• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel dispute fine for being a "Bully"

linwelin

linwelin

linwelin

Associate
Joined
16 Dec 2009
Posts
1,571
Location
Belfast
Ok i heard nothing about this untill i seen this posted on another forum, so i will just copy paste that, what does everyone think ?


Another Forum said:
In case you weren't up to speed on this..

Intel got caught giving their partners money to delay the AMD equipped flavour of their hardware, as well as paying them extra for CPU's they obtained from intel over AMD. (kinda like rebates, but a tad nastier.)

amd_vs_intel_2.jpg


As per this Tom's Hardware article they are not disputing the fine (1.3B) that got handed down.

What are your thoughts, do you think what they did was wrong? Was it simply.. Good business practise?


Before you start flaming AMD, this was brought about by the EU antitrust regulators, not AMD.

Personally, any business that has to rely on underhanded techniques like this clearly don't give a rats arse about the consumer.
Click to expand...
 
This can only end well.

I'd personally see Intel hit harder than 1.3 billion, AMD need the R&D budget desperately, perhaps all those years ago, had Intel not done dirty deals, AMD would be a stronger competitor as of today.
Although, your OP confuses me, seems contradicting.

Although, the article seems to state Intel haven't paid the 1.3 billion yet, I thought they'd paid it 2 years ago personally.
 
Martini1991 said:
This can only end well.

I'd personally see Intel hit harder than 1.3 billion, AMD need the R&D budget desperately, perhaps all those years ago, had Intel not done dirty deals, AMD would be a stronger competitor as of today.
Although, your OP confuses me, seems contradicting.

Although, the article seems to state Intel haven't paid the 1.3 billion yet, I thought they'd paid it 2 years ago personally.
Click to expand...

This is the first i had ever heard of it to be honest, as i said i found this on another forum and just copy pasted it here to see what everyone thinks.
 
I'm against any kind of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour but unfortunately it's an inevitability of Capitalism, just look around at all other industries a few big fish is all that is left whilst the little fish have gradually been eaten up or put out of business.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that Intel lose the appeal.
 
Me too. Intel have been playing dirty since ever. God knows how many Athlons didn't sell due to mobo shortages because Intel threatened mobo makers with 'shortages' if they made AMD chipset boards etc.. back in the early K7 days, along with a whole book full of dirty tricks. Love their cpus, hate their practices.
 
Martini1991 said:
This can only end well.

I'd personally see Intel hit harder than 1.3 billion, AMD need the R&D budget desperately, perhaps all those years ago, had Intel not done dirty deals, AMD would be a stronger competitor as of today.
Although, your OP confuses me, seems contradicting.

Although, the article seems to state Intel haven't paid the 1.3 billion yet, I thought they'd paid it 2 years ago personally.
Click to expand...

Haven't Intel already paid AMD $1.25 billion to settle their disputes as you thought?

The fine from the EU is a separate matter though probably arising from the same issues.
 
Intel basically 'paid off' AMD to not get involved in the case. They could have and should have been fined a heck of allot more. $1.3Billion is nowt to them tbh.
 
Didn't this happen ages ago? Intel were doing this when AMD were on top, I remember that they paid Dell to use more Intel CPUs in their machines and did the same to other PC manufacturers.
 
AMD did get that money (compensation money i think) and used it for there purchase of ATI who were at the time failing, the best thing they ever did.....

That, as has been stated was not an AMD complaint.

what AMD did do was take Intel to court for a separate matter, Intel made a compiler, a very good and popular compiler that they sold cheaply or gave away, what they did not tell software developers is that there compiler actively discriminated against other CPU's, throttling there performance, not just AMD CPU's but any CPU that was not Intel.

Intel settled that one with AMD out of court, none the less Intel was ordered to make it clear to developers that the compilers may discriminate against none Intel CPU's.

Please don't take this as (mindless) bashing Intel, they make good CPU's, so they don't need to do any of this, the fact that they do despite the quality of there CPU's makes them real low lives, they just want the market entirely to themselves, its like they are actively trying to push all competition, no mater how small out of business, presumably so they can jack prices right up and do nothing to advance there products.
 
Last edited:
The thought occurs that their business ethics increase their revenue, hence R&D funding, hence increase processor performance. On the other hand-

The last time AMD were competitive was around Pentium 4- which iirc was initially hoped to retail at 10GHz but unfortunately had to be abandoned (today's chip's derive more from P3 than from P4). That wasn't AMD being good so much as Intel dropping the ball.

Perhaps AMD simply aren't as good at processor design as Intel. Competition is a nice idea, and the EU hang much of their economic strategy off the assumption that competition is always a good thing. It doesn't necessarily follow that fining the successful company to fund the incompetent one is good for the consumer however. Fining the successful company to fund the EU is good for the EU but transparently bad for the consumer.

Giving lots of support to the least competent group while fining the most competent is more likely to drag the better group down than to raise the worse group up. If by some good fortune Intel are forced to fund AMD's R&D until Intel's dominant position is eroded, Intel's chips will get worse. Eventually AMD will overtake, at which point AMD will be fined to support Intel. This just isn't that sound a premise, in the long term it makes both groups worse to ensure neither kill the other.

I suppose I don't like the idea of choosing to punish the winning team. It's demotivating.
 
Last edited:
JonJ678 said:
The thought occurs that their business ethics increase their revenue, hence R&D funding, hence increase processor performance. On the other hand-

The last time AMD were competitive was around Pentium 4- which iirc was initially hoped to retail at 10GHz but unfortunately had to be abandoned (today's chip's derive more from P3 than from P4). That wasn't AMD being good so much as Intel dropping the ball.

Perhaps AMD simply aren't as good at processor design as Intel. Competition is a nice idea, and the EU hang much of their economic strategy off the assumption that competition is always a good thing. It doesn't necessarily follow that fining the successful company to fund the incompetent one is good for the consumer however. Fining the successful company to fund the EU is good for the EU but transparently bad for the consumer.

Giving lots of support to the least competent group while fining the most competent is more likely to drag the better group down than to raise the worse group up. If by some good fortune Intel are forced to fund AMD's R&D until Intel's dominant position is eroded, Intel's chips will get worse. Eventually AMD will overtake, at which point AMD will be fined to support Intel. This just isn't that sound a premise, in the long term it makes both groups worse to ensure neither kill the other.

I suppose I don't like the idea of choosing to punish the winning team. It's demotivating.
Click to expand...

oh you cannot be serious? lol, i suppose without AMD or any other CPU designer in the way we would all get better chips from 1 company at bargain basement prices?
 
Last edited:
The world as it is today is a very messed up place, democracy is dictatorship just less obvious one tbh democracy doesnt exist we got Capitalism, people who you see on tv barely decide anything. If George Bush had to call Rupert Murdoch before invading Iraq to make sure he got good press in the morning... and rupert murdoch got banged up within months, which means even with capabilities of influencing decisions of President there are more powerful people than him, who took him out so quickly.

Dont start saying saying that he got took out cause he did bad, everyone in Scotland Yard knew about phone hacking for many years but it always got shelved, looks like the "shelver" left and Rupert got done over. How powerful would "Shelver" need to be, to completely stall British justice system?

Latest news on HSBC and Barclays and whole banking world kinda all support that. They stole money for themselves then forced people to pay them out again, its nice to know when you can steal 1 pound you will always get another one without consequences... There is some information that some MP`s in America were threatened and forced to vote "yes" on banks bailout... I dare you to walk in a shop and steal money, you will have your whole life ruined with criminal records, no one will pay you out million`s worth of bonuses.

HSBC with their money laundering business which funded and allowed drug cartels to prosper resulting in so many deaths around the world...

We are bought up here as money and power wanting machines and some of us will do anything to get there....

dirty,dirty world...
 
Last edited:
JonJ678 said:
The thought occurs that their business ethics increase their revenue, hence R&D funding, hence increase processor performance. On the other hand-

The last time AMD were competitive was around Pentium 4- which iirc was initially hoped to retail at 10GHz but unfortunately had to be abandoned (today's chip's derive more from P3 than from P4). That wasn't AMD being good so much as Intel dropping the ball.

Perhaps AMD simply aren't as good at processor design as Intel. Competition is a nice idea, and the EU hang much of their economic strategy off the assumption that competition is always a good thing. It doesn't necessarily follow that fining the successful company to fund the incompetent one is good for the consumer however. Fining the successful company to fund the EU is good for the EU but transparently bad for the consumer.

Giving lots of support to the least competent group while fining the most competent is more likely to drag the better group down than to raise the worse group up. If by some good fortune Intel are forced to fund AMD's R&D until Intel's dominant position is eroded, Intel's chips will get worse. Eventually AMD will overtake, at which point AMD will be fined to support Intel. This just isn't that sound a premise, in the long term it makes both groups worse to ensure neither kill the other.

I suppose I don't like the idea of choosing to punish the winning team. It's demotivating.
Click to expand...

So you think monopolies are good for consumers? :confused:
 
linwelin said:
Ok i heard nothing about this untill i seen this posted on another forum, so i will just copy paste that, what does everyone think ?
Click to expand...

Check out the comments section on that Toms Hardware link. It staggers me is the amount of morons on Toms Hardware that are actually trying to validate Intel's actions. Don't they realise Intel is effectively giving the consumer a bum deal by stifling competition? :eek:
 
Freddie1980 said:
Check out the comments section on that Toms Hardware link. It staggers me is the amount of morons on Toms Hardware that are actually trying to validate Intel's actions. Don't they realise Intel is effectively giving the consumer a bum deal by stifling competition? :eek:
Click to expand...

I think one calls ppl like that Fanbois.

@ Lazder, i could not agree with you more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom