European Commission fines Intel a record $1.44 billion

If you listen hard enough, you can probably hear AMD executives laughing and popping open the champagne. As the Associated Press reports, the European Commission has fined Intel a record €1.06 billion ($1.44 billion) for anticompetitive behavior.

The Commission claims Intel abused its dominant market position by “engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units.” The evidence, as quoted by the AP, seems pretty shocking:

[The Commission] said Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturers Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC for buying all or almost all their x86 [processors] from Intel and paid them to stop or delay the launch of computers based on chips from AMD . . . Regulators said [Intel] also paid Germany’s biggest electronics retailer, Media Saturn Holding — which owns the MediaMarkt superstores — from 2002 to 2007 to only stock Intel-based computers.
This meant workers at AMD’s biggest European plant in Dresden, Germany, could not buy AMD-based personal computers at their city’s main PC store.

And there’s more:

AMD offered 1 million free chips to one manufacturer — which could not accept because that would lose it a rebate on many millions of other chips. It only took 160,000 free chips in the end, regulators said. . . . Intel’s payments to manufacturers ordered the company to delay the European launch of AMD’s first business desktop by six months. They were also paid to only sell the AMD line to small and medium companies and to only offer them directly to customers instead of to retailers.
Other manufacturers were paid to postpone the launch of AMD-based notebooks by several months, from September 2003 to January 2004 and from September 2006 to the end of 2006 — missing the key Christmas market.

The Commission’s press release has even more dirt on Intel’s alleged anticompetitive doings.

Why €1.06 billion? Reportedly, the Commission calculated that figure based on European CPU sales during a five-year, three-month lapse of time, during which it believes Intel broke competition law. (The AP says Europe accounts for 30% of global processor sales.) Technically, the Commission could have gone as high as €2.79 billion ($3.8 billion), or 10% of Intel’s 2007 revenue.

As one might expect, Intel isn’t too pleased with the decision. Company CEO Paul Otellini calls it “wrong” and says “there has been absolutely zero harm to consumers.” The chipmaker plans to hold a press conference about the fine later today. Stay tuned.

Comments closed
    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    My plan for personal economic security:

    1) Start a supragovernmental entity
    2) Investigate huge multinationals for whatever I deem naughty business practices
    3) ????
    4) profit!

    • burntham77
    • 10 years ago

    I haven’t been an Intel fan since they abandoned their excellent Pentium III architecture, but… damn Intel.

    Well at least now people can stop asking me why I have AMD chips in all four PC in my house. =/

    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    Know what’s kind of funny about the fine amount? It matches r exceeds AMDs market cap from around mid-November to mid-March.

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      A sad state of affairs actually.

    • Madman
    • 10 years ago

    What shocks me is that there are plenty comments of type “EU is greedy, bad EU” and so on.

    WTF? Few years ago you were happy that you could buy Athlon XP 2500+ Mobile chips that spanked the competition real cheap and said that competition is a very good thing.

    Now, when MS or Intel gets veeeery tiny fines, compared to their budget, for being anti competitive and for doing things wrong you say that EU is bad.

    That sounds kind of absurd… That’s part of the reason why AMD is under the water as well!

    Ok, maybe it’s the US protectionism sounding somewhere there, but don’t forget that both Intel and MS is actually making tons of money in EU, Asia, Oceania while doing some really bad stuff to small guys. So, common people, be fair… *rolls eyes*

    • Auril4
    • 10 years ago

    What the real sting is here for Intel is not the fine, it’s that they didn’t get away with it this time.

    • AMDguy
    • 10 years ago

    A billion or so in fines is nothing for Intel. They used to pay Dell a billion a year to keep them from using AMD. Their business practices are so effective there is little doubt they can pay the EU a similar amount of bribe money and go on violating the law.

    So this may be more a victory for the EU court system and no victory at all for AMD.

