So AMD is suing Intel. First, I'd suggest reading through the 48-page complaint filed by AMD. Given that Vinney is in law school, I've seen a few of these things, but this one is surprisingly legible even for us non-legal types :)
I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:
I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:
1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard
Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.
The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.
The list goes on and on.
What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.
Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.
What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.
One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.
Your thoughts?
I've known about this sort of stuff for quite some time, in fact, I'd say that out of the 48 pages AMD's legal team put together there's a lot missing. AMD told me that they aren't putting all cards on the table, but here are a couple of other things that I've seen personally:
I can't even begin to count the number of times where motherboard manufacturers have told me that they could not:
1) Send an AMD motherboard for review
2) Promote an AMD motherboard
3) Let us take pictures of an AMD motherboard
Out of fear of Intel retaliation. Remember the original Athlon days when no motherboard manufacturer would dare make a board for the K7? All of the frightened manufacturers were afraid of them losing their Intel chipset allocation if they supported the K7.
The same sort of stuff happened during the i820 days. Intel's first RDRAM based chipset was a complete flop, yet they offered no real SDRAM alternative. VIA did however, and Intel punished those manufacturers who didn't promote their i820 platforms or who too eagerly embraced VIA's solutions.
The list goes on and on.
What's my take on it? I'm all for competition based on technology and technological merit. Whenever Intel was faster we'd recommend them, and whenever AMD was faster, we'd do the same for them. Luckily, you all get it: AMD's market share among our readership is around 50% because you all generally purchase based