EU publishes details of how intel broke the law

[Dolph]

Who gave the EU the authority to fine a US based company ?

Thats what I would like to know, would they dare to fine a Chinese company ?

They do business in the EU, as do the other companies involved.

Well who gets all the fine money? Surely it should goto AMD for the potential loss of Revenue?

IF not then if I was AMD I would be taking the next step, another court case for Intel.

Fines levied by the EU go into the EU coffers, hence the frequent allegations of corruption and of choosing wealthy targets...

 

[G_Wizz]

They do business in the EU, as do the other companies involved....

Sorry, not a good enough excuse. I am sure that Intel does business in Zimbabwe although maybe not much, does that give Mugabe the authority to fine Intel ?

 

[Dolph]

Sorry, not a good enough excuse. I am sure that Intel does business in Zimbabwe although maybe not much, does that give Mugabe the authority to fine Intel ?

Yes, of course Intel could simply not pay and withdraw from the territory, but the cost of withdrawing from the EU vs the cost of paying the fine makes it obvious which choice will be the correct one...

 

[FrankJH]

That is exactly why $1B is pretty small fry to them (I bet their taxes are more than that)

 

[kitfit1]

Not a bad analogy, but it needs to be put in the same context as Intel.

25% off is fine, but the butcher down the road was already selling his sausages 34% cheaper anyway. Plus his sausages were much tastier and cooked in half the time (that is in cpu talk, were faster and clocked better).

If at the time AMD had got a FAIR share of the market, they would have had more money to invest in R&D. Which could have meant They would still have the best cpu's (as they did then).

So you see, Government agency's absolutely need to get involved in these types of situation. Because if they don't, we end up having to buy off of companies that will rip us off, because they have a monopoly.

Erm, no, someone with an actual understanding of the histories of CPU architecture (as well as experience using products) from both companies.

I can go through the architectures and the differences in detail if you really want... But there is nothing fanboyish about correcting misconceptions and revisionist history.

I owned AMD kit during much of this time, because it had the performance edge, but it didn't have it because AMD did better research...

Tell me Dolph, at what point in my post were there ANY "misconceptions". Also tell me at what point was i writing a "revisionist history", and at what point did i say that AMD did "better research".

 

[Temi_D]

wow...a corrupt company handing a fine to another corrupt company...

 

[Dolph]

Tell me Dolph, at what point in my post were there ANY "misconceptions". Also tell me at what point was i writing a "revisionist history", and at what point did i say that AMD did "better research".

This line here

If at the time AMD had got a FAIR share of the market, they would have had more money to invest in R&D. Which could have meant They would still have the best cpu's (as they did then).

Implies that if their R&D budget hadn't been squeezed, they could have developed better processors than Intel. My point is that AMD's R&D department were never responsible for developing better processes than Intel. No-one is denying that AMD had the better processor for a time during the athlon/P4 era, but how that came to pass isn't something AMD could really sustain, nor is it something that would have continued with more money.

AMD were ahead because Intel cocked up, not because AMD did something amazing...

 

[aln]

This line here



Implies that if their R&D budget hadn't been squeezed, they could have developed better processors than Intel. My point is that AMD's R&D department were never responsible for developing better processes than Intel. No-one is denying that AMD had the better processor for a time during the athlon/P4 era, but how that came to pass isn't something AMD could really sustain, nor is it something that would have continued with more money.

AMD were ahead because Intel cocked up, not because AMD did something amazing...

On the other hand, making more sales would have given them the ability to invest more into R&D to compete with Intel. Better competition is better for you and me. I hope they both keep trying to outdo each other.

 

[Dolph]

On the other hand, making more sales would have given them the ability to invest more into R&D to compete with Intel. Better competition is better for you and me. I hope they both keep trying to outdo each other.

Oh, so do I, please don't get me wrong, I remember how much processors used to cost in the 90's compared to now, and the pace of progress back then. Competition has been a good thing. I'm just realistic about AMD's general performance in the area of CPU's. The only real innovative thing they have done that took off is the x86-64 instruction set, which is great (because Itanium was never really going to bring 64bit to the masses), but apart from that, they have always been playing catchup.

 

[feeddagoat]

Not a bad analogy, but it needs to be put in the same context as Intel.

25% off is fine, but the butcher down the road was already selling his sausages 34% cheaper anyway. Plus his sausages were much tastier and cooked in half the time (that is in cpu talk, were faster and clocked better).

If at the time AMD had got a FAIR share of the market, they would have had more money to invest in R&D. Which could have meant They would still have the best cpu's (as they did then).

So you see, Government agency's absolutely need to get involved in these types of situation. Because if they don't, we end up having to buy off of companies that will rip us off, because they have a monopoly.

While his analigy was spot on I think the easiest way to show why this is slightly different is the fact there arn't only 2 butchers in the world. Competiton drives prices down and in this market there are only 2 competetors

 

[topbanana]

Please quote your sources