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      Except it sends a precedent which can be used in later trials, if AMD can make money from Intel selling their own chips then they’ll be well on their way to a dominant market share. Imagine if the entire AMD R&D budget was paid, in full, by Intel.

    • sluggo
    • 10 years ago

    The odd thing (to me) about all this is that Intel felt no need to hide any of these practices during the time period in question. I worked for one of Intel’s customers at the time and everyone in the lab knew we would not be testing, benchmarking, or in any other way considering any AMD platforms for potential products, even though Intel’s products were in short supply and AMD had much better price/performance. We knew that if we were to release an AMD platform, we would be dropped to the bottom of Intel’s allocation list and if we released a machine without an “Intel Inside” sticker on it, we would lose the Intel “marketing incentives” for not only our product line, but for all the product lines in our company.

    This was all common knowlege. Intel had us by the nuts – we knew it, they knew it, and I’m sure AMD knew it. We would have loved to ship AMD processors to bolster the lower end of our product line, but if we had done so Intel would bave basically put us out of business.

    And Intel’s attitude about the whole situation was one of utter arrogance. Personally I’m glad to see them get a little education on what people will and will not tolerate. Even capitalism has rules.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 10 years ago

      I’m happy to see someone besides myself doesn’t think this is badnews but good news. Maybe some more regulatory agencies will jump on board.

      • dpaus
      • 10 years ago

      I remember those days too, and I’m pretty sure that Intel learned that behaviour from Microsoft, who used the same tactics in the 1990s vis-a-vis OS/2. Microsoft was similarly blatant about their approach, which probably lead directly to their three criminal anti-trust convictions.

      Ironically, my broker still sells Microsoft stock as part of an “ethical” fund. They may have been found guilty of criminal offenses three times, but since they’re non-nuclear and don’t sell weapons or tobacco, they’re still “ethical” 🙂 I wonder if Intel will be treated the same way…

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 10 years ago

    There is ugly.
    There is very ugly.
    There is drag queen ugly.
    And there is a Neelie Kroes, EU Competition Commissioner.
    §[< http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137311/intel-guilty-fined-eur1-06-billion-eu<]§

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      Reminds me of the antagonist from Max Payne. Let’s kill her.

      • shank15217
      • 10 years ago

      She looks like most women in their mid 50s

        • Helmore
        • 10 years ago

        She is 67 years old after all.

      • PeterD
      • 10 years ago

      When Neelie Kroes become the Competition Commissioner of the European Union, she was attacked by LEFT WING people, because they thought she was TOO LIBERAL (I mean “liberal” here in the European meaning, that is “too much pro free market”. Don’t forget that really “left wing” wants state controlled economy, that is: all companies are in fact owned by the state, all prices are in fact dictated by the state; that’s very much the opposite of “free market”, in which everybody is free to start his own company, and to choose his own prices)
      But as you can see, she wants to protect truly free market competition, and companies using their dominant position to obstruct fair and free competition from other companies, are no real free market competitors.
      Instead of leaving the market to grow thanks to competition, companies like Intel (in this case) want to dictate the market how to grow. Such a company uses its own freedom of choice, to limit other people’s freedom of choice.
      Such companies are, in fact, dictators.

        • PeterD
        • 10 years ago

        (I mean “liberal” here in the European meaning, that is “too much pro free market”. Don’t forget that really “left wing” wants state controlled economy, that is: all companies are in fact owned by the state, all prices are in fact dictated by the state; that’s very much the opposite of “free market”, in which everybody is free to start his own company, and to choose his own prices)

      • sluggo
      • 10 years ago

      Looks to me like she takes pretty good care of herself. Even with not the most flattering light for a photo, she comes out alright.

      As far as her hard facial expression goes, know that the hand gesture she’s making is the european version of “go f yourself” (comparable to the american upraised middle finger). I doubt that’s what she was trying to indicate at the time, but it makes for a great picture!

        • Meadows
        • 10 years ago

        The raised middle finger has all but nothing to do with Americans, you know.

          • sluggo
          • 10 years ago

          No, I don’t know. Elucidate, if you please.

            • Meadows
            • 10 years ago

            It’s the most European thing you can think of. Besides, it’s pretty universal in meaning. Pretty old, too. There are a couple of stories here on how it was introduced, I think the most well known is about ye olde English and French archers warring with each other – the French supposedly cut off their middle fingers to pull arrows more easily, but the English didn’t. As such, they greeted the French with their middle finger to symbolise “look at you, we didn’t have to lose this to shoot”.

            There are some variations on it too, the Italian version I think is when you do it with your entire arms (one arm raised with the other arm planted in it in a right angle, fists clenched).

      • snakeoil
      • 10 years ago

      she doesnt want to marry you, she only wants to fine you fanboy

      • oldDummy
      • 10 years ago

      not horrible….might have some brains..

      Torward the end of the night…..yeah, maybe I would.

      • indeego
      • 10 years ago

      I’d hit it. Looks like she’s into /[http://www.corruptfibers.com/images/products/shocker_tshirt.jpg<]§

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        If those ‘signs’ are meant to be what I think they’re meant to be given their names….your comment that she would be the one doing the finger configurations worries me.

    • ClickClick5
    • 10 years ago

    The photo is a real knee slapper. The woman up front, “WHOOOO! SUED!”

    • relmerator
    • 10 years ago

    Am I the only one who thinks it odd that this stemmed from AMD trying to dump a MILLION FREE CPUs on some manufacturer?

      • Scrotos
      • 10 years ago

      I just picture a bunch of suits sitting around a table, looking glum. One of them exclaims, “it’s like we can’t even GIVE these CPUs away!” One by one, each turns to look at that guy as though they had a simultaneous epiphany and then they declare him a genius for his bold thinking.

      Then fast forward a few days when they are horrifically dejected to find out that they cannot, in fact, even GIVE those CPUs away!

        • cygnus1
        • 10 years ago

        I seriously laughed out loud as a I pictured this very scene.

        • Suspenders
        • 10 years ago

        I’d love to see that rejection letter.

        “Damn AMD, we’d love to take those free million chips, but would you believe the coincidence, our warehouse is totally full! Call us back in six months, maybe we’ll have some space then. Toodles.”

    • albundy
    • 10 years ago

    Its a good thing that all this money will go back to the EU consumers, instead of the greedy politicians and their so called EU government.

      • sigher
      • 10 years ago

      It’s called parliament not government.

    • danny e.
    • 10 years ago

    EU finds another tax source to fund their socialist regimes.

      • Taco
      • 10 years ago

      danny e. finds another place to be wrong on the internet

        • Scrotos
        • 10 years ago

        Are you sure that he wasn’t wrong on here, before? I’m just sayin’…

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          And your suggestion would be right.

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      lol

      Even though your statement has nothing to do with reality, it’s good to notice how brainwashed the typical American consumer has become. Instead of seeing this as Eu vs. USA, you should look at it more as : EU Vs. Greedy corporation that made the consumer pay more for no reason.

      Helas, one is easily blinded by the propaganda…

      Adi

      • DrDillyBar
      • 10 years ago

      Ni!

        • Suspenders
        • 10 years ago

        Bring Me A Shrubbery

      • jstern
      • 10 years ago

      That sounds like something a brain washed person who listens to Rush would say. I’m not putting you down, it’s just an observation. Also sounds like a comment that wouldn’t have been made in 2007.

    • alsoRun
    • 10 years ago

    It is time for US government to counter-fine a company from Europe. We cann’t let them steal money. They are worse than Somalia Pirates.

      • rechicero
      • 10 years ago

      And so, if an American breaks a law in Europe and goes to jail, an European (who didn’t break any law) should go to jail in USA as retaliation?

