NY Attorney General slaps Intel with antitrust suit

It ain’t over yet for Intel. After receiving a $1.45 billion fine from the European Commission for antitrust violations, Intel has now gotten sued by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo for similar transgressions.

According to the New York Times, this latest lawsuit accuses Intel of "abusing its dominant position in the chip market to keep its main rival, Advanced Micro Devices, at bay." Cuomo, like the European Commission, claims Intel coerced PC vendors into limiting their use of AMD processors.

"Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market," Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. "Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices." . . . During the press conference, New York prosecutors said Intel abused its monopoly power "as a central business strategy" rather than just in isolated incidents.

If you’ll recall, AMD filed its own antitrust lawsuit against Intel in 2005, and the Federal Trade Commission subsequently launched an investigation into Intel’s alleged antitrust activities last year.

The AMD case will go to trial next year. Quoting a source familiar with the case, the Times says Cuomo’s move may prompt the FTC to take legal action against Intel, as well. Officially, Cuomo stated in a press conference about today’s suit, "We have been cooperating with the F.T.C. We have a good, productive dialogue on this matter." On its end, the FTC says its investigation remains in progress.

Comments closed
    • spanky1off
    • 11 years ago

    Im 100% certain that Intel have gotten their hands on Scylla

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      Scylla the monster from Greek mythology??

    • thermistor
    • 11 years ago

    Damage: Please, please, nuke this thread or something.

    I thought I clicked over to DailyTech by mistake…

    • brucect
    • 11 years ago

    Now We will Find out did Intel Play dirty or not ?

      • Thanato
      • 11 years ago

      Intel has been found guilty for this in Korea, Japan, and Europe already, does that not mean anything?

    • Necro1357
    • 11 years ago

    Let’s be clear here as well. The State of New York has a vested interest in pursuing this lawsuit – they have provided a lot of money to AMD to build a factory there. If AMD has financial issues and delays, this is a way for the Empire State to get a bit of a refund.

    • FubbHead
    • 11 years ago

    I just wished AMD, Nvidia, VIA, SIS, etc, etc, would make a combined effort and create their own processor architecture, or switch to one that is not completely hamstrung by the Intel behemoth. A whole lot of developers, manufacturers and even sellers of both chips and components, have been “approached” by Intel when they do something they don’t like.

    All they need is Microsoft to get on board with a Windows version.

    I guess I can dream..

    • Thanato
    • 11 years ago

    Once AMD wins the US courts will fine 1 or 2 billion, then AMD will sue for damages. Since the case goes back to 2000, I’d expect AMD will sue for tens of billions in damages. This can also open the door for more lawsuits from other companies effected by Intel anti competitive practice.

      • data8504
      • 11 years ago

      Just a blunt question: would you feel better about your life if the 100,000ish employees at Intel were added to unemployment rolls? I mean, hypothetically, would that put a smile on your face?

        • flip-mode
        • 11 years ago

        I don’t think that is what anyone is after. One could get into the hypothetical argument that AMD has had to reduce its staff because of Intel’s behavior. I think what people want is to see AMD get a decent enough market share that they can be a healthy CPU company that can do the necessary R&D to actually continually challenge Intel. AMD could have had a shot at getting that level of market share during the three years that it had the superior processor, and also during some of 1999 and 2000 when the Athlon was extremely competitive with Intel’s chips, but they were artificially prevented from doing that – at least, that is what is being claimed. So no one wants to see Intel’s employees out of their jobs, I don’t think.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          It’s hard to get more market share when your processors are selling out. Profits yes, market share, no.

        • Thanato
        • 11 years ago

        hehe they could get hired by AMD, why so negative?

      • mtizzle
      • 11 years ago

      And the “end of scaling” will happen before any of the ligation gets through the courts so it won’t matter anyway.

        • SHOES
        • 11 years ago

        end of scaling… HA!

    • wiak
    • 11 years ago

    Intel has done
    Limit AMD to 5%
    Delay AMD products
    Unfair rebates to OEMs
    screwed customers, heck who wouldn’t have wanted a Athlon 64 or a Opteron in 2002 etc

      • NeelyCam
      • 11 years ago

      Prove it.

        • Thanato
        • 11 years ago

        Proof, someone doesn’t read much.

        • fyo
        • 11 years ago

        What’s *possibly* open for debate is the legally of the “rebates” they’ve offered. You could have asked any medium-to-large sized OEM or retailer about the phenomenon 10-15 years ago and they would all have acknowledged that they got rebates from Intel for exclusively using Intel processors – or limiting their non-Intel processors to entry-level systems not amounting to more than X% of total sales.

        Many retailers and OEMs spoke openly about this.

        The question is, EXACTLY how were the rebates structured and were they LEGAL.

        Exclusivity agreements are generally allowed, but not by a “monopoly”.

        Mass-order discounts are broadly allowed, even by monopolies, but making that discount depend on OTHER issues is often NOT.

        To give an example, Intel might look at OEM “A” and see that they’re shipping 1M units total. Intel might offer them a deal where they get a steep discount if they order at least 1M units from Intel. This is a classic rebate structure, although dynamically applied, and might be legal, even for a monopoly, despite the fact that it achieves the same thing as a rebate structured to kick in if OEM “A” sells at least 95% Intel.

        • designerfx
        • 11 years ago

        a quick purview of the lawsuit does indeed appear to prove it.

    • adisor19
    • 11 years ago

    OH NOES, it’s those euros again with their anti American propaganda.. oh wait..

    Adi

      • ludi
      • 11 years ago

      You mean the AG of New York, a state which houses a significant AMD business presence and just gave the company a $650 million lottery ticket for fab expansion?

      I’m pretty sure we can work out a conspiracy theory in there somewhere.

