...



FordGT90Concept said:


> By "evidence is lacking" I meant most of it is based on hearsay.  There's a lot of hearsay but little of it provides grounds for a $1+ billion fine; hence, evidence of wrong-doing is lacking.



I've said this in a different thread before: Don't you think Intel would've gone for the "Hearsay" defence if it really had been the case?

First you were saying there is no proof, now that there is proof, you are arguing that it is made up.

And should Intel admit that they did it, you'd probably say: They're doing it to get over with the whole legal issue, not because they're guilty.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Indeed, however, I can't name one US Anti-trust lawsuit that amounted to extortion like this.  You have Microsoft getting pinned with anti-trust which basically just required a 3rd party to review their source code for anti-competitive behavior to Standard Oil which got broken into dozens of smaller, regional corporations.  I can't name one time USA collected a fine under anti-trust law.  Again, highly suspicious.



You're arguing against the verdict because you don't agree with the penalty.

You should stick to the case itself.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> No they can't. A company can't be banned from selling their product unless there is a trully important reason to do that (health threat, patent isuues...). That definately goes against the free market and can't be done under those circumstances. *AND again you forget that the EC is for the better of the consumer... taking Intel out of the european market is not better for the consumer.*


Not "selling," importing and producing.  I thought anti-trust was a qualifier for "truly important."

EU isn't a free market.  "Health threat," "patent issue" = regulation != free.

And Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic, of the people's will, nor a republic.  "We fight for the consumer" is a good banner to stick on promo videos but, there's no fact to it.  The money is going to "pay for member state dues."  I highly doubt the member state dues will drop said amount because of this lawsuit.  In fact, they'll probably go up for God knows what is on their agenda.  They're all the same: crooked.


Whatever.  This thread has been a repeat of the two or three that came before it.  Nothing has changed, nothing will change.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not "selling," importing and producing.  I thought anti-trust was a qualifier for "truly important."



It's the same, both actions prevent customers from being free to product election. As much as you think the EU has the power (or the intention) to regulate companies bussinesses at will, that's not the case. Sorry, but you are talking from total darkness on this issue. Basically and colloquially speaking, you have no clue about what you are talking.



> EU isn't a free market.  "Health threat," "patent issue" = regulation != free.



Wait... so the governments (creating laws) and the judges (applying them) shouldn't prevent a company from selling products that are a threat to the public health? Basically they should watch from the outside and let them kill loads of people, just so the utopian view of no intervention is fullfilled. 

We should make patent infringement legal too?

Yeah I think we should do that. Maybe we can tell the police not to intervene until the crime has been made while we are at it. In the end how do you know he was going to kill that woman, he was just aiming a pistol at her, while shouting "I'll kill you, bitch!". But we know his real intentions? No. So?

But bottom line is that the EU market is much more free than the US market, simply because there are regulations (that are taken to it's maximum consequences) that prevent the abuse of bigger comapanies and that gives smaller competitors the ability to freely market their products. AMD was not free to market their products following the offer/demand rules, customers were not free to choose. It's an issue of numbers, you punish one missbehaving company to prevent it from spoiling the market for the others.

If parents don't put rules and tell their children "you have freedom to do what you want", the kids will never be free to do what they want, because the bigger one will always "enslave" the smaller ones. You need rules to prevent that from happening.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Will an EU decision supporter please answer my questions without any damn spin?

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1562152&postcount=67


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> It's the same, both actions prevent customers from being free to product election.


Anti-trust is, by nature, anti-consumer and pro-business.  The competition which stems from pro-business is pro-consumer (reduced prices).  Intel got their monopoly by consumers electing for their product.  Anti-trust law uses that process against them saying too many people like your product and you used that popularity against someone else in an unlawful way.




Benetanegia said:


> As much as you think the EU has the power (or the intention) to regulate companies bussinesses at will, that's not the case. Sorry, but you are talking from total darkness on this issue. Basically and colloquially speaking, you have no clue about what you are talking.