        • Scrotos
        • 10 years ago

        Yeah, pretty much. And then we eat our liberty cabbage, freedom fries, and freedom toast! USA USA USA #1 #1 #1!!!

          • etrigan420
          • 10 years ago

          AMERICA…FUCK YEAH!!!

      • dlenmn
      • 10 years ago

      Dey tuk er jerbs!

      Seriously, when you do business in a country, you agree to abide by their laws. Intel makes a ton of money in Europe, and has operations there. The EU has every right to fine them if the break their laws (and from the sound of it, this might well break US laws as well).

        • Meadows
        • 10 years ago

        It does, the new US government is about to tighten the hoop around intel’s neck.

        • NeronetFi
        • 10 years ago

        l[Dey tuk er jerbs]!l

        LOL that made me laugh 🙂

        Dey tuk er jerbs!!!

      • TheEmrys
      • 10 years ago

      Stupid comment. Intel is guitly of giving out payoffs to be anti-competitive. It isn’t like this is a fine for doing business. Intel even went so far as to engage in a large cover-up of this practice. Its a deserved fine that AMD brought to the EU’s attention years ago.

      • willyolio
      • 10 years ago

      when europeans start breaking rules as often as americans.

      • gfos
      • 10 years ago

      This is ridiculous, intel is being accused for the same thing in the States too.
      The trial is going to take place in 2010…

      • PeterD
      • 10 years ago

      Be serious: Intel is a US company, but so is AMD.

        • khands
        • 10 years ago

        I’d say AMD is based in America, and once was American, but is quickly becoming Middle Eastern.

    • no51
    • 10 years ago

    Now why Intel is advertising makes sense.

      • indeego
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah next up: the corp attorney that gets them out of this messg{<.<}g

        • LoneWolf15
        • 10 years ago

        Our antitrust lawyers are not your antitrust lawyers.

    • eitje
    • 10 years ago

    YES! FINALLY!

    *[

      • SecretMaster
      • 10 years ago

      I laughed.

    • UberGerbil
    • 10 years ago

    The real problem for Intel, as it was for Microsoft, is that this becomes an open door through which many, many additional lawsuits can now walk. Once one court has established unlawful behavior, other courts can* accept that as the basis for further suits alledging harm resulting from Intel’s actions. That’s (part of) the reason for Otellini’s assertion that no consumers were harmed: the last thing Intel wants is a class action suit on behalf of every purchaser of an Intel CPU or product containing an Intel CPU.

    * They can, but they don’t have to. US courts likely won’t, for example, unless the FTC or DOJ makes similar findings. But Intel’s woes in Europe may be just beginning, and there are other investigations on-going in other parts of the world.

      • ssidbroadcast
      • 10 years ago

      According to American Public Media (IIRC), The Bush Administration never made a /[

        • UberGerbil
        • 10 years ago

        Uh, yeah, which is why I put that condition about the FTC and DOJ in there. But I was strictly talking about private civil actions, and US courts haven’t been eager to admit precedents or findings from elsewhere. You’re right that we should expect a change in the US government’s views of corporate behavior, especially wrt big tech companies: Christine A. Varney, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the DOJ, served on the FTC in the Clinton administration and represented Netscape in US v Microsoft (if I were Google, I’d be nervous). But any DOJ action will take quite some time, even with a head-start thanks to all the discovery by the EC, Japanese, etc.

    • herothezero
    • 10 years ago

    I also think AMD was totally screwed by Intel in a syndicate-like fashion and should have every opportunity to recoup losses in court, however, I completely object to the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the EU goes about choosing deep-pocketed companies from which to extract fines.

    Who’s next? Cisco? Apple? HP? See a trend here? American companies that dominate their markets are the targets.

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      I guess the US will just have to start suing all dominating European industries… which would be who exactly?

        • Scrotos
        • 10 years ago

        Oh snap!