        • ish718
        • 11 years ago

        Not to mention New york’s budget deficit…

        • FubbHead
        • 11 years ago

        So there is justice after all. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • lamparalaptopiaguita
    • 11 years ago

    lol how abou this, you twats: take your useless politics and go duke it out in DailyTEch, where equally useless political morons wave their e-penis in all their political self-righteous digital masturbation.

    • Fighterpilot
    • 11 years ago

    What?….no more strongarming or coercion…..that’s downright Un-American! (0-0)
    Also will the neocons here that actually have the guts to show their faces still… please STFU….you had your turn and the world hates you.
    Obama and his economic team just saved your asses and oughta get high points for salvaging the worst of Bush and Company’s FAIL policies.

      • bdwilcox
      • 11 years ago

      I think you need to close the canopy and pressurize the cabin. Your brain isn’t getting enough oxygen.

      • NeelyCam
      • 11 years ago

      Amen, brotha, amen

      • tfp
      • 11 years ago

      Take all of your policital bullshit back to the R&P part of the forums…

    • jensend
    • 11 years ago

    About time. When will antitrust lawsuits be filed against Intel for extending their processor monopoly into the chipset space and engaging in anticompetitive practices against SiS, VIA, and NVidia in bullying them out of the chipset business?

    • anotherengineer
    • 11 years ago

    Lolz

    Big surprize (sarcasm) Intel has enough cash to cut them a check and not bat and eye. Also I dont think this wont change anything anyway, I mean intel will still be popular and have a dominant market share, etc.

    What it does show though, is that the world is in agreement that Intel is a big blue gorilla that throws its weight around to get what it wants.

    • Auril4
    • 11 years ago

    Ethics violations aren’t as easy to get away with as they used to be. DAM!!

    • PRIME1
    • 11 years ago

    Didn’t AMD just build a fab in New York?

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence……

      • Arxor
      • 11 years ago

      Thinkin’ the same thing…

      • Krogoth
      • 11 years ago

      You are not the only person to make that mental connection. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • insulin_junkie72
      • 11 years ago

      In a fine, upstanding state like New York? Noooooo…. can’t be.

      Next you’ll tell me all Illinois politicians are crooks! (err, wait, I’ve seen a few decades of Chicago TV news :P)

      • Metalianman
      • 11 years ago

      I was under the impression that AMD, or Global Foundries to be precise, is building the fab factory in New Jersey. I could be wrong though! Google it :p

    • xtremevarun
    • 11 years ago

    if the charges are true, then its bad that Intel did those things. Come on they currently are making better processors than AMD, so its expected that their products should sell better. But coercing and bribing is really wrong to sell ’em even more.

      • designerfx
      • 11 years ago

      okay, let’s try this simple way.

      stifle your competitor = more resources for you = of course you’re going to get ahead in the business.

      So it should be quite a surprise that AMD is still pulling along and *HAS* more than 5% marketshare given that Intel tried to set the limit as such.

      • elegault
      • 11 years ago

      Didn’t the alleged events take place when Intel was selling P4’s and AMD’s products were better at the time.

    • wira020
    • 11 years ago

    Huh, so everyone wants to take money from the big guy eh?

      • jdaven
      • 11 years ago

      No one is making money in all of this. Legal fees and court fees are huge this day in age. The point is to stop the illegal action not to make money.

      And yes, I’m not that naive to know that some people will make money but when we are talking about billion dollar businesses like the chip industry in the end it comes down to accepting fault which is sometimes worse than the payout (for example, the tobacco industry).

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Defending a bully is even more stupid than being one to begin with.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      Corporatocracy giveth and corporatocracy taketh away.

      • grantmeaname
      • 11 years ago

      everyone wants to fine the company breaking the rules and harming the entire PC world, and you’re surprised?

    • VILLAIN_xx
    • 11 years ago

    Geez. How much surplus of money does Intel make? They’re getting sued non stop and don’t seem to care. I’d figured they would have stopped after EU and AMD filed suit.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      It’s not like they’re still doing this that anyone knows of, this is for actions taken years ago.

        • blastdoor
        • 11 years ago

        And what stupid and unnecessary actions they were, too! If Intel had done none of these things their and AMD’s positions in the market would be little different than they are today. Intel was like Nixon in Watergate — they were almost guaranteed to win, yet their paranoia pushed them to break the law anyway. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

          • mtizzle
          • 11 years ago

          Innocent until proven guilty “in a court of law” The EU fine was from a commission, not a court. Hence it is being appealed to an actual court. Perhaps we should wait until an actual court finds wrong doing.

            • NeelyCam
            • 11 years ago

            Amen, brotha

            • Palek
            • 11 years ago

            Japan, Korea, the EU, now NY and apparently the American FTC also jumping on the intel antitrust bandwagon. I think most people can connect the dots.

            You need to go no further than one of the oldest TR posts for some pretty hard to dismiss evidence against intel.

            ยง[<https://techreport.com/discussions.x/20<]ยง Anybody else remember all the motherboard makers releasing their first Athlon boards in unlabeled boxes in order to avoid intel's wrath?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Reading those old comments seriously made me lol.

            • Palek
            • 11 years ago

            I found the comment by “Forge_AMD” about AMD taking a big risk with K8 by making it x86 compatible versus the new from the ground up Itanium pretty funny in retrospect. ๐Ÿ™‚

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Hah! That one stood out to me as well. K7 vs Itanium…funny little Forge-y, I hope he sees that and responds ๐Ÿ˜€

            • Palek
            • 11 years ago

            I figured they might be one and the same, but wasn’t sure because of the sameless declaration of his allegiance to AMD. Can’t recall Forge being a vocal AMD proponent from my limited exposure to recent TR discussions (news-only lurker here).

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            No, Forge_AMD was a different person. The “Forge” on TR never posted under the “Forge_AMD” handle.

            • adisor19
            • 11 years ago

            Oh the times when i was an Anonymous Gerbil.. ;-( i miss those times..

            Adi

            • mtizzle
            • 11 years ago

            Oh man the old “if everyone accuses you, it must be true.” That logic worked real well during the Salem witch hunts.

            • Palek
            • 11 years ago

            Right. Witch hunts in the Dark Ages versus convictions based on hard evidence in the so-called Information Age. Totally the same.

            Let me rephrase: there is so much damning evidence against intel that even the FTC cannot ignore the problem anymore or else they may be accused of aiding a convicted monopolist by turing a blind eye, rather than going after their purse like they should.

            • insulin_junkie72
            • 11 years ago

            If you read the original NY Times online article from yesterday (the revision currently up added some new quotes from different people, but seemed to cut back on the quotes from the legal experts), the various antitrust experts quoted didn’t seem to be too convinced there was much of a case under current US law.

            • Palek
            • 11 years ago

            I would like to read the article but I’m not in the mood to sign up for another free online account. Have too many of those already…

            I understand that intel has to be investigated for possible anti-competitive behaviour which falls under US jurisdiction, and that their shenanigans off US soil do not directly prove that they also engaged in monopolistic practices inside the US. But the FTC would be neglecting their duties if they did not thoroughly investigate intel after they had been found guilty by Japanese, Korean and EU authorities.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            I don’t think he was saying it’s about where the actions in question took place but rather whether they were illegal under US law.

    • piesquared
    • 11 years ago
      • mtizzle
      • 11 years ago

      Why, perhaps some elaboration?

      • NeelyCam
      • 11 years ago

      /[

    • Scrotos
    • 11 years ago

    I’ve become kind of jaded to this stuff. IF there’s any resolution, it only happens many YEARS after the relevent business opportunities have long since dried up. AMD filed a suit in 2005 and it’s going to trial FIVE YEARS LATER? I know that AMD’s a bit long in the tooth against the i7 platform, ok, but if Intel had had to change their business practices even 3 years ago when AMD had great momentum in both the server and consumer fields, the entire landscape of the CPU market could be completely different.

    At this point? Maybe AMD gets a few million and then things stay pretty much the same.

    It’s like telcos refusing to deploy better internet in a city and when the city tries to roll their own, blocking city-sponsored fiber/internet projects in court just long enough to establish the telco’s own project in the city and undermine the city’s project. Goddammit I’m a conservative but at some times I really get angry at how for-profit corporations abuse the system for control of the market and I get some liberal angst in wanting to have some of that stuff regulated. ARGH.

    Anyway, the Intel antitrust stuff is worthless. Like the Netscape/Microsoft thing. Hey, MS lost, did that change Netscape’s position in the market, many years after the decision would have been relevant? How about Sun winning out against MS or Novell winning out against MS? They get a few million and it doesn’t really matter since the opportunities are so long gone it’s not even funny.

    Intel’s got more than enough money to absorb any of these stupid fines or lawsuits. It’s just going to be business as usual.

      • indeego
      • 11 years ago

      Tell IBM, AT&T, and Microsoft that antitrust means nothing. The markets/growth potential of each of those companies was severly cut by the AT decisionsg{<.<}g

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        AT&T kind of imploded, but MS and IBM seem to have done alright for themselves. AT&T was split up but did that necessarily have any effect on timing in the market? The judgements against MS and IBM came way after the fact for any relevence for what they were being sued for. And hell, IBM’s case was dismissed!

        ยง[<http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/library/collections/manuscripts/findingaids/ibmantitrustpart2.ACC1980.htm<]ยง Filed in 1969, didn't go to trial until 1975, dismissed in 1982. I thought IBM started going downhill in the late 80's and early 90's before they kind of reinvented themselves as a foundry and services provider. Or are you talking about some other case or something I'm missing?

      • jdaven
      • 11 years ago

      “Goddammit I’m a conservative but at some times I really get angry at how for-profit corporations abuse the system for control of the market and I get some liberal angst in wanting to have some of that stuff regulated. ARGH.”

      Lol! This is why conservatives just don’t get it. The reason why regulation is necessary is because corporations have always been found to abuse their market position for money and power. It’s called greed. The reason why conservatives don’t get it…their too busy abusing their position in the world for money and power. Lol! Ironic isn’t it.

        • bdwilcox
        • 11 years ago

        Yeah, just like Madoff (Democrat) whose world record Ponzi scheme was ignored by SEC regulators for over ten years even though Harry Markopolos, a PRIVATE trader, wrote the SEC to warn them about what Madoff was doing IN 1999. He then warned them at regular intervals and provided them proof that Madoff was scheming, but still the SEC regulators ignored the warning signs. Madoff was also ignored by state regulators Spitzer and Cuomo. Interestingly, Madoff was brought down by private citizens and private investigators, not government watchdogs. The data gathered to back up their assertions was in the public domain, not the proprietary knowledge the SEC and state regulators had access to. Much in the same way that Enron was uncovered by short-sellers while the SEC remained clueless.

        Or the way that federal regulators like Barney Frank and Harold Raines not only allowed, but brought about by their direct actions, the greatest financial failure in WORLD HISTORY.

        Notice something else? They’re all liberals with a (D) next to their name.

        From a letter by John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.:

        “;because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

        You can’t regulate away immorality. All you end up doing is transferring the corruption from private to public sectors as the Socialist and Communist experiments of the past and present have shown us. The difference is that the corrupt public sector can happily put a gun to the head of the populace without fear.

          • SubSeven
          • 11 years ago

          Amen brother.

          • flip-mode
          • 11 years ago

          Your views are as extreme as any. Regulation does not mean socialism or communism.

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            The complete regulation of markets is the very essence of socialism and communism. Where have you been?