If the EU doesn't have the power to restrict trade, it doesn't have the power to enforce a fine.




Benetanegia said:


> Wait... so the governments (creating laws) and the judges (applying them) shouldn't prevent a company from selling products that are a threat to the public health?
> 
> ...


It's sementics.  "Free market" by definition, means no regulation or intervention except in fraud and antitrust.  As I said, I can't name one free market because all markets have regulations.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Will an EU decision supporter please answer my questions without any damn spin?
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1562152&postcount=67



Well, I don't really count, but I'll try just for fun.  



TheMailMan78 said:


> Jumping in the fray.......
> 
> 1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?
> 
> ...



I'll try, just for fun:

1) This is civil court -- not criminal court.  I imagine the laws are similiar in the EU as they are in the US -- the burden of proof is far different in civil court; you don't need to prove guilt to the same degree.  Obviously, the judge in the case felt that the evidence found against Intel was sufficient.

Argue the merits of the case if you want, but don't say there isn't any "proof" -- it's unrealistic, and doesn't help either side of the case.  EDIT: Just noticed, like btarunr said, you don't need an affidavit signed by a murderer to prove it happened.  

2)  Did OEM's really "benefit," especially since Intel, with their exclusive deals, could control the price without the influence of the free market?  

Intel's processors were slower and hotter.  I imagine just the extra cooling requirements needed to make their computers run cool and efficiently would've cut into the OEM profits a bit.  

3)  The fine is going where all government goes, in any government -- into the coffers.  It will be used to pay for government programs and help the people.  No, AMD is not going to get any of the money.  Please don't act like you don't know how government works.

And "theft" is relative to who's doing the taking, and who's giving up.  Wasn't Robin Hood technically a "thief," too?


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Anti-trust is, by nature, anti-consumer and pro-business.  The competition which stems from pro-business is pro-consumer (reduced prices).  Intel got their monopoly by consumers electing for their product.  Anti-trust law uses that process against them saying too many people like your product and you used that popularity against someone else in an unlawful way.



It's debatable if Intel trully reached that market share by it's own merits, considering what they did to mantain it.



> If the EU doesn't have the power to restrict trade, it doesn't have the power to enforce a fine.



The EU does have the power, should they want to break the laws that form the spinal cord of our government. Our law system is made so no party, no body, no person has power beyond what the law gave them. Can the US trully say the same. I doubt it.



> It's sementics.  "Free market" by definition, means no regulation or intervention *except in fraud and antitrust*.  As I said, I can't name one free market because all markets have regulations.



You said it all. No need to argue. Except in fraud and antitrust, the EU doesn't intervene in companies bussiness at all.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Well, I don't really count, but I'll try just for fun.


 I said a supporter of the decision. Not a member of the EU.





mdm-adph said:


> I'll try, just for fun:
> 
> 1) This is civil court -- not criminal court.  I imagine the laws are similiar in the EU as they are in the US -- the burden of proof is far different in civil court; you don't need to prove guilt to the same degree.  Obviously, the judge in the case felt that the evidence found against Intel was sufficient.
> 
> ...



1. Wheres the body should be the question then?

2. If they didn't benefit then a simple phone call to the FBI would have been a LOT cheaper. Prostitutes make money for a pimp do they not?

3. Here lies the problem. I do know how government works. This is why I call BS on the ruling.

4. Robin Hood isn't real.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> You said it all. No need to argue. Except in fraud and antitrust, the EU doesn't intervene in companies bussiness at all.


A fine is intervention.  I see no anti-trust here, again, the proof is AMD and Via (the only two competing x86 license holders) are alive and well.  If there is grounds for anti-trust, there is no hiding it.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Jumping in the fray.......
> 
> 1. They were convicted on hearsay. Where is the proof?
> 
> ...




Not really an EU supported (the fine was absurdly large and unjust, but if they did wrong they did wrong) however:

1) If it was ALL based on hearsay the judge would have laughed the case out of court and Intel lawyers would have had a nice party - this did not happen. Thus they must have had some kind of proof, who knows where or what but it has to exist somewhere.

