© 2009 Bright side of news, All rights reserved. AMD and Anti-Competitive Practices

BRIGHT SIDE OF NEWS About | Advertise | Contact

Users profile

Username:
Password:

Lost password

Please enter your email address

Send

New user

Proceed to registration page.

| Register

SUBSCRIBE Newsletter | RSS Feeds

HOME

APPLE

GRAPHICS

HARDWARE

CLOUD COMPUTING

ENTERPRISE

SOFTWARE

BUSINESS

ENTERTAINMENT

SECURITY

News Analysis Interviews Reviews Rumors

Friday, March 19, 2010

Email this to a friend.

Your friend's e-mail:
Your Name:
Your e-mail:
Message subject:

Comments on article AMD and Anti-Competitive Practices

Comments

@Anti-Competitive by: Sean Kalinich on 9/3/2009

Better late than never,

Not sure where you are going with that one.
XFX Black Edition GTX 260 can perform just as well as a Stock GTX280. same thing with many of the OC'd cards.

Yet I am not seeing nVidia kicking XFX out of the market. There are OC'd ATI cards that out perform the next level up due the OC'd GPU core and Memory.

Your logic really makes no sense what so ever. This was a case of a single OEM being punished that is all.

As for protecting a brand name what has that got to do with anything???
The cards worked perfectly there were not problems with them at all
As an OEM if there is something wrong they are responsible not ATi. So I am also not sure where you are going with that one.

@sean - you miss the point by: Anonymous on 8/11/2009

Sean said
"When you buy an OEM or VAR product that OEM is responsible for all RMA's returns etc."

While that is true, the point is that the AMD/ATI brand name also take a hit. That is the reason for the restriction...protecting your Brand is VERY important.

Anti-competitve? by: Anonymous on 7/26/2009

Lets see, Palit released a graphics card, the HD 4850 with GDDR5 memory...that made it a bloody HD 4870, and since it was priced cheaper, is there any reason all the other manufacturers wanted them to stop it? If EVGA or XFX went out and beefed up a GTX 265 to the levels of a GTX 295 (hypothetical situation, just to make a point) and sold it, and all the other nvidia partners said quit and they didn't, nVidia would act the same way. Palit deserves to be dropped because of their attitude, let them go to being nVidia only, here in America there are only 2, maybe 3 manufacturers that deserve to make ATI cards: Sapphire (top quality), HIS and Powercolor.

the HD 4850 by: Sean Kalinich on 6/1/2009

Ths ATi HD 4850 uses a memory controller that supports GDDR3/4/5 per AMD's website.
the memory controller on the GPU has already been tested to comply with ATi's standards so these arguments do not hold up.

Palit did test the card with CE standards (as that logo was on the box if I remember correctly)just as they have to pass FCC and a host of other standards to sell them in US.

Again it was not validation that was the problem. Although I know that AMD claims that.

Anti competitive standards by: Sandia-X on 6/1/2009

As someone who spent 25 years actively engaged in antitrust law there are a lot of misunderstandings here about what is anti competitive and what is not. The crux of the Palit AMD controversy is modifications to the base design. ATI has a requirement that happens to follow Canadian law that a modified card must meet certain CE standards. As is all to common in the industry it becomes a question of how you test. CE like ANSI, ASTM, NIST SPEC.org has written rules. A good example of how rules or the absence there of affect results compare Anandtech's results for the http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3099&p=10 Harpertown vs Barcelona benchmarks. Now compare those with IEEE compliant spec.org results from Dell. http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2008q2/cpu2006-20080428-04236.html and http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2008q2/cpu2006-20080428-04221.html The two tests are not on the same planet. If I am in a court of law, I won't even look at the Anandtech results as they don't meet the Daubert standard for reliability. Without getting into the mess of patent law versus consumer protection laws a non spec board using ATI chips has to meet CE standards to be legal for sale in most countries. That means testing in the manner CE requires; not using some dreamed up method a la Anandtech. The guts of the controversy seem to hing on testing methodology. Canada is home to ATI so they get primary responsibility for testing and certification. If Palit doesn't follow CE practices then they are out.