            • flip-mode
            • 11 years ago

            I’ve been in the United States, where we don’t have complete regulation. So, where have you been?

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            I’ve been in the United States, where we don’t have complete regulation…yet.

            Fixed that for ya’. :oP

            • flip-mode
            • 11 years ago

            See, you’ve totally brainwashed yourself. It wouldn’t matter what was brought before you, you’re mind is locked down; you’ve got your religion, just as good and valid as anyone else’s. Thank goodness that my vote counts as much as yours.

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            You’re somewhat right. I used to be brain-washed; I was liberal at the time. Then I started to think for myself and became a conservative.

            I love the sayings:

            If you’re not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.

            -and-

            A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. (Ed. – by the government, usually).

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            If you use labels for yourself which cover an entire range of ideas and topics and buy in to someone else’s large ‘platform’ you’re still brainwashed it’s just of a rather more insidious kind because you think you aren’t ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • A_Pickle
            • 11 years ago

            I’m inclined to agree. One cannot claim objectivity by rebuking government regulation on businesses whilst turning a blind eye to the abuses of businesses. Just look at Intel, artificially creating it’s own monopoly by stating that no one else can make chipsets for “any chip with an integrated memory controller” (which is likely anything from Intel from this point on — and it’ll only be a matter of time before that rule applies to Atom as well).

            Hopefully it gets them to rest on their laurels so that AMD and Nvidia and Via can whip up a good bunch of compelling platforms with choice.

            • blastdoor
            • 11 years ago

            Nicely said.

            I was ideological when I was younger (I considered myself a very conservative republican). Ideology and religion, regardless of which one, can be comforting. They provide confident answers to every question. Almost everyone wants to understand how the world works and almost everyone wants to do good — to be the hero in their own story. Religion and ideology provide the illusion of understanding and reassures us that we are good (for some religions, we’re good no matter how many bad things we do, so long as we say the right words in the right order at the right time).

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            So when people label themselves as X or Y, they’re ignorant. But when you label them as “brainwashed”, you’re enlightened. Thou doth protest too much.

            I look at history and my own morality to determine what I believe. Happily, most of my beliefs fall squarely under the term “conservative”. It’s short-hand for limited government, free markets, and the love of our God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, it espouses the beliefs of the founding fathers. So yes, I proudly label myself conservative.

            So what are you? An independent? A free-thinker? In other words, a reed bent in the wind of societal fashion. “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” – Alexander Hamilton

            • flip-mode
            • 11 years ago

            So you’re proud because you’ve already fallen for something? Win?

            I’m glad you’ve clutched to all of those snappy saying, since you don’t seem to have an original thought of your own.

            You like limited government – um, me too.

            You like free market – that’s easy. Child labor, child pornography, slaves, women for sale, nukes for sale, chemical weapons for sale. Yep, that’s right, it’s a FREE MARKET, so you can’t restrict or regulate anything. That crap I’ve mentioned is just the head of a pin on the tip of the iceberg. See, you like a regulated market as much as the next guy, you’re just to brainwashed to admit it.

            You like God given rights – OK, congrats. Where one sees god another sees reason; different paths, same destination, in this case: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

            The Founding Fathers: whatever floats your boat.

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            You forgot to throw Hitler in there somewhere.

            • flip-mode
            • 11 years ago

            That would be akin to you throwing in socialism and communism.

            • anotherengineer
            • 11 years ago

            lols

            didnt you know that Hitler is the pupetmaster pulling the stings at intel??

            Otellini resurected his master when he became CEO

            lol

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            You label you…
            You label me..?
            I’m not sure what to dub thee

            • CasbahBoy
            • 11 years ago

            And the complete deregulation of markets will lead to one giant corporate entity in charge of all manufacturing for all products, which isn’t any better or worse than complete regulation.

            Thankfully, live in the U.S. where neither is the case. So what are you talking about, exactly?

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            Oh, you forgot the part where these evil mega-corporations will put armor plating on dragons and swoop down on villages that put up resistance. That should complete your fairy tale.

            Considering that we had a laissez-faire marketplace until the 1920’s or so (that is, until the “progressivists”, aka socialists, got involved) I think we did pretty well for ourselves. And I can’t remember all those evil mega-corporations taking up armies and oppressing the masses before 1920, either.

            So competition in a lassez-faire market is the greatest regulator. People simply don’t want to do business with snakes.

            Further, Article 2, Section 8 gives the federal government the power: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, b[

            • flip-mode
            • 11 years ago

            So you are not totally against regulation.

            Intel’s business operates across state and national lines, and you point out that the Fed therefor has jurisdiction to regulate it.

            So, what’s the problem here; what are you ranting about?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Hmm….maybe THEY TOOK R JOBS?

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            Who said I was totally against any form of regulation? I’m against unconstitutional and excessive regulation. I’m quite the radical, huh?

            Anyway, if you read my initial reply, it was to jdaven’s maniacal rant in #16.

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            Successful troll is successful.

            Way to go guys.

            • CasbahBoy
            • 11 years ago

            That was a very hostile post. Please take a deep breath and realize that none of us are out to get you, none of us are trying to insult you, none of us are trying to prove that we’re better than you. We are debating a point on which we seem to disagree and trying to figure out on what level that disagreement lies so maybe some understanding of each other may be reached.

            You seem to be moving the goalposts from ‘complete regulation’ in post #32 to ‘federal regulation.’ My response to you would have been appropriately different.

            I did not mention that I felt corporations where inherently evil. I do not; they are inherently self-interested, but I do not believe in the concepts of universal good or evil. Nor did I mention chaos and anarchy, but I’ll assume that assumption was a result of your unreasonable hostility and desire to label my hypothetical situation a ‘fairy tale.’