2) You are quite right in this statement - only thing i can suggest is that the OEMs benefitted or else intel would cut their dealings? maybe Who knows, we are mere mortals in this.

3)Tax break... EU population...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> 1) If it was ALL based on hearsay the judge would have laughed the case out of court and Intel lawyers would have had a nice party - this did not happen. Thus they must have had some kind of proof, who knows where or what but it has to exist somewhere.


Is this not the same judge that accused (and fined) Microsoft for bundling a browser and media player when almost all other OSs do the same?  History repeats.

I'm just waiting for the EU to find out how much money the oil industry is sitting on.  They'll milk that cash cow until it dies.


Another important question: Has the EU ever sided with, or lost to, the defendant of an anti-trust lawsuit?


Edit: I answer my own question: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18829279;jsessionid=O4BKCVQFWQ1PPQE1GHOSKHWATMY32JVN


> In the third defeat this year -- and second in a week -- for the European Commission, a European court ruled that regulators erred in blocking Swiss-based Tetra Laval Group's attempt to create a drinks-packaging giant last year by buying French bottling company Sidel SA for $1.66 billion.
> 
> The Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance said the Commission provided insufficient evidence and overestimated the merger's anticompetitive effects.
> 
> ...



Unsurpisingly, their defeats were with companies in EU member states.  The bias is blindingly obvious.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I said a supporter of the decision. Not a member of the EU.
> 
> 1. Wheres the body should be the question then?
> 
> ...



1)  Irrelevant.  You don't even need a body in an actual murder trial.

2)  They had responsibilities to their shareholders.  You, of all people, should respect that.  

3)  If you do, then you should know where the money's going.

4)  You're a time traveler, too?


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A fine is intervention.  I see no anti-trust here, again, the proof is AMD and Via (the only two competing x86 license holders) are alive and well.  If there is grounds for anti-trust, there is no hiding it.



The fact that *you* don't see anti-trust here doesn't make it any less *REAL*. You'll have to get over it some day.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Is this not the same judge that accused (and fined) Microsoft for bundling a browser and media player when almost all other OSs do the same?  History repeats.
> 
> I'm just waiting for the EU to find out how much money the oil industry is sitting on.  They'll milk that cash cow until it dies.



They would, the EU is stupidly difficult to control. Dozens of countries, all with very different laws with only one "governing" body i.e. the EU. It's just not right. The EU is a very grey subject for me, some of what they do is awesome other things they do is out right laughable. This is because one thing they do to France (for example) they have to do to every country. It's just silly.

As for oil, they will probably sue BP for pollution or something.

The money will most likely go to the poorer countries to kick start their economy.

damn you and your editing Ford:

Yes the EU is bias to the EU. Just like the USA is bias to the USA (they tax imports do they not, always encouraged to buy American) Each country looks after it's own.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> they tax imports do they not, always encouraged to buy American


I wish they would.  Tariffs are damn near dead and it's killing the manufacturing segments of the country (e.g. Detroit at > 20% unemployment).  The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wish they would.  Tariffs are damn near dead and it's killing the manufacturing segments of the country (e.g. Detroit at > 20% unemployment).  The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.



Well i know they used to, still the concept applies. Each country looks after it's own.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wish they would.  Tariffs are damn near dead and it's killing the manufacturing segments of the country (e.g. Detroit at > 20% unemployment).  The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.



Why should they?  The US economy depends on consumers buying cheap crap from China, so China will keep buying US debt.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Again, I hear "Lost My America" by I Mother Earth playing in my mind. 


Anywho, I disagree with their decision (I see nothing that even warrants filing an anti-trust lawsuit, nevermind taking it to court) and their fine (completely unwarranted).


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The government is doing next to nothing to encourage consumers to buy American.



