Associate
Interesting article... just a bit of it 
I don't know if this is the right place to post it but I read in this forum many fanboys defending intel 'regarding this matter' so I guess it is OK to post it in this section (if no, please move it to the right section or delete it)
'Pulling no punches, the EC went on to explain exactly how Intel broke antitrust laws. Top of the list were a list of conditional rebates, which essentially allowed manufacturers, including Dell, NEC and Lenovo, to buy processors at a discount provided they didn't buy AMD processors.
The EC found that in February 2003 an internal Dell presentation outlined how Intel retaliation for selling AMD processors "could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]". Similar stories were found elsewhere in other companies.
Intel rebates to HP from November 2002 to May 2005 were conditional on HP purchasing no less than 95 per cent of its processor for its business desktops from Intel. For NEC in a period from October 2002 to November 2005 Intel rebates were conditional on NEC purchasing no less than 80 per cent of its processors for its desktop and laptops from Intel. For Lenovo, the Intel rebate in 2007 was based on Lenovo purchasing all of its laptop processors
The EC also found evidence of naked restrictions. Some of the key points included Intel making payments to HP between November 2002 and May 2005 on the condition that HP would only sell AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises and only directly (not through distributors). Payments to Acer were on the condition that Acer would postpone the launch of an AMD-based laptop from September 2003 until January 2004. Payments to Lenovo were on the condition that Lenovo would postpone the launch of an AMD-based laptop from June 2006 until the end of 2006.
In addition to those points the EC also found that Intel concealed the details of these conditions, often verbally agreeing them.
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 per cent aligned to Intel."
The reason for all of these charges, the EC found, was the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel. In many cases manufacturers were openly considering stocking more AMD-based computers.
The report outlines how in 2004 a Dell executive stated in an email to Intel 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."
I don't know if this is the right place to post it but I read in this forum many fanboys defending intel 'regarding this matter' so I guess it is OK to post it in this section (if no, please move it to the right section or delete it)'Pulling no punches, the EC went on to explain exactly how Intel broke antitrust laws. Top of the list were a list of conditional rebates, which essentially allowed manufacturers, including Dell, NEC and Lenovo, to buy processors at a discount provided they didn't buy AMD processors.
The EC found that in February 2003 an internal Dell presentation outlined how Intel retaliation for selling AMD processors "could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]". Similar stories were found elsewhere in other companies.
Intel rebates to HP from November 2002 to May 2005 were conditional on HP purchasing no less than 95 per cent of its processor for its business desktops from Intel. For NEC in a period from October 2002 to November 2005 Intel rebates were conditional on NEC purchasing no less than 80 per cent of its processors for its desktop and laptops from Intel. For Lenovo, the Intel rebate in 2007 was based on Lenovo purchasing all of its laptop processors
The EC also found evidence of naked restrictions. Some of the key points included Intel making payments to HP between November 2002 and May 2005 on the condition that HP would only sell AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises and only directly (not through distributors). Payments to Acer were on the condition that Acer would postpone the launch of an AMD-based laptop from September 2003 until January 2004. Payments to Lenovo were on the condition that Lenovo would postpone the launch of an AMD-based laptop from June 2006 until the end of 2006.
In addition to those points the EC also found that Intel concealed the details of these conditions, often verbally agreeing them.
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 per cent aligned to Intel."
The reason for all of these charges, the EC found, was the growing threat that AMD's products represented to Intel. In many cases manufacturers were openly considering stocking more AMD-based computers.
The report outlines how in 2004 a Dell executive stated in an email to Intel 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."
Last edited:
