The next round of legal wars begins in Europe
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6094813.html?part=rss&tag=6094813&subj=news
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6094813.html?part=rss&tag=6094813&subj=news
-
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.
AMD do it again..............in Germany
- Thread starter FrankJH
- Start date
Whilst many would have us believe that this is merely AMD having a bit of a strop and trying to dent Intel's dominance in the courts, personally I think the allegations are far from unfounded.
Microsoft has been repeatedly found guilty of anti-competitive practices and abusing its position in the market and it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover than Intel had been up to similar tricks, especially in light of how much AMD has encroached on their market in recent years.
Microsoft has been repeatedly found guilty of anti-competitive practices and abusing its position in the market and it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover than Intel had been up to similar tricks, especially in light of how much AMD has encroached on their market in recent years.
Dolph said:
Microsoft get fined because they bundle their crap in with their operating system demolishing any hope of any other provider being able to offer a competitive alternative. When you have a monopoly position as Microsoft do with near 90% of market share, utilising a closed source operating system it makes it incredibly difficult for other companies to code applications that can compete against Microsoft’s applications unless they can understand how certain parts of the operating system work.
Microsoft has refused to do this and where they have complied they have sent incomplete or meaningless technical data that can’t be used. much like Intel did to AMD in the 1980`s that left AMD a good 2 years behind with regards to its research. That is why they Microsoft fined.
AMD/Intel: a bitter history.
Remember also that in the 1980`s AMD and Intel entered into a technology sharing partnership with regards to the research and development of the 386 platform, AMD shared their research, Intel did not. Intel went on to release the 386 platform and gained massive market share from it and from the 486 platform based on the previous platforms design.
The first legal case against Intel was filed in the late 80`s and it was AMD`s hope to force Intel to share the research that AMD was owed according to the technology sharing agreement they had both entered into. In 1992 the case finally came to a close and Intel were found guilty and fined 10 million dollars and ordered to relinquish the relevant research materials with regards to the 386 platform.
by this time AMD had been royally shafted and were left playing catch up whilst Intel went on to further increase its market share. Intel has used its massive profits from that fraudulently obtained market share to subsidise and discount the CPU costs to companies like dell, HP, Compaq, ect, on the understanding that they do not purchase AMD chips and that any such agreement between those PC suppliers and AMD would result in those subsidies being withdrawn which would heavily damage those companies profit margins for its system sales because it would have to pay full price for Intel CPU`s.
So today you have a situation where buy those PC retailers expand, they buy more discounted Intel CPU`s, Intel gets richer and uses some of its massive profits to sure up its discount schemes with those companies which keeps AMD from ever obtaining any extra market share in the desktop PC arena.
The lawsuit today:
This is about those subsidies, from 2003 to 2006 AMD had the better product, it was cheaper, more energy efficient, and faster than its Intel rivals, that chip was the A64. in those 3 years AMD`s market share barely grew at all as the major pc suppliers refused to acknowledge AMD as a viable source for its CPU`s for fear of losing its discounts and subsidies from Intel.
Dolph said:yep, if all else fails, legislate yourself to competitativeness.... Shame it never actually works
Read up properly on the situation. Its got nothing to do with trying to legislate your way to the top, and everything to do with trying to ensure that there is a level playing field to compete on.
As I have always said, I have nothing against Intel chips, I just don’t like Intel. I don’t like Microsoft either but there I really don’t have a choice as i cant use Linux to save my life
Last edited:
I have read up fully on the situation (and done far more to debate it than an uncited copy and paste).
For the MS issue, I'll refer you to this thread as I can't be bothered to go over it all again.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17599610
I also notice in your assessment you totally neglect to mention the fact that AMD simply can't supply the market in the same way intel can, due to lack of production facilities...
Not to mention it is an attempt to legislate your way into a market by forcing people away from exclusive deals they have entered into by choice....
For the MS issue, I'll refer you to this thread as I can't be bothered to go over it all again.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17599610
I also notice in your assessment you totally neglect to mention the fact that AMD simply can't supply the market in the same way intel can, due to lack of production facilities...
Not to mention it is an attempt to legislate your way into a market by forcing people away from exclusive deals they have entered into by choice....
Dolph said:
First off, that’s a little insulting. Everything in my post I wrote from my own knowledge, nothing is cut and paste. I have read and still have most of the legal PDF`s available from both the Intel site and the AMD site and a few of the European office of fair trades documents as well. I have an interest in the legal affairs of business and an interest in business politics. Nothing is cut and paste, although if it pleases you I will admit to sorting out my spelling using Microsoft word.
AMD cant supply the market fully because they haven’t got the market share to generate the profits required to build the facilities, it needs to be taken on by just a few companies at first which would grow its market share, allow it to build those FAB labs to produce the CPU`s to further compete and increase its market share. It cant do this with Intel paying everyone to keep away from AMD and any other would be CPU provider for that matter.
As for
What choice ? during the mid to late 90`s and through to about 2002 the PC market was in a massive slump, if the worlds largest maker of a product that your company needs comes to you and says "we will give you this at a discount provided you only use us, this in turn will allow you tell sell your PC`s very cheaply and increase your profits" why would you say no.
I don’t blame dell, or many of the other pc manufacturers, their businesses are now locked into the fate of Intel and its "generous" but illegal offers.
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Has not Intel abandoned its case-by-case discount agreements recently?
AMD should really just give up and stick to trying to make decent chips
Intels been about years and has gotten a huge name and deal for it's self in the world market. Poxy nitpicking from AMD aint going to make Intel look bad but just how pafetic AMD are at splitting hairs for *AHEMS* sakes
Intels been about years and has gotten a huge name and deal for it's self in the world market. Poxy nitpicking from AMD aint going to make Intel look bad but just how pafetic AMD are at splitting hairs for *AHEMS* sakes
No, Microsoft get found guilty for abusing their position in the market to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors, just as I suspect Intel have done. Like it or not, in many countries such behaviour is against the law and that's what they've been brought to task for.Dolph said:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
if microsoft is guilty for abusing their position in the market then Apple should be hang in public. 
locutus12 said:
My apologies in that case.
But that's not simply because of deals certian manufacturers have with Intel, it's also about mindsets, especially in the corporate market (which makes up the majority of PC sales). There's still an ongoing attitude of "No-one ever got fired for buying Intel", which is very much prevelant. Because Intel have a good reputation, you buy intel and it goes wrong, and the people who matter (ie those paying your wages) respond with "Well you bought Intel, it's not your fault", whereas if you buy anything else, and there is a problem, they'll blame you for not buying Intel. Combine that with the fact that the performance differences are far less important for most common user applications, and for most people you have a no-brainer.
Such agreements or offers aren't actually illegal, with one major exception, and that's if your business gets arbitrarly defined as a monopoly by the government (which tends to happen when they can make money by doing so. Microsoft is the best example of this, it's currently like a cow that you can carve steaks out of without killing it and they always grow back).
If AMD offered exclusive deals, it would be entirely legal, because they aren't classified as a monopoly, it would be classed as a good marketing strategy.
I have little faith in the way the courts in the US and EU handle their defined monopolies. It seems to stem entirely from the "we don't agree you should be allowed to use the same tactics other people do" school of thought, and seems to me to be predominantly policed where money can be made.
Do I think Intel have done some tactics to keep AMD down? Quite probably, but that's what businesses do to each other...