Your bias and overall confusion within the boundaries of your own head is evident. Why in hell should the US government be involved in that at all?? You said earlier that the goverment shouldn't be involved in bussiness... I call BS on everything you said, you can't even make up your mind.



TheMailMan78 said:


> 1. Wheres the body should be the question then?
> 
> 2. If they didn't benefit then a simple phone call to the FBI would have been a LOT cheaper. Prostitutes make money for a pimp do they not?
> 
> ...



1. You don't need a body.

2. Yeah. Someone under coercion does benefit from doing what they are told to do. That doesn't mean their situation wouldn't be much better if coercion didn't exist to begin with. For example, someone with a gun on his head does benefit from giving all his money, he lives, but he would be much better if he could just go away with his money. The fact that Intel used market dominance as the weapon and not an actual weapon, changes nothing. Anti-trust laws were made exactly for that.

3. "Thinks the thief that everyone is of his own nature."


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Wow, the flames. :shadedshu

I said free market, by definition, means very limited government involvement.  I said nothing on that subject of my personal beliefs.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Benetanegia said:


> Your bias and overall confusion within the boundaries of your own head is evident. Why in hell should the US government be involved in that at all?? You said earlier that the goverment shouldn't be involved in bussiness... I call BS on everything you said, you can't even make up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Yeah you need evidence of a murder. In this case all you have is a bunch of witnesses who stand to benefit if a "murderer" is fined. As you can see the point I am trying to make is there are no rules in love, war, or business. *I do not know if Intel broke the law.* All I am saying is this whole thing seems very fishy and the size of the fine and its circumstances solidify that. You guys are so thirsty to assume guilt on Intels part you do not question the accusations or its benefactors. This sounds to me like abuse of a judicial system for profit.

2. If they benefit then its not blackmail. Its a contract. OEM's made good money off of this. They are just as much at guilt. To use the murder analogy that you guys are so fond of the OEM's were accessories to the murder. Why are they not fined? What do they get out of this deal? If the EU wanted to they could charge the OEM's with industrial espionage. After all they knew it was against the law and they went along with it to get a good deal then flipped on Intel to get an ever better long term deal. They played Intel and the EU. WHY ARE THEY NOT CHARGED?! There is more proof of this than of any Intel wrong doing yet you still paint them as the victims.

3. I'm sorry but I have no clue what you mean by this.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

You know Benet you need to back the hell off and quit getting so mad man, take it easy. Some people blindly follow things and companies (here here, I do with AMD Ill admit) but no reason to go on calling someone arrogant, stupid, etc (thats just a blanket statement, not saying you called someone stupid). Also, per your question, the US does have laws and measurements in place that prevent(s) one branch(es) from overstepping their authority. It is called the system of Checks and Balances. We can go on and on about this, but you get the idea. No government is perfect and we know this. 

 Fact is, Intel got caught by "means" and found guilty. OF course they are not happy with it and their supporters are not happy with it. Now I agree the huge fine is outrageous, but it was even more outrageous to prevent OEMs from buying or in delaying products that had AMD parts in them. That is the real crime. I don't know if that prevented AMD from gaining a bigger market share, but it did prevent others from trying them out. I also fault AMD for no advertising and not trying to one up Intel after they spanked them with the K8.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> You know Benet you need to back the hell off and quit getting so mad man, take it easy. Some people blindly follow things and companies (here here, I do with AMD Ill admit) but no reason to go on calling someone arrogant, stupid, etc (thats just a blanket statement, not saying you called someone stupid). Also, per your question, the US does have laws and measurements in place that prevent(s) one branch(es) from overstepping their authority. It is called the system of Checks and Balances. We can go on and on about this, but you get the idea. No government is perfect and we know this.
> 
> Fact is, Intel got caught by "means" and found guilty. OF course they are not happy with it and their supporters are not happy with it. Now I agree the huge fine is outrageous, but it was even more outrageous to prevent OEMs from buying or in delaying products that had AMD parts in them. That is the real crime. I don't know if that prevented AMD from gaining a bigger market share, but it did prevent others from trying them out. I also fault AMD for no advertising and not trying to one up Intel after they spanked them with the K8.