Intel and AMD by: Michael A. McKenney on 6/1/2009

I have had both Intel and AMD for 20+ years. I have Opterons and Xeons at home. AMD has been whining for years about Intel. AMD can't ramp up production and compete with Intel. I upgraded from 940 Opterons to E5430 Xeons on my last build. The selection of AMD board was limited. Do they fines help consumers? I doubt it. If they forced them to cut prices instead of fines of $1B+, it would. Give a 30% coupon to existing AMD owners to upgrade at Intel's expense. Most would leave AMD and get Intel.

by: Sean Kalinich on 5/31/2009

Here are some of your comments.

They would seem to show that you are attempting to show me as Pro-Intel and that I do not feel intel did wrong

"You cannot then conclude that since they both behaved similarly bad and that only Intel is punished therefore the verdict against Intel is wrong, unfair, biased and should be thrown out. "

"My conclusion is this. You did not like what the EC did, you don't care much about AMD and what they represent in the marketplace (a balancing influence between 2 giants who throw their weights every which way and call it good business practices). And lastly you do like that 'Intel inside' feeling. You know, it just hurt so good!!!"

And my favorite...

"It would have been a more honest piece had you refrained from rushing to your grandiose conclusion which has no other purpose than to absolve Intel by juxtaposition."

Here at BSN we report the news, regardless of whoese feelings it hurts. The information we have on the subject shows a desire by AMD to control what their partners are doing with the purchased GPUs and cutting them off if they do not play by the rules AMD has in place.

Since the 4870 and 4850 share specs AMD is branding improperly. by its naming structure the 4870 GPU represents a one higher step in GPU design. but since it is not it should have been labeld as a 4850 and then differentiated by the memory level...
NOT BY a different numbering scheme. It is missleading and harmful to the consumer..
Again the same way that nVidia's branding is.

Again you fail to take any of this into account lionising AMD and vilifying Intel.

@Sean --- Over and Out. by: Frantz on 5/31/2009

Last comments from me on this topic.

You again seem to be missing the point.

You keep laboring under the impression that I am saying Intel is innocent.

I have never said that; and have said the opposite in just about all of my replies.

- What i said is that you are elevating AMD's restricting what OEMs can do with reference designs to the same level as Intel's monopolistic business practices.

Next, if the HD4850 is really just a 4870 with GDDR3 that is also misleading the consumer and harmful to the consumer.
It is no better than nVidia's rebranding.

- It would be misleading if that information about the difference between the 50 and 70 was not readily available. The consumer was not mislead nor harmed by these 2 product having the same chip and different memory types requiring different circuitry.

I am not taking any sides here but explaining that no company is beyond the practices that AMD (and many) condem in Intel.

- It's interesting here that you could not get yourself to say "the practices that Intel engaged in". Wake up. Intel has been found guilty of these practices in 3 different jurisdictions. These 3 verdicts are independent of anything bad that AMD may have engaged in. There is no 'equivalency' in that regard between Intel and AMD. You still have doubts. Your protests to the contrary are at odd with your arguments.

Your comment on proven monopolist is quite interesting, it shows that you are willing to take someone else's opinion on face value if it corresponds with your own (this is taking your vehemence in your posts into account). when someone shows a counter argument you will not view the argument openly.

- Maybe that willingness is based on my own observations. The fact that you seem to share them does not invalidate them in anyway. A broken watch shows the correct time twice a day. We can agree on some things while disagreeing on others.

I do not agree that a larger company must be restricted more than a smaller. it does not represent a fair market. The larger company should be able to enjoy their success and not be punished because of it. The law should be applied fairly to all corporate entities. But sadly that is rarely the case

- Intel is not being punished for their success. They are being restrained from some of their business practices which undermine the market place and stifle competition and creativity.They will continue to enjoy more success regardless of the fine. You and the public will continue to enjoy better products at competitive prices because of these 3 decisions.

I did not want to open another can of worms with you but it must remind you that 2 more antitrust cases (one by the US and the other by the State of NY) are pending in addition to the law suit brought by AMD against Intel. I hope you don't do anything rash when these verdicts come in.

OEMs usually don't modify for better by: Michael A. McKenney on 5/31/2009

HP uses LSI Logic, Intel, and Adaptec controllers. I found they usually strip functionality from their SCSI and SCSI RAID controllers instead of enhancing them. They limit what you can adjust on the controllers to a very few option list. HP Carepaq covers the hardware replacement. Most OEMs sell such support.

Gainward and Palit sell retail graphics cards. Many use the reference design. nVidia has never directly supported their designs. You go back to the manufacturer.

@Michael by: Sean Kalinich on 5/31/2009

When you buy an OEM or VAR product that OEM is responsible for all RMA's returns etc.

so if Palit, Gainward, XFX, Sapphire or any of a number of others OC the GPU they take the responsibility to replace the card.

Niether ATi nor nVidia are responsible for that GPU.

Same thing with CPUs etc.

If you buy a SmoothCreations system and the CPU goes bad (wether Intel or AMD) you send the defective product to SmoothCreations NOT Intel of AMD.

So the OEMs (since they take the responsibilit for RMA) should have the freedom to create better products.
In that type of market the consumer wins.

In a restrictive one only the manufacturers win.

Does AMD have a right to how their GPUs are used? by: Michael A. McKenney on 5/31/2009

I would say AMD/ATI and nVidia does have the right to limit their GPUs to reference no-overclocked design. This is how they designed the product. They take blame when graphics cards fail or don't work correctly. I read about the drivers being the problem. How many of the problems are from non-reference designs. AMD/ATI and nVidia need to write better agreements to prevent overclocking designs by patent law.

Flaw by: Sean Kalinich on 5/31/2009

You again seem to be missing the point.

You keep laboring under the impression that I am saying Intel is innocent.

I have never said that; and have said the oposite in just about all of my replies.

Next, if the HD4850 is really just a 4870 with GDDR3 that is also misleading the consumer and harmful to the consumer.

It is no better than nVidia's rebranding.

I am not taking any sides here but explaining that no company is beyond the practices that AMD (and many) condem in Intel.

Your comment on proven monopolist is quite interesting, it shows that you are willing to take someone else's opinion on face value if it corresponds with your own (this is taking your vehemence in your posts into account). when someone shows a counter argument you will not view the argument openly.

I do not agree that a larger company must be restricted more than a smaller. it does not represent a fair market. The larger company should be able to enjoy their sucess and not be punished because of it. The law should be applied fairly to all corporate entities. But sadly that is rarely the case.

Again back to the Dell deal, the consumer was hurt there considerably. By inflated retail prices and lack of supply in the retail channel.

@Sean ... Truce by: Frantz on 5/30/2009

You are right, I don't know you at all. I only know what you have written. I will restrict my comments to what you have written.

Truce over.

Point by point rebuttal again (mostly).

AMD does not have the right to restrict one company and not another.
- In other word you agree with the concept that Intel or AMD's business practices must meet certain criteria. I agree too. Now, do you also agree that since these 2 companies have different market footprints there will be some differences or some restrictions on the larger company that don't apply to the smaller one? The answer must be yes.

Asus Pushed out an OC'd HD 4770 and AMD is still selling them GPUs
- Most if not all the AIBs have developed overclocked cards from AMD's reference designs including Gainward/Palit. So developing and selling overclocked cards is not the reason for the cold shoulder.

so why cut off Palit?
- They developed an HD4850 with DDR5 which made that 4850 a 4870. Allowing them to market this product would have killed all sales of the legitimate 4870 and created a big problem in the channel. AMD had the right to stop Palit to protect themselves and the other AIBs. Had Palit stopped what they were doing there would have been no 'retaliations'. The situation between AMD and Gainward an the one between AMD and Intel are mile apart. Intel paid joint business partners to not deal with AMD. That is several degrees of magnitude different. Additionally such attempts are spelled out in the books as being illegal.

As for the deals with Dell and HP I was working with a retailer at the time and the prices of AMD CPUs went though the roof. They lost so much business because they could not get the money back from the CPUs they sold they went out of business.

But again as you indicate it was Dell's fault... Hmmmmmmmm

So we can say in that light that any company that took the Intel Rebates and Incentive money are at fault and not Intel right?