        Nokia, maybe? I guess their automakers are doing ok-ish, but again, not dominant per se. Hey, they have french fashion locked up, maybe we can peg that as a monopoly?

          • khands
          • 10 years ago

          I’d like to see French fashion kicked to the curb, lets do it!

      • Scrotos
      • 10 years ago

      You need to use your brain before giving examples. For instance, Apple? With a paltry PC marketshare? Perhaps you mean the iPod. Ok, so they are dominating that market. But is that illegal? Intel paid retailers to lock out other competing products. Apple is successful and that’s not a crime, but if Apple deliberately tried to skew the market to lock out competitors, then it IS a crime.

      Same thing with HP. Not only are they NOT a monopoly in the PC manufacturing sector, but is there evidence that they tried to subvert Dell or Leveno or other manufacturers from being able to sell their wares?

      How about Cisco? They are successful and have a strong brand, but is there any proof or even any rumors that they are actively preventing other router manufacturers from selling their products? Nortel? SonicWall? Juniper? Do those successful companies not exist in your world, or what?

      • shank15217
      • 10 years ago

      You have utterly no detail about this case except for what you read on the news.

        • PeterD
        • 10 years ago

        Hehe, neither do you…

    • Buzzard44
    • 10 years ago

    I remember someone saying on an earlier post that the Europeans get the money. Is that right?

    And if so, isn’t that just outright stealing? “Hey Intel, your illegal business practices cost this other company, uh, about one and a half billion dollars. Now give it to us, just because we’re cool like that.”

      • Farting Bob
      • 10 years ago

      Yep, AMd wont see a penny (or eurocent) of this money, so it doesnt really help AMD at all. Intel is big enough that it wont slow down R&D as a result of this fine so while it cost Intel $1.44bn, it most likely bought them more profits back in the day while AMD is struggling to avoid going under.

        • PeterD
        • 10 years ago

        Except, of course, that Intel’s image is damaged.

          • Scrotos
          • 10 years ago

          No offence, but I don’t think anyone cares. The consumer doesn’t and most probably won’t hear about this anyway. People investing in Intel won’t care. All this really says about Intel is that, “we’re badasses and crushed competition, we’ll do whatever it takes to make a ton of money and if you want on the money train, you best step right!”

          Really there’s no reputational risk for them at all.

          Now someone else mentioned that this might set precedence for lawsuits from affected parties and I can see that as being a far more serious issue. But Intel’s good name being slurred? Nah. Hell, look at Seagate–most people have forgotten about their recent hard drive problems. You’d find more people still harping about IBM Deathstars and WD’s old reliability issues (like, 15 to 20 years ago issues) than you will about people whining about Seagate.

          This Intel thing? Reputationally, not an issue at all.

          My thoughts, at least.

            • PeterD
            • 10 years ago

            No one cares? Then why do we have already more than 80 comments on this subject?
            “No one cares” is the cynical type of reaction people sometimes get, when some legislation is put forward and they don’t see change immediately.

            • PeterD
            • 10 years ago

            You say: no one cares.
            But you also say: “Now someone else mentioned that this might set precedence for lawsuits from affected parties and I can see that as being a far more serious issue.”
            So, people who don’t care, sue the company?
            Than I hope if I’m convinced, people will care!

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            If you read the thread to which he was replying he was saying that i[

            • PeterD
            • 10 years ago

            It’s true that it’s a “short-term blip”, but it’s not true that no-one cares.

      • UberGerbil
      • 10 years ago

      That’s how fines typically work. When you pay a parking ticket, the money doesn’t go to all the other motorists you might have inconvenienced. They can’t throw an entire company in jail, so a fine is pretty much the only way to punish one.

      • Skrying
      • 10 years ago

      By violating laws it is said that the people of Europe were harmed. It goes that by Intel holding back competitive innovation was stalled. Innovation improves society. Therefore Intel owes society, not AMD. That is how it is looked at, anyway.