He got banned before for this kinda crap.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

That I didnt know and I apologize for my insolent tone. I just hate seeing folks get so mad and going at each other like that. I get all kinds of pissy too but I don't go on a rant and tell folks they are stupid. sheesh, cant we all just get along and agree to disagree?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> That I didnt know and I apologize for my insolent tone. I just hate seeing folks get so mad and going at each other like that. I get all kinds of pissy too but I don't go on a rant and tell folks they are stupid. sheesh, cant we all just get along and agree to disagree?



"Benet" isn't new here. He got banned before for these kinda comments. I'm sure if he keeps it up a ban stick will come down on him yet again.

@Benet the mods know who you are man. If you want to stay I would clam down.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

I See. yeah, they banned my thanks stick, but it did look like I was going around thanking everyone and their moms. 

What I see happening here is an appeal happening. This will likely be tied up for awhile. Also, does the fine mean the companies have to pay? If not I suppose they wont be able to sell in that country(ies). Im more interested in seeing the the U.S. and the FTC find out and how they proceed.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> What I see happening here is an appeal happening. This will likely be tied up for awhile. Also, does the fine mean the companies have to pay? If not I suppose they wont be able to sell in that country(ies). Im more interested in seeing the the U.S. and the FTC find out and how they proceed.


I doubt Intel will appeal. The EC won on such weak grounds the first time, there's no chance they could overturn it unless it is in a different court.

Yes, I too would be interested to know what means of enforcement the EU is capable of.

4:1 odds say the FTC will find little or no guilt on behalf of Intel.  The rebates were that of normal business conduct and do not allude to anything that falls under anti-trust law.  The FTC may advise monopoly holders to refrain from using rebates, however.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

yeah I agree there. Besides, the US is pro economy and pro business, big or small. Obama would definitely not want to hurt anyone. Also, I didnt think Intel was a US company...are they?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

Yes, as is AMD.  Both were founded by former employees of Fairchild Semiconductor (also US based).


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Wow, I didn't know that. Awesome. Thanks man, Id thank ya, but the button be gone.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 22, 2009)

The irony made my laugh.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> You know Benet you need to back the hell off and quit getting so mad man, take it easy. Some people blindly follow things and companies (here here, I do with AMD Ill admit) but no reason to go on calling someone arrogant, stupid, etc (thats just a blanket statement, not saying you called someone stupid). Also, per your question, the US does have laws and measurements in place that prevent(s) one branch(es) from overstepping their authority. It is called the system of Checks and Balances. We can go on and on about this, but you get the idea. No government is perfect and we know this.
> 
> Fact is, Intel got caught by "means" and found guilty. OF course they are not happy with it and their supporters are not happy with it. Now I agree the huge fine is outrageous, but it was even more outrageous to prevent OEMs from buying or in delaying products that had AMD parts in them. That is the real crime. I don't know if that prevented AMD from gaining a bigger market share, but it did prevent others from trying them out. I also fault AMD for no advertising and not trying to one up Intel after they spanked them with the K8.



I didn't insult him, I have not even suggested arrogance, stupidness (however it's said). I just said it is clear he is confused, because from what I see, that's what happens, that's a reality. At one minute he is saying the govt doesn't have to intervene and a second later he laments that the govmt does nothing to help american companies...

And how does it feel when your government is put to question, hey? How if you step back a bit too, read the thread again and target all those wise (because they are wise) comments at the people that really needed them from the beginning? At no moment I have insulted a member of this forum, I have "insulted" your government however, with the sole idea of prvoking a response like the one you made, because you can't understand my point of view, unless you feel the same. Ford's and Themailman's ONLY argument in all the thread has been that the EU government is corrupt and has done this to steal money from Intel.