- It's not against the law for a business to make boneheaded decisions. In the DELL deal, AMD and the channel got screwed. AMD was a willful participant in that disaster. The shortage created the rise in price which would only matter if you could get them. The reason I blamed DELL because they wanted to kill AMD's channel business and AMD was too dumb to see that. Again, that was not against the law.

They have fined Microsoft and Intel, but not Apple (how has a bundled browser and more control over hardware and software than MS)
- 2 of the above 3 companies are recognized monopolists. They are judged by the standards created for monopolies. Apple would love to be in that category and in fact they act as one. But, guess what, they have not been taken to court for engaging in monopolistic behaviors. Therefore until they are and are found guilty they get away with a lot of questionable business practices.

Nor have they looked into AMD's practices or the big media companies.

- 2 ways the EC would go after AMD.
- They behave so badly that the EC would have no choice but to look into what's going on.
- Some business entity operating in the EU files a complaint against them alleging monopolistic behaviors.

If the EC (or any governing body) is truly fair and impartial they would go after all of them

- The EC have no reason to go after AMD on monopoly or bad business acumen grounds.
- Their focus is on large corporations that are acting against a fair and orderly market place.
- I would love to see them go after the Music industry or the Movie industry. Those DVD codes have successfully divided the planet into seven selling zones(killing zones?) No other entity or army has managed to accomplish that.

In summary, looking at Intel's practices and elevating AMD's own practices to the same level is not an accurate analysis of the situation. You cannot then conclude that since they both behaved similarly bad and that only Intel is punished therefore the verdict against Intel is wrong, unfair, biased and should be thrown out.

@Frantz by: Sean Kalinich on 5/30/2009

Hmmmm I know of many cases where the jury was wrong.
I have no hurt feelings though so try again.

Considering that you do not know me at all it is interesting that you can state where I am comming from with this.

It does not matter what AMD has been expsosed to. The law (as you have put it) it is the law. AMD HAS TO ABIDE BY IT.

AMD does not have the right to restrict one company and not another.
Asus Pushed out an OC'd HD 4770 and AMD is still selling them GPUs

so why cut off Palit?

As for the deals with Dell and HP I was working with a retailer at the time and the prices of AMD CPUs went though the roof. They lost so much business because they could not get the money back from the CPUs they sold they went out of business.

But again as you indicate it was Dell's fault... Hmmmmmmmm

So we can say in that light that any company that took the Intel Rebates and Incentive money are at fault and not Intel right?

remember one standard has to apply to all.
That is the puspose of law, to be fair and impartial...
it is for that reason alone that I do not think the EC findings are apropritate.

They have fined Microsoft and Intel, but not Apple (how has a bundled browser and more control over hardware and software than MS)

Nor have they looked into AMD's practces or the big media companies.

It the EC (or any governing body) is truly fair and impartial they would go after all of them...

Again since you seem to miss this each time.
It does not matter what the EC found, I stated my opinion (that is what an analysis is after all). I do not feel that the fine was apropriate. I DO feel that Intel's practices were unethical.

I just have a hard time finding where consumer harm was done and do not see the evidence pointing to that.

This proves EC and EU need to stop bothering companies by: Michael A. McKenney on 5/30/2009

The EC and EU should stop bothering companies. They don't rule fairly and consistently. Look at Microsoft and Intel.

@Sean....point by point...... by: Frantz on 5/30/2009

Nice rant,
- Thanks..flattery will get you some reprieve.

However the facts do not sit well there.
- OK, let go thru them...not the facts but your views on them

If you actually read the article you will see that at no time did I absolve Intel of what they did.
- You cannot prove that....If I did no read your article, how do I know what you wrote?

AMD has been just as guilty as Intel of doing this they do not play well with their partners nor their resellers.
- Hear says... show me a link or legal document. Even if you are correct, show me the evidence.