            The point I was making is that in the current environment, a complete lack of regulation (laws or ‘enforced guidelines’) would lead to repeated acquisitions and mergers until all that remains is one or an extremely small number of organizations in charge of nearly all production – prior to the 1920s with an efficient management structure and extreme overhead costs incurred it may have been possible, but current technology absolutely allows for such a thing to happen.

            I see regulation as being necessary because I feel that the ‘little guy’ absolutely needs to be protected from the big, lest he be run out of the market or purchased the moment management structure contains enough people willing to take the buyout offer. I suppose I must disagree when you say you feel that the lassez-faire market is the greatest regulator.

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            i[<"The point I was making is that in the current environment, a complete lack of regulation (laws or 'enforced guidelines') would lead to repeated acquisitions and mergers until all that remains is one or an extremely small number of organizations in charge of nearly all production - prior to the 1920s with an efficient management structure and extreme overhead costs incurred it may have been possible, but current technology absolutely allows for such a thing to happen."<]i I don't know where you've been the last 50 years, (you know, the most heavily regulated time in US history), but have you seen the massive acquisitions and mergers within the largest industries in the country? Pharma, defense, banks, S&Ls, health care companies, insurance companies, etc. It's the very regulations you espouse that have hastened such mergers and acquisitions.

          • WaltC
          • 11 years ago

          Excellent points, all. The trouble with people who think that “regulation” solves everything is that they think the government can be trusted to a degree that corporations can’t. The real irony of this position is that when the government “regulates,” or collects taxes or otherwise meddles in the private economy, the government does so by threats of brute force. The vast majority of corporations, otoh, sell goods and services that *nobody* has to buy, and corporations have no power or authority to incarcerate or otherwise threaten consumers for *not* buying their products. So obviously the potential for the abuse of power is exponentially greater from the government than it is from corporations because unlike a government that can incarcerate you for not paying your taxes there is *nothing* a corporation can do to a citizen for not buying its goods.

          I’m amazed every day by the simple-mindedness of people who think their government walks on water even as it taxes and spends taxpayer money with wild abandon, and does so almost always without the express consent of the electorate, but think that corporations–the same companies that bring us computers and the Internet in the first place–are “evil” even though those companies have so little power that they can’t force any consumer anywhere to buy their goods against his will. Heh…;) Watch what your righteous government will do to you if you decide your taxes are too high and don’t pay them…;)

          Indeed, the Founding Fathers were so worried about abuses of governmental authority that they wrote a Constitution which expressly limits the power of government in many ways. Many in our country, though, are eager to give up those protections and “trust” their government, it seems. I imagine these attitudes have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            I don’t think they’re just rolling in their graves. I think they’re spinning like blenders set on high.

            • WaltC
            • 11 years ago

            :)…it is sort of frightening, isn’t it? Sometimes I’m at a loss to understand it, but then I think of how far our educational systems have fallen in the last 40 years–and things clear up, sad as it may be.

            I think we have an entire generation which is so ignorant of the world outside the US that it believes that the status quo inside the US is not the exception worldwide but the norm. Accordingly, these people do not see their rights and privileges as unique or exceptional but labor under the false assumption that such rights and privileges are commonplace throughout the world. Somehow, thinking themselves citizens of an entirely fictional “world government” which places them above “petty” nationalism, they have come to believe that their own country is rightfully scorned in most cases. We even have a president who runs around the world apologizing for America–much to the amusement and scorn of ruthless dictators around the world who have long hated the US for the freedoms it represents and has, at least in the past, been willing to defend. It’s really very sad when even our own president is so poorly educated about the country which elected him that he has difficulty seeing much if anything good that America has ever done on the world stage. I don’t know if “sad” is really the world–pathetic is closer to the mark, I think.

            But I suppose the one bright spot in all of this is that the ideas this administration seems ideologically bent to force down the American gullet are finally being seen at home for the shallow, empty, erroneous ideas they are. While it might seem “chic” and sophisticated for people in the present administration to bite the hand that feeds them, I do not think this is the case for the great majority of Americans. They know where their liberties come from and they know as well the price that many have paid to secure those freedoms. They are not going to go quietly, and I think they are only now just starting to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Eloquent vapid rhetoric. Very pretty to read and yet very ignorant in a simple-minded pawnish way that makes you the type politicians love. ‘The other guy’ is always bad and wrong while ‘your side’ is beyond reproach.

            • WaltC
            • 11 years ago

            Thank you for such an eloquently vapid rhetorical response.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            You’re welcome although it wasn’t especially eloquent because it was short and simple nor was it especially rhetorical. Please continue to keep thinking dogmatically rather than critically and following a party line that someone else tells you to, comrade, it makes it all the easier to not take what you say seriously.

            • WaltC
            • 11 years ago

            OK, well, I saw nothing that wasn’t rhetorical, but I suppose you’ve found me out–I was trying to be polite. Sorry. But you are right and I agree–there was little eloquence to be found there.

            The reason I say “rhetorical” is because I’ve seen this tactic employed often in the media these days when the media tries to attack positions it does not or cannot understand. Rather than argue why the position they attack is bothersome to them, they simply, and rhetorically, attack the person stating the opinion they find offensive–without bothering to explain why they find it offensive in the first place. Thus, childish name-calling is substituted for intelligent conversation. I suspect that this is because they simply do not understand what has been said to the degree that they can discuss it rationally. But at a primal level they understand, however vaguely, that “they don’t like” what has been said–for some reason. And so they lash out in the only way they know, which is to attack the person writing the opinion as opposed to the opinion itself.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            You know there’s a simple term for your entire second paragraph – ‘ad hominem’ – but I probably shouldn’t know that because I’m stupid. I’m not quite sure I attacked *you* in an ad hominem fashion though, rather the way you think dogmatically and just repeat what’s fed to you by neocon pundits while simultaneously ignoring the shortcomings of ‘your side.’ But of course your poo doesn’t stink does it.