TheMailMan78 said:


> "Benet" isn't new here. He got banned before for these kinda comments. I'm sure if he keeps it up a ban stick will come down on him yet again.
> 
> @Benet the mods know who you are man. If you want to stay I would clam down.



I'm grown up, so don't worry for me, but let's be open about this. It's been more than 1 week since I contacted the mods and told them the reason why I registerd (long story made short: an experiment). I decided to stay as long as they wanted. They are suposedly evaluating the situation. I didn't say anything because I wanted to let in their hands the decision to make it public (not directly, but giving me green flag). If they were going to ban me, they might not want it to go public, but at this point I'm more concerned about being open with the TPU community, than with the mods.

That being said, I'm DarkMatter.

I'm open to suggestions as to how you have to express it when you think that someone is confused and making false claims because of that, being that what I said is apparently an insult. Just in case it has not been done yet, I'm going to report my own post to the mods. I have nothing to hide.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> yeah I agree there. Besides, the US is pro economy and pro business, big or small. Obama would definitely not want to hurt anyone. Also, I didnt think Intel was a US company...are they?



No one _ever_ thinks these tech companies are US companies -- it's sad.  :shadedshu  Though Asia is where you go to get cool tech stuff today, pretty much everything originated in the US.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

Listen Dark. If you were to be banned you would have been. You are just being put under probation by them. You may not have meant to insult people but you did. Someone in your position should walk on eggshells. You say you are grown up then act like it. Otherwise you're headed to ban town again.

Just some friendly advice.

Also just to let you know I have NOTHING against Europeans or any culture for that matter. What I hate is our current governments. Mine included. Ever heard the term "I love my country but hate my government"? So I'm not sorry if insulted the EU. However you should hear the crap I talk about the US government. To be honest I HATE the EU. I think its robbing a lot of countries of their solitude.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

First of all. Why did you have to come up with this in the news thread?

Second, I didn't insult anyone. Be clear about where and how otherwise. Calling BS is not insulting in my book, not according what BS is in this context.

According to the wiki: 



> Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.



I have always considered that meaning when speaking about news, facts, etc...

Let's continue anything off-topic, through PMs.

@FordGT90

I still think that everything you have been saying is BS. The BS described above. And that's my opinion.


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Also just to let you know I have NOTHING against Europeans or any culture for that matter. What I hate is our current governments. Mine included. Ever heard the term "I love my country but hate my government"? So I'm not sorry if insulted the EU. However you should hear the crap I talk about the US government. To be honest I HATE the EU. I think its robbing a lot of countries of their solitude.



Solitude is counterproductive to civilization.  The EU has helped collect the multitude of little European countries and has turned them collectively into an economic powerhouse.

I think you're just an anti-Eurite, to be honest.  Perhaps you had a bad experience with a croissant as a child.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Solitude is counterproductive to civilization.  The EU has helped collect the multitude of little European countries and has turned them collectively into an economic powerhouse.
> 
> I think you're just an anti-Eurite, to be honest.  Perhaps you had a bad experience with a croissant as a child.



Eurite is a type of rock. WTF are you going on about?


----------



## wiak (Sep 22, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> first off, intel is not a monopoly. AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an inferior company in all respects, that is not intel's fault. thirdly, companies are not forced to buy intel products simply because intel offers a rebate or threatens to stop selling or any other number of savvy business tactics. the third party vendors could have still gone with AMD. in fact, had they organized themselves properly, AMD and their vendors could have beaten back intel. but as i said, AMD is an inferior company that must rely on the govt to protect its business.


well how do you react when your friend says you cant buy intel 
btw 



> AMD is their competition. second off, amd is an *inferior *company in all respects


how inferior? 