AMD hurt the retail sellers with their deals with Dell and HP. they added over 40% to the cost of retail CPUS in order to cover the costs of the deal they gave Dell and HP.
- AMD was hurt by the DELL deal.. so was the channel too. DELL did no leave up to the mutual understanding. Ever wonder why Rollins was shown the door shortly after? HP was less of a problem. they took only their free CPUs. They did not try to undermine AMD. You can sell at a lower price when its either that or your go tits up.

I do like how it is ok for AMD to act one way but not one else.
- A monopoly has more legal restrictions and therefore more opportunities to act evil... AMD is trying to get there(graphics). Give them sometimes. Having suffered from a monopoly they will behave differently.

AMD can restrict partners and force them through embargo to act how they want... but no one else can.. if they do that is bad.
- If the restrictions are not imposed on only 1.. then it's OK. AMD can dictate under what conditions their AIBs can 'improve' on their reference designs and when these products can be sold relative to the intro of the original models. Intel's restrictions are entirely different. And, BECAUSE they are a monopoly, they are illegal. Try to understand this point. it's the cornerstone of the 3 cases where Intel was found guilty)

You accuse me of being biased here but as I have stated what Intel did was not ethical but I do not think it was illegal.
- You prefer being wrong then. Your opinion does not carry any weight in the 3 courts that found Intel guilty.

However it is very wrong to impose one set of standards to one company and not to them all.
- If you are a monopoly your actions can be judged to go beyond wrong, which is a moral judgment. They can be found to be plainly illegal period. Any other company can be fined too if they are found guilty. A case must be made.

What you are expressing are feelings of hurt and disappointment , they have no legal weight. Not in this time space continuum anyway.

@Sean....point by point by: Frantz on 5/30/2009

Nice rant,(thanks..flattery will get you some reprieve)

However the facts do not sit well there.(let go thru them...not the facts but your view on them)

If you actually read the article you will see that at no time did I absolve Intel of what they did.(You cannot prove that....If I did no read your article, how do I know what you wrote?)

AMD has been just as guilty as Intel of doing this they do not play well with their partners nor their resellers.(hear says... show me a link or legal document)

AMD hurt the retail sellers with their deals with Dell and HP. they added over 40% to the cost of retail CPUS in order to cover the costs of the deal they gave Dell and HP.(AMD was hurt by the DELL deal.. so was the channel too.DELL did no leave up to the mutual understanding. Ever wonder why Rollins was shown the door shortly after?) HP was less of a problem. You can sell at a lower price if either that or your go tits up)

I do like how it is ok for AMD to act one way but not one else.(A monopoly has more restrictions and more opportunities to act evil... AMD is trying to get there. give them sometimes. Having suffered from a monopoly lets hope they will behave differently)

AMD can restrict partners and force them through embargo to act how they want... but no one else can.. if they do that is bad.(If the restrictions are not imposed on only 1.. then it's OK. AMD can dictate under what conditions their AIB caIntel's restrictions are of an illegal nature because they are a monopoly..try to understand this point. it's the cornerstone of the 3 cases where Intel was found guilty)

You accuse me of being biased here but as I have stated what Intel did was not ethical but I do not think it was illegal.(You prefer being wrong then...Your opinion does not carry any weight in the 3 courts that found Intel guilty.)

However it is very wrong to impose one set of standards to one company and not to them all.(If you are a monopoly,,yes it goes beyond wrong which is a moral judgment. It is plainly illegal period. Any other company can be fined too if they are found guilty....)

What you are expressing are feelings, they have no legal weight. Not in this time space continuum anyway.

@Frantz by: Sean Kalinich on 5/30/2009

Nice rant,
However the facts do not sit well there.

If you actually read the article you will see that at no time did I absolve Intel of what they did.

AMD has been just as guilty as Intel of doing this they do not play well with their partners nor their resellers.

AMD hurt the retail sellers with their deals with Dell and HP. they added over 40% to the cost of retail CPUS in order to cover the costs of the deal they gave Dell and HP.

I do like how it is ok for AMD to act one way but not one else.

AMD can restrict partners and force them through embargo to act how they want... but no one else can.. if they do that is bad.

You accuse me of being baised here but as I have stated what Intel did was not ethical but I do not think it was illegal.

However it is very wrong to impose one set of standards to one comapny and not to them all.

The sky is falling..... NOT by: Frantz on 5/30/2009

@Sean,

My objection to your article was based on the followings:

a) The 'facts'. (AMD's selective restrictions on Gainward)
b) Your quick judgment. AMD is guilty of these allegations.
c) your grand conclusion. if AMD can conduct themselves in this manner then they have no standing complaining about Intel's.

You then introduced yourself as an analyst i.e. an impartial arbiter of the facts with no bones to pick with any of the defenders in your Kangaroo court.

My conclusion is this. You did not like what the EC did, you don't care much about AMD and what they represent in the marketplace (a balancing influence between 2 giants who throw their weights every which way and call it good business practices). And lastly you do like that 'Intel inside' feeling. You know, it just hurt so good!!!

It would have been a more honest piece had you refrained from rushing to your grandiose conclusion which has no other purpose than to absolve Intel by juxtaposition.

You are not unique showing that irrational feeling about Intel's fines and finding very creative ways to vent about the EC and their minion AMD.

This rejection is all over the Web mostly on this side of the Pond, and generally from people who have no idea what the real issues are.

Let's take a quick look.

When has it even been adjudicated that illegal business practices are OK because x number of companies routinely engage in them?

Most court disputes are adjudicated on the preponderance of evidence presented to the court. The defendant has access to all the evidence presented against them.

Even assuming that the behavior of Intel and AMD are similar, they are not the same. Intel and AMD are competitors. AMD and Gainward are supplier and reseller respectively. That relationship is governed by different rules and regulations.

Intel has been found previously to be a monopoly. That fact is neither good nor bad and does not negatively predispose any governing entity against Intel. That fact however imposes certain clearly defined restrictions on business practices by such monopoly.

When a monopoly engages in forbidden business practices,the only conclusion to be drawn is that the public's interest is damaged.

The EC was setup as a court by the governing bodies from constituent countries to investigate and settle all business complaints in their jurisdictions.The EC has the authority to fine Intel based on their 8 years review of Intel's business practices in the EU.

2 other such authorities (in Japan and South Korea) have reviewed similar and same practices in their territories and have reached the same conclusion albeit with more feeble consequences for Intel.

AMD imposes the same restrictions vis-a-vis the modifications and the timeframes for rolling out such modifications into the marketplace on all their resellers not just Gaiward.

AMD is not a monopoly.

AMD plays nice with their partners (most of the time).

No partners have brought a malpractice complaints against AMD in any jurisdiction where they sell their products.

Hurt Intel fans need to look at this 'incident' the same way Intel does: Just the cost of doing business.

Move along, nothing to see here.

I have been all over Europe by: Michael A. McKenney on 5/29/2009

I have been from London to St. Petersburg and Barcelona to Ephesus. I have seen how the EU handles US companies vs EU companies. The difference is US companies are much larger in capital. European companies can't grow to be large enough to play like Intel and Microsoft. They are overtaxes and burdened with laws. I look at European cell phone companies being told how much they can charge for fees. Cell phone manufacturers play in an unfair market. Intel and AMD are US companies. Could AMD put out OEM CPUs for a HP Proliant line of servers from day 1 to day last? I doubt it. They had problems keeping Dell happy with quantities and low prices.

The socialist rules don't benefit any company. They can't grow financially to hire more staff and afford engineering. You have fights between companies over Airbus closing factories. Look at France, companies can't make money because they don't play by the same work rules at the UK and Germany. You have constant fights over making everyone in the EU work less for more money.

RE: Michael by: Theo Valich on 5/29/2009

Michael, please don't. Don't go after the EU. I lived in the US and I am well aware of all the anti-competitive practices employed by the US gov't.
This is not a consipracy theory, this is simply easily identifiable if you look at the documents submitted to the WHO.
US heavily subsidizes corn production industry, and that is the reason why every soft drink in the US has corn syrup. To make the matters clear, the most healthiest juices you can buy - you can buy them in US. Don't get me started about EU and emulgator policy.

But seriously, the communist-style protection deployed by the US gov't in "protected sectors" such as automotive, airline and defence industry only brought current economical mayhem. Remember all the shit that Branson had in opening Virgin America airline? Those Airbus A320's parked for almost two years at SFO? So that we could pay $5 for a can of coke in US Airways plane?

Competition is needed on every level. After all, competition is what started the human race. We competed against all the animals that inhabit the Earth and let's face it, we're neither the most strong or the most smart being on the planet. But we have the fusion of two.

The inception of life happens when one spermatozoid beats the rest and breaks the Ovum barier. Competition between 300,000+ ends with one victor - creation of life.

From that basic principle, the birth of life - to the current talk about how companies battle each other, or what product is better, what tactic is better deployed... we get the same base principle. Anybody who stifles the competion by playing a mockery of market laws, which are just the extension of primal laws in nature - is wrong. Attacking EU and keeping silent about US is just... opening a can of worms.

Ed.

@Gipsel by: Sean Kalinich on 5/29/2009

I am not saying that what Intel did was not wrong.

However, the EC is not a court. it is not beyond reasonable doubt for guilt. It is perponderance of evidence (which usually means more than 50% or 50%+1). that is if there is a jury something that the EC does not have.

If we look at the Cell Phone Carriers we see worse that what Intel is doing going on. exclusive deals for high-end phones etc.

When will he EC be breathing down their necks?

Again, I read many of the documents and foumd them to be weak if viewed as a piece of intelligence. Or evidecne, however if you use another non-releated investigation you can piece that in and attempt to show a "pattern of behavior" which is what they did.

I am waiting for the full 500+ page report. As a former Intelligence Anaylst (amongst many many other things) I want to read the data myself.

But the pieces that I saw, when viewed from a cold stand point did not present enough evidence to show harm to the consumer. I feel that the fine was out of line and that the findings had other motivations.

for the record, what Intel was doing at the time was not ethical, but I am not sure it was ilegal. and certainly not differnt from what hundreds of other companies do every day.

@Sean by: Gipsel on 5/29/2009

Maybe the topic of my comment was a bit harsh (didn't had my coffee that early in the morning), but the argument still stands. There is real factual evidence for intels rebate system (even intel admits that!), as Theo said. And I think it is a big difference if you just give some volume discount or if you give discounts based on the market share of your competitor or the introduction dates of products equipped with CPUs of your competitor. Therefore I really think your statement
"Even the EU admits that they never found direct "don't buy AMD" rebates only evidence indicating that they were made."
is simply not true. The European commission explicitly stated they found quite some evidence for the allegations against intel (the full 542 page statement is not yet released, but they mentioned explicitly the Mediamarkt issue amongst others at the press conference). Otherwise there would not be a one billion euros fine. They are not THAT stupid.

But as Theo said, the policies of intel is maybe not the topic here.

Guilty? by: Michael A. McKenney on 5/29/2009

Only thing US companies are guilty of is doing business in a socialist EU. When will they learn to stop allowing their products to be sold in the EU. Microsoft should have closed shop in the EU and not allowed its products to be sold and supported in the EU.

Intel should do the same. Stop doing business in the EU. In China, you pay to play. In the EU, they just extort money from you.

@Gipsel by: Sean Kalinich on 5/29/2009

If I testify and say you did something but have no supporting documentation (no bank records of transfers were ever produced) in court that is called hearsay evidence.
E-mails alluding to that are called circumstantial.

Even the EU admits that they never found direct "don't buy AMD" rebates only evidence indicating that they were made.

If this is anti-competative then EVREY automobile dealership that offers owner loyalty cashe is guilty.
EVRY store that offers an exclusive rebate or special pricing is.

Every WANTS Intel to be guilty of this, it makes it so much easier to excuse AMD's poor business strategies and practices.

I am not saying Intel is not a shady and dirty company (in fact I say that in the article) but I think that AMD is just as dirty and shady they just do not have the resources that Intel does to make the most of it.

AMD has never had the manufacturing capacity to make CPUs for the Big OEMs Micheal Dell often made the comment that their decision to not use AMD was based on their inability to maintain volumes needed by Dell.

HP made similar statements.

One thing that everyone seems to miss here, in stores (clothing, food, etc) there are brand dominance, clothing lines will pay and offer discounts to keep their lines prominent etc. Why is it only in the CPU world that this is a problem?

Was Intel guilty of everything they were accused of? I think they gave rebates that were on the shady side but then again so does just about every other company out (including asking to give their product dominance) AMD (due to poor business practices) could not keep up.

Instead of wasting hundreds of millions on lawyers in this case why not dump that into the company to make it competative? Add more manufacturing capacity How much money was dumped down Ruiz?How much moeny was wasted on the ATi buy out? But I guess that is Intel's fault too.

The point of the article is that AMD operates in a similar manner to the way Intel does but they do not have the resources to offer the huge rebates like Intel. So instead AMD plays the poot put upon company in public and runs to Mom.

by: Theo Valich on 5/29/2009

Intel was found guilty by the European Commission. You can argue that left or right, but even I saw numerous documents that undoubtedly show that Intel offered "buy us not them" strategies.

This story was not about Intel vs. EC. EC investigated for almost 10 years and has collected evidence. The clock stops there. Intel can appeal the verdict and if they have strong "anti-evidence", all things good.

I do not agree with Sean, but here on BSN* everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. The articles we publish, are however - another thing. ;-) We report the truth as it happens, and the statements given by the people involved in the story, regardless of sides.

Ed.

Get your facts straight! by: Gipsel on 5/29/2009

@Sean:
"Intel was not proven guilty. it was a proponderance of the evidence based on hearsay and no proof of rebates or other financial transactions were shown.

The EU concluded from supposition and no factual evidence."

You don't believe that, are you? The decision was of course based on factual evidence (the companies getting the rebates confirmed that, there is real proof for the Mediamarkt stuff etc.), otherwise it would be no problem for the hundreds of intel lawyers to get the decision overturned. If you read intels own statements, you won't find a dispute that there were this rebate system, they only claim "no customer was harmed" by it. Big difference ;)

"Perhaps you have forgetten the issues with AMD(ATi) and nVidia in price fixing of GPUs?
Where e-mails were outed in court (they settled that one quietly)"
Wasn't this just an initiative to strengthen the GPU market as a whole? Every industry does this and it is not forbidden or somehow immoral. Actually, no evidence for any price fixing was found by that court.

Please read the whole article... by: Sean Kalinich on 5/28/2009

Intel was not proven guilty. it was a proponderance of the evidence based on hearsay and no proof of rebates or other financial transactions were shown.

The EU concluded from supposition and no factual evidence.

As for ATi not allowing non-reference designs perhaps someone should tell Asus that.

They have been making them for some time.

Frantz, AMD IS under investigation for misleading consumers in their branding. Perhaps you have forgetten the issues with AMD(ATi) and nVidia in price fixing of GPUs?
Where e-mails were outed in court (they settled that one quietly)

Or the shady deal they cut with Dell and HP and then bumped up the cost of AMD retail CPUs to cover the bill.

But I guess those do not enter into it.

You fool yourself in thinking that the EU made a decision based on any real facts.
If that was the case many many entertainment companies would find themselves sitting with bigger fines for Anti-Competative and Monopolistic practices.

It's more exiting to make stuff up!! by: Frantz on 5/28/2009

Congratulations Sean. You are the first one to draw such conclusions based on an 'IF'. I am awaiting to see your article on Intel being actually found guilty of such practices. I guess you would rather be the lone oracle of supposed wrong doings by AMD than one of the many wasting your time writing about the proven wrongs by Intel.

Way to be Palit's mouthpiece by: bob on 5/28/2009

If ATI treated Nvidia partners differently than exclusives, that would be one thing. But Palit is actually complaining about being treated equally. None of ATIs partners are allowed to release non-reference designs for a certain period after the reference release, no matter who you are. It's done to set up two waves of sales, pure and simple. Not so that their main partners get to go first (as they don't.)

Underdog? by: Michael A. McKenney on 5/27/2009

No company is an underdog. They only have whining management that want an advantage in law. They don't want to design a decent product. They don't want to invest in engineering and design. They rather pay execs huge bonuses for poor designs and sales.