            • Jambe
            • 11 years ago

            I’m… libertarian-y (I guess?). I have a tendency to see “DEFEND OUR LIBERTIES” conservative rhetoric as perverse, nationalistic claptrap. In the same token, though, I see the “GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST” mantra of welfare state proponents as unrealistic, sheltered idealism.

            Instead of labeling the other party (NEOCON), try instead regressing through their statements of opinion. “What leads you to this conclusion” or “what evidence do you have for this” or whatever. On the one hand, you don’t have to deal with the BS of “you insulted me, no I didn’t, yes you did”. On the other hand, the person might actually read your question as an expression of interest and reveal their motivations instead of seeing it as a dismissive, throwaway observation.

            For crap’s sake. If somebody makes a statement ABOUT YOU or ABOUT YOUR CHARACTERISTICS then don’t freaking reply to them; they obviously don’t have the courtesy or interest necessary for polite conversation. And what the hell do you care, anyway? You don’t know them.

            Ugh. Internets.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah, ugh. Internets. It’s really why I rarely make big posts in debates like this, especially when it’s largely rhetorical and ideological.

            • balzi
            • 11 years ago

            I agree in general – the only thing which differentiates the govt from the corp. in the public’s favour is the process of election. I know we don’t always get a nice choice – choose your poison seems an apt term.

            its interesting to note that in simplistic terms – a corporation has no control over a individual but in alot of ways they exercise a huge influence over the population – the market cannot decide ‘not to buy’ from a corp. if the supplies from other quarters cannot meet demand.

            on the other hand, the govt is actually at the mercy of the public to some degree (in a democratic type system), but the govt. has a controlling relationship with each individual (al la the Tax example from your post).

            pros and cons my friend, pros and cons!

            • WaltC
            • 11 years ago

            Oh, I agree…;) A government of some kind is essential–but I’m just very skeptical of a government that becomes so large and pervasive that it is unaccountable, insidious, and essentially unmanageable (I know, that is pretty much a description of the current state of government.)

            I think that what really galls me so much about the current Congress, for instance, is the recent public admissions from several Congressmen that they *routinely* never bother to actually *read* the bills they vote up or down. Paraphrased, one Congressman was actually quoted recently, saying: “You don’t expect anybody in Congress to actually read and understand a bill before voting on it, do you? That’s what our staff is for!” That’s a level of incompetence that sends me reeling, frankly. IMO, if a Congressman can’t read and understand a piece of legislation before he votes on it he is categorically unqualified to hold the office, and if bills are deliberately written so as to be so arcane, contradictory, and complex that they are undecipherable, then Congress needs to learn how to write its bills using a clean and precise and understandable vocabulary. .Either way, the fault is Congress’.

            Your point about the influence of corporations is taken, but still I think that we can’t understand “a population” unless we reduce it to its simplest component: the individual. A given population is comprised of individuals making individual decisions every day, for hosts of individual reasons. Thus, while we may use the aggregate term “population” to describe an abstract group of individual citizens, the fact is citizens act individually at all times, and so any “influence” we may accuse a corporation of exerting on “a population” is entirely theoretical. I think the bottom line is that individuals make individual decisions, and even if they buy from the same companies, or reject the goods and services of the same companies, their reasons for doing so can easily be completely unrelated.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          g{<"Our Constitution was made only for a [...] religious people."<}g Breaks the Constitution by default.

        • flip-mode
        • 11 years ago

        You gotta be careful with the “conservative” term, by the way.

          • Game_boy
          • 11 years ago

          Yes. Do you mean economic conservative [wants government control of the economy], social conservative [wants government control of social and moral issues], British Conservative [centrist, free market and socially liberal], or American conservative Republican [free market but biased towards big businesses, fiscally conservative in principle but not in practice, and socially conservative].

          Also, American liberals (Democrats) would be considered extreme right-wingers in most of Europe. American conservatives look insane.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            For the purposes of my lament, I was meaning conservative as in “pro business” or “trust the market to sort itself out; great products and great companies will succeed whilst the crappy companies and products will not get bought or supported.”

            It’s very idealistic. Hell, working in IT I see daily how many of the vendors we are forced to use have horrible products and support, yet we continue to give them money because either there’s no other viable alternative or because they talk the talk with our management and leave us lower level blokes to pick up the pieces.

            I guess at some point I need to get rid of the idealistic economic viewpoint and just go for full out cynicism and distrust. It seems like for every one story of a company tried to do good, you have 10 stories of companies like Enron or some random electronic waste disposal companies ditching their stuff in 3rd world countries. I keep wanting to trust in the companies to police themselves but dammit, it really seems like that’s nothing but a pipedream.

      • Metalianman
      • 11 years ago

      I read all the replies to this comment and found a lot of different views on the same subject, more or less. Some blame the system, some blame the public and some blame the people in power. I cannot say if my point of view is going to be right or wrong since I am not a US citizen. I was born and raised in Greece, a small country in Europe where Democracy was founded and I currently live in UK for the past 4 years.

      I haven’t lived in US and more importantly I don’t know all US laws and constitutions. I would be amazed if I knew 10% of them, never-the-less, I believe that my views shouldn’t be criticised by that fact.

      I have lived in two countries, both under democracy but very different kinds of it. I came to understand that every system, therefore every government, has faults. There’s no such thing as perfection to anything. Even so, people will always argue about politics for every system is faulty but which is better cannot be decided. Every person is different and as a result the system that would be better can only be specified to one person at the time. The result was to make systems that would generally suit most of the people of a nation. Historically, socialism or communism were never actually built with a nation like USA in mind. You made your own brand of democracy, based mostly on the democracy that England had at the time, without the King. The times have changed a lot since then, and instead of trying to make a proper change we are all trying to patch our laws and cover loopholes. I cannot say that the system is rubbish, most of them obviously work just fine, but in a world so different than it was 100, 200, or 400 years ago, shouldn’t we consider a real change?