        • khands
        • 10 years ago

        Bingo, they (the EU) don’t have the power to do anything else, they can’t fine Intel for processors “illegally” sold elsewhere.

      • asdsa
      • 10 years ago

      And who stole the oil from Iraq and got the money?

        • Corrado
        • 10 years ago

        Take your political pandering elsewhere. Thanks.

          • asdsa
          • 10 years ago

          And what about prisoners in Guantanamo bay? Tsk, tsk..

        • Rakhmaninov3
        • 10 years ago

        Saddam Hussein

        • bdwilcox
        • 10 years ago

        The French who ran the UN’s woefully corrupt Oil for -[

          • sigher
          • 10 years ago

          The UN food thing was run by the US controlled orgs as I recall, but meh lets stick to truthiness eh.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            The US didn’t even participate in Oil for Food, IIRC.

      • PeterD
      • 10 years ago

      That’s always the case when you’re fined, isn’t it?
      But maybe AMD can take this ruling to court, to claim damages from Intel.

        • khands
        • 10 years ago

        That’s exactly what they’ll try to do, that or use this ruling in the case with Intel of Global Foundries and contract violation.

      • cal_guy
      • 10 years ago

      AMD benefits because has quite of bit of evidence from the decsion(all 500 pages of it) that AMD probably would have much greater difficulty in obtaining on their own, so AMD’s anti-trust action against Intel has suddenly gotten more leverage.

        • Kurlon
        • 10 years ago

        Actually, AMD doesn’t benefit at all that way. Not only can they not use the evidence in the US, but they can’t even claim knowledge that it exists if existing US discovery hasn’t pointed to it. The flip occurred in the EU case, anything AMD/Intel dug up in the US case couldn’t be referenced in the EU case.

    • flip-mode
    • 10 years ago

    I hope it is not too little too late. Just think, all of this was going on during 2002-2005, the period during which AMD’s Operon, Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 were the best products on the market. The damage done to the consumer and to AMD is enormous.

    Hopefully this paves the way to AMD suing Intel for some very large damages.

    I’ll still consider buying Intel products if they are the best for the money though.

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      As much as AMD needs cash, this could go well towards the little Global Foundries issue, if they can get IP rights instead it would go a long ways towards securing the future of AMD.

      • djgandy
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah I remember that time. The time when AMD was charging $200 for out of date bartons, and a rubbish semperon was $100. Those times were great for consumers [/sarcasm]

        • travbrad
        • 10 years ago

        Yeah, I think a lot of people fail to realize AMD would have outrageous prices as well, if they had no competition. What keeps prices low is competition, not one company or the other. It’s not a battle of good vs evil like some people seem to think.

        Even so, Intel has certainly committed some anti-competitive acts, so they should be punished for them. The question for me is, is this really enough? I know 1.4billion sounds like a huge amount, but I guarantee it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what they gained (and AMD lost) from these practices. This also gives absolutely nothing to AMD, who is in terrible financial shape. AMD would benefit from 1.4billion far more than Intel will be hurt by losing it.

        As for the prices you quoted, I don’t remember AMD’s prices ever being any worse than Intels (in terms of price/perf), even when AMD had the fastest stuff out there. You can argue they COULD have been cheaper I guess, but I could also argue a lot of Intel’s processors COULD be cheaper right now (but why would they cut their profit margins? Just to be nice?).

    • thermistor
    • 10 years ago

    The EC has spoken, so the fanbois on each side can now start spinning.

    I am an enthusiast, and like the Intel product a lot, but it has never stopped me from viewing Intel as a business, first and foremost. A business that by the judgement of the EC did break the law.

    More power to AMD to make sure they get the leverage they need to compete in a fair marketplace.

    • wingless
    • 10 years ago

    These anticompetitive practices are not only in Europe. Remember how monopolistic Intel has been in North America as well. I don’t care how fast Intel’s CPUs are right now, I have no love for the company.