AMD Opteron beat the Intel Xeon (2003)
AMD Athlon 64 beat the Intel Pentium 4 (2004)
AMD 780G Chipset beats the crap out of Intel G45 Chipset (2008)

AMD has superior graphics, Intel has craptics

ALL current Intel CPUs have AMD64 microcode also known as EMT64, Intel 64 or x86-64 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
thats why you can have more than 3GB memory

AMD's HyperTransport from 2003 is far ahead of its time, intel copied it with their QuickPath, and HT is still used TODAY!

kinda fun for you to say AMD is inferior when CLEARY your blind, if it wasnt for Intel blocking AMD out of the market, AMD would have had atleast 40-50% market share by now


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

me too


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Eurite is a type of rock. WTF are you going on about?



Exactly.  

Perhaps there was eurite in your croissant.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

Yeah but I think the whole thing with the 64 bit instruction set is what the cross licensing stuff was all about when it go renewed. 

Benet, I dont remember Dark Matter off the top of my head so you will have to excuse me. Thanks for saying my words were wise, not sure if they were but thanks none the less. Yes you did insult, maybe not in the words I said but you did. My government is anything but perfect but still my government, so I see why you responded the way you did.

Back to the topic, there is certain to be backlash at all of this, and I do feel like this is nerd rage, even though I am not one :Rofl:


----------



## wiak (Sep 22, 2009)

companys should NOT limit another company, heck what intel did is outrageing
its like coca-cola limiting pepsi to 5% etc


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

wiak said:


> companys should NOT limit another company, heck what intel did is outrageing
> its like coca-cola limiting pepsi to 5% etc



"Free market" advocates should be particularly outraged at what Intel did -- I don't understand the mindset of people that are against this.  

What Intel did is manipulate the free market, which is wrong.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

You know, interesting thing about Coke vs Pepsi....
....You know when Coca Cola made Coke? or new Coke as it was often called (which I loved by the way, compared to the original before they went back to Classic. I remember this in the 80s and I was a little Jason, ha ha) was that when Pepsi started over taking them, based on taste tests (remember those taste test commercials) Coke had to reformulate and rethink. So they went to the drawing board (which companies should do) and tried to reinvent Coke. Pepsi had the taste, sweetness, etc that Coke was lacking and Consumers started choosing it. Coke tried to immitate that, but apparently, it was poorly received (I have no idea why because Coke and Coke 2 were/are awesome) and Coke went back to the Classic formula (which is delicious and a nice break from PEpsi, which I do love). Anywho, I just had to throw that in there and semi-hijack the thread. I apologize.


----------



## Benetanegia (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 1. Yeah you need evidence of a murder. In this case all you have is a bunch of witnesses who stand to benefit if a "murderer" is fined. As you can see the point I am trying to make is there are no rules in love, war, or business. *I do not know if Intel broke the law.* All I am saying is this whole thing seems very fishy and the size of the fine and its circumstances solidify that. You guys are so thirsty to assume guilt on Intels part you do not question the accusations or its benefactors. This sounds to me like abuse of a judicial system for profit.
> 
> 2. If they benefit then its not blackmail. Its a contract. OEM's made good money off of this. They are just as much at guilt. To use the murder analogy that you guys are so fond of the OEM's were accessories to the murder. Why are they not fined? What do they get out of this deal? If the EU wanted to they could charge the OEM's with industrial espionage. After all they knew it was against the law and they went along with it to get a good deal then flipped on Intel to get an ever better long term deal. They played Intel and the EU. WHY ARE THEY NOT CHARGED?! There is more proof of this than of any Intel wrong doing yet you still paint them as the victims.
> 
> 3. I'm sorry but I have no clue what you mean by this.



Uh, I dind't see this one. Let's try to explain it in a civic way:

1. It's not fishy to me at all. First of all there are lot's of evidences here, plus many many others that are never going to be public, because those are the testimonies of the executives involved. Just because a bunch of e-mails is everything we got, I don't know how you assume there's nothing more. They can't tell who gave their testimony, because Intel and even their respective companies could retaliate. Also the fine is small, very small in comparison to what the law permits and considering the charges it could very well have been greater. The law says a maximum of 10% of annual revenue AFAIK. That would have been around $4 billion max and more than $2 billion considering the charges. Also that law has not been invented for Intel, many companies have been convicted under this law and all of them paid and probably proportionally much more than Intel. Intel crearly obtained a better treatment on this one, because they are big.