      I know it’s radical at best, if not borderline madness, then again governments want to keep the power and not give it to the people. I know how it sounds, but believe me, I’m not an activist or anything. Let’s move on to the people that rule our fine governments, shall we? People will always be flawed. you can buy people, you can intimidate or otherwise. People can be easily corrupted and especially people with power can easily corrupt others. In my opinion, the biggest mistake in US history was in the early 1900s when they decided to stop making their own currency and create the Federal Reserve, the result of which is a whole nation in debt. Every action the US has ever taken the last 80 years or so had a direct impact on its economy and the only true intentions behind every move was profit. Someone said something about greed in a comment, but nothing can compare with that, that’s beyond greed.

      And what about the citizens of every nation. Oh, there lies the rub my friends. Unfortunately, most of us are completely unaware of what is happening in our world, completely ignorant to the fact that our governments should be afraid of us and not the other way around.

      I know that this seems more and more like the ravings of a lunatic and I would never assume that I have a better knowledge is such things than you do. I just have a totally different experience and have been “fed” different versions of world history. I would like to leave you with one thing to ponder. If we had accurate history books in every country, how different our world would be today?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        Yes well unfortunately the victors write history and it wasn’t until fairly modern times that there were widespread means of communication open to people who really wanted to use it *and* where any ‘non-victor’ thoughts survived.

        • bdwilcox
        • 11 years ago

        Just for clarity, the United States is not a democracy; it is a Constitutional republic. Democracy, aka mobocracy, is the first step toward tyranny as the majority can simply enact any laws it feels want to, and in so doing crush the minority and violate the rights of the individual. On the other hand. a constitutional republic is a representative government limited in power by a contract or constitution that protects the rights of the minority and the individual.

          • Metalianman
          • 11 years ago

          I am pretty sure that Constitutional Republic is fairly based on democracy. In any case that is clearly not the point! Many people would argue that the public has the right to choose, so there is no point in arguing about it!

          As for the history, written by victors, I am pretty sure that history was written down the last 2500 years or so. Maybe it has been only the last 400 years or so that it was easy to duplicate writing with ease, resulting in many books, but it was always a choice to actually pick up a book and read it outside of school. Especially when it comes to history books, people tend to dismiss them while philosophy and novels are more pleasing to the public in many ways. Human beings wish to forget and let the past be buried but how are we ever going to evolve if not from learning from our mistakes?

            • bdwilcox
            • 11 years ago

            A constitutional republic is a representative democracy limited by a Constitution. In a constitutional republic, all actions and laws are judged against the Constitution to determine whether or not they are allowed. The laws in the Constitution are meant to protect the minority and the individual from having their God given rights taken away by a majority vote (i.e. the tyranny of the majority). It is an incredibly important distinction. One form, democracy, leads to tyranny, while the other form, constitutional republic, leads to liberty.

            • Metalianman
            • 11 years ago

            Tyranny? I think you went too far. The definition of tyranny as I know it is that all the power is to one person alone, a person that got into power without an election but with brute force. Unless the definition has changed the last 2500 years I am sure that is what tyranny means.

            As I know it, the first time the word tyrant meant what it means today was about 560BC in Athens for Peisistratus (the name itself means someone who controls an army). He came into power by force but it was described as a Democratic Tyranny for two reasons. First Democracy didn’t even exist back then, the first version of it was founded about 510BC, and because Athens continued to grow in all domains, economy and arts alike.

            Before him the word Tyrant (the word derives for the Latin Tyrannus, which means illegitimate ruler, and this in turn from the Greek ฯ„ฯฯฮฑฮฝฮฝฮฟฯ‚) was meant to describe whoever had power that they didn’t deserve though it didn’t meant a bad leader or otherwise.

            Democracy means that the power goes to the people, and by people I mean everybody. Yes, the majority wins, but it’s not the majority of a congress, but the majority of the whole nation. Isn’t it better to decide for yourself what you want from your government to do instead of waiting for them to do something? Like I said, everything has flaws. Like someone else commented, Pros and Cons everybody!

        • wira020
        • 11 years ago

        Thats a longggggg post….

        p/s: Just wanting to throw my name in this longggg n great ideological arguments… ๐Ÿ˜›

    • Meadows
    • 11 years ago

    Bwhahahahaha

      • wira020
      • 11 years ago

      Lols… spam…

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Made more sense than comment #11.

    • Barbas
    • 11 years ago

    But while there is a chance that the EU fine will actually get paid to some extent I don’t see the same happening at the US

      • grantmeaname
      • 11 years ago

      more importantly, AMD can then use the evidence in a civil trial.

    • khands
    • 11 years ago

    It’d be nice for AMD to get some cash out of this, instead of everyone else.

      • Barbas
      • 11 years ago

      Well the Attorney General is suing in the name of the people not AMD. Why should AMD get anything?

        • blastdoor
        • 11 years ago

        I agree that I don’t care about AMD shareholders. But the people might benefit from cash going to AMD if it made AMD a more viable competitor against Intel (better products, lower prices — that sort of thing). It’s really a question of who would spend the money better — the state of NY or AMD. Frankly, the answer to that is not at all clear to me.

      • rechicero
      • 11 years ago

      Sometimes we forget that we (consumers) are as hurt as AMD or more. In a fair market, Intel’d have been forced to lower prices of Pentium IV to compete with AMD superior Athlons. As they could sell the crappy PIV at high prices because they coerced OEMs, AMD sold the few Athlons they could sell at high prices as well and we all had to pay more for computers.