    What reason did Intel have for even doing this? Why would they ever be afraid of AMD given their resources?!

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      Well, for about 3-4 years AMD *[

    • derFunkenstein
    • 10 years ago

    That’s a billion dollars for every MB of anti-competitive data stored on their super-secret floppy disk!

      • CampinCarl
      • 10 years ago

      I must admit…I lol’d.

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 10 years ago

    So what happens if they don’t pay the fine? Do computers with Intel CPUs become illegal in all of Europe?

      • Corrado
      • 10 years ago

      I’d imagine that the SALE of computers with Intel CPU’s becomes illegal, or that Intel is not allowed to sell any new CPU’s to manufacturers. This would hurt Intel pretty bad if a big market like Europe was forced to be AMD only, and it would also cause a gross overstock of current Intel chips, forcing the supply way over the demand, lowering their prices.

        • khands
        • 10 years ago

        Yeah, if they didn’t pay, they’d be pretty screwed, and I’m sure most of the technical elite in Europe wouldn’t be happy that they’d have to “settle” for AMD.

        • NeronetFi
        • 10 years ago

        as well as the x58 motherboards. I could finally afford to upgrade!!!! 🙂

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 10 years ago

      EDIT : was meant to be a comment on article.

    • Faceless Clock
    • 10 years ago

    “there has been absolutely zero harm to consumers.”

    That sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

      • wingless
      • 10 years ago

      Zero harm to consumers, BILLIONS in harm to AMD.

      • SubSeven
      • 10 years ago

      Zero harm done my behind…. i remember intel CPU (pentium 4s at the time) costing an arm and a leg (especially the “extreme” versions) and delivered less performance than the early Athlon 64s, especially in gaming. Granted AMDs weren’t dirt cheap either, but they were superior and still cost much less, yet somehow, Intel managed to maintain its incredible marketshare. I’m not sure but forcing consumers to buy Intel based platforms, since they are the only ones that were sold at major retailers, sounds pretty harmful to me, especially when you consider what they cost back in the day. The saddest part is that it took “only” nine years to get a verdict. Congrats to AMD on their refusal to go down quietly. I hope there are many more such verdicts in their near future.

        • TheEmrys
        • 10 years ago

        Moreover, the first first generation of Intel dual core processors, the Pentium-D’s were not exactly good in comparison to the Athlon X2’s. Even the Core Duo’s weren’t amazingly better.

        • wgrepph
        • 10 years ago

        My recollection is that AMD wasn’t able to meet demand.

        Designing a great CPU is about 1/3 of the challenge. You also have to fabricate it and market it. AMD fell flat on the fabrication.

          • Scrotos
          • 10 years ago

          They had supply issues, yes, but after they got those sorted out they were still being cockblocked by Intel. How much must that have sucked? As soon as you get ramped up properly, you find out that no one will buy your product in volume ANYWAY.

      • LovermanOwens
      • 10 years ago

      Intel is a pretty rotten company imo. This just proves it.

      • djgandy
      • 10 years ago

      I guess if you see everything as a coinflip then yes.

      If your read the case, the EU are claiming Intel caused damage to consumers.

        • cygnus1
        • 10 years ago

        Exactly, because in reality, consumers ended up paying the bribes to the OEMs because they are the ones that paid intel’s jacked up prices.

        This is a way for the EC to get that money back for consumers. And as it goes to public use, theoretically consumers will benefit.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 10 years ago

      Four years ago, I remember not being able to find a computer with an Athlon 64, even though they’d been out for a while.

      Stores literally did not sell them, period, and computer manufacturers either didn’t have any on their sites, or had pre-configured models that you were supposed to get in-store only…which did not seem to exist lol.

      Then, when Intel got busted in a few countries, all of a sudden, the flood gates opened, and everyone and their dog was selling tons of cheap Athlon 64 computers.

      I can’t believe they’re still dealing with the same things…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This