2. They didn't benefit in comparison to the prices that Intel would have needed to offer them in a free market situation. They just didn't. It's the example of the gun on your head all over again. Of course you benefit from giving all your money and keeping your life instead, but nothing hides the fact that they never gave you the better deal you could have: keep your life and your money.

3. Means that a thief thinks that everyone is a thief, I said this not calling you a thief, but as a reference that what you have seen on your gevernment doesn't happen everywhere. Your government might be a thief, and sure as hell that mine is too, but that doesn't happen in such high levels, and you wouldn't involve US companies like HP, Dell. If they wanted 1 billion they don't need to do anything special like that. They can just charge us a 0,5% more and that's it, they would get that billion and then some. No one would complain about a 0,5% when the budget has been increased a >>>5% every year, I think now stands at about 150 billion euros. They could increase foreign company's operation costs... There's a lot of things they could do to get a billion, other than fining Intel, because they spend more than that billion every year, looking for anti-competitive cases and proofs. Also take into account that Intel will pay that billion by installments, so it's a very small amount of money compared to what they could get in a less public maneuvre.

PD Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember reading that 40% of the fine was going to AMD for damages and some more to other affected companies.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 22, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Perhaps there was eurite in your croissant.



After this conversation mdm-adph I have come to the indisputable conclusion that you my friend are mildly retarded.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> After this conversation mdm-adph I have come to the indisputable conclusion that you my friend are mildly retarded.




Sorry but I had to laugh at this. God bless you all on TPU, truly awesome folks here. Im so glad I put your names out on my website for class and also on my discussion boards. Man I love this forum!


----------



## WhiteLotus (Sep 22, 2009)

I had to lol too.

Still props guys, you all deserve a E-cookie


----------



## wiak (Sep 22, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Sorry but I had to laugh at this. God bless you all on TPU, truly awesome folks here. Im so glad I put your names out on my website for class and also on my discussion boards. Man I love this forum!


dude i love you sideways


----------



## mdm-adph (Sep 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> After this conversation mdm-adph I have come to the indisputable conclusion that you my friend are mildly retarded.



At least I'm not an antidistastablishmeneurocist.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2010)

A little late in posting this but it is coming up again in some threads...


U.S. files antitrust suit against Intel, alleges unfair tactics used against rivals



> The *FTC isn't seeking monetary damages* from Intel. "We are frankly more focused on conduct," Richard Feinstein, director of the FTC's bureau of competition, said in a news conference. Such remedies could include forcing Intel to share intellectual property with competitors.


As I predicted, the FTC isn't one to issue fines unlike the EU.  Still a bit surprising they found Intel guilty at all.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Apr 29, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A little late in posting this but it is coming up again in some threads...
> 
> 
> U.S. files antitrust suit against Intel, alleges unfair tactics used against rivals
> ...


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 29, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A little late in posting this but it is coming up again in some threads...
> 
> 
> U.S. files antitrust suit against Intel, alleges unfair tactics used against rivals
> ...



Kind of don't see the point in this then. They find them guilty and all they get is a slap on the wrist and one guy _might_ lose his/her job.

Seems kinda pointless to me.

Unless I am missing something, if I am do tell.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2010)

A fine is a slap on the wrist.  In a lot of scenarios, it is more profitable to act illegally and pay the fine than to act legally not be fined.  What the FTC does is like probation--screw up and you go to corporate jail.  If the business doesn't comply with the FTC ruling, they have many options to take to *force* compliance with antitrust law.

This may also cascade to other issues like Intel denying a licence to NVIDIA for QuickPath Interconnect and Intel's right to restrict who has access to the x86 licence (Intel holds almost 90% of the market share and that will only worsen unless Intel is not allowed to choke hold the market through licencing).  The ruling essentially sets precedent establishing that Intel holds a monopoly.


----------