      If we see what happened the in recent years, with AMD capable of selling chips to big OEM, AMD and Intel have competed in prices and microprocessor prices have plummeted.

      That is the reason Intel is fined in EU, in Korea, in Japan, and should be fined in every country in the world. And, of course, AMD can sue for damages as well, but that’s another history.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        AMD ‘sold the few Athlons they could’? You mean the way they were production constrained and selling every chip they could make?

          • moshpit
          • 11 years ago

          I remember. AMD couldn’t even keep up with demand at several points in the Athlon name’s life time. Original K7 sold out as fast as they got in stock. Thunderbird’s were such a hot item them went out of stock frequently. It took AMD months to keep enough Barton’s in the channel to satisfy demand. K8? Hell, AMD was selling em as fast as they could churn em out, sometimes even faster as the eventual high price of the FX series proved AMD could get away with charging at that time.

          • rechicero
          • 11 years ago

          We’re in a world of “what if” right now, but while you’re right about the production constraints, the big fat constraint was OEMs (like DELL) not buying any chip. They used Chartered to make more chips and could have use other external fabs should they have clients to buy the chips.

          The ultimate fact is clear, prices plummeted since AMD started to sell to OEMs even with the tech advantage clearly to Intel.

          Edited because of bad written (not my language, sorry :))

            • NeelyCam
            • 11 years ago

            Why would an OEM offer AMD-based computers if they weren’t sure that AMD could deliver the goods? Shipment delays to customers would hurt OEM reputation more.

            The fact that Intel had the capacity to keep OEMs rolling is the main reason Intel got the orders. As simple as that.

            • rechicero
            • 11 years ago

            That and the little tiny fact that because of their volume and marketing dollars Intel was cheaper than AMD even if AMD gave away the chips. Just think about it for a second… If the big OEM didn’t want to consider AMD, why Intel offered money to push them away from AMD? You can say a lot of things about Intel, but they’re not in the business of giving away money (unless they expect some kind of profit… like a choked competitor)

            And, with AMD using the same fabs, and Intel with the tech advantage in almost any ratio (performace, performace per watt, etc), why they sell AMD now that the product is worse? And, how do you explain the fact that the prices plummeted form the moment OEMs started to buy AMD?

            I’m not saying that’s all you can say about that, it’s a very complex matter, but those facts are clear.

            • NeelyCam
            • 11 years ago

            Simple: AMD is selling at near-loss margins in order to try to desparately gain/keep market share and pay for the (very expensive) fabs, until they get more fabs going and better products to compete with.

            OEMs lllllove cheap stuff that they can sell cheap to customers (after taking their cut, of course). We don’t even know what kind of desparation ‘volume’ offers AMD is now giving to OEMs. We don’t even know if AMD is selling some items below cost, just to keep the market share.

            Also, as you stated, Intel is dominating performance and performance/watt, so it appears that AMDs stuff isn’t selling that well – there is no risk of demand being higher than supply (back then during Athlon years, this was a real issue).

            I think the situation might get more interesting when more GF fabs come online, and when Bulldozer comes out. But performance/cost(NOT performance/price) is still king, and I think Intel has that one in its pocket for any foreseeable future.

            • Palek
            • 11 years ago

            q[

            • rechicero
            • 11 years ago

            r[

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            I’m not so sure about that, if I recall Intel started the CPU price skirmish around the end of the P4 era and then went to fullout war during the Core 2 era – that was when price/performance really took a big leap. I think having a 65nm process allowed them to do that.

            • rechicero
            • 11 years ago

            Maybe is just coincidence, but Core 2 line was introduce in July of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2) and the first AMD servers from Dell were introduced in May of that year (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dell-Will-Use-AMD-Processors-24258.shtml).

            As you said, the price wars started at the end of the P4 and intensified with Core 2… Or, as I said, the price wars started with the first big OEM sells from AMD and intensified from that point. Chronologically it’s the same.

            You can even theorize that the first wins scored from AMD in the OEM territory push Intel to introduce the Core 2 line (in a monopoly of OEM they could have hold the Core 2 a few quarters more, easily, and they would have make more profits from the P4 line knowing that they had a winning card in the sleeve, just in case). I’d never have think about this, but the dates I found (Core 2 line introduced just after the DELL-AMD partnership) are somewhat… maybe a coincidence.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah it’s a coincidence – at least within the context of making the C2D – because it’s not like a CPU design can be whipped up in a month’s time because of a competitor’s design win ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • rechicero
            • 11 years ago

            The design? Of course not. But they could’ve hold the product already designed a few quarters and squeeze (more) the P4 line. The (somewhat paranoid) theory would be that maybe they could’ve introduced the Core technology before (it’s an evolution from the 2003 Pentium M) and waited till AMD scored a few wins in the OEM playground (=they perceived AMD as real competence). I want to clarify that I’m not convinced that was the case, it’s just a (plausible and maybe paranoid) theory according to the facts. Or maybe a coincidence, that’s plausible, too.

            • wira020
            • 11 years ago

            hmm.. where does Pentium D come along in this case?..

            As i remember Pentium 4 > Pentium D > Core 2 Duo

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Pentium D is really just a subset of P4. In my posts it is what I was really referring to with the ‘price ‘skirmish.’

      • bdwilcox
      • 11 years ago

      Trust me, these tangential investigations, suits and decisions aid AMD immensely. Most will be admissible in court, will be pretty nailed down, immune to refutation, and won’t need the arduous process of discovery. The wheels of the judiciary grind slowly, but in the end, AMD will have its day in court and will have an army of evidence behind it. Intel should definitely be nervous.

        • NeelyCam
        • 11 years ago

        Yeah, we’ll see how much evidence they can bring up. Maybe this time the testimony from that Dell executive will finally be taken into account (as opposed to the EU witch hunt to satisfy Dresden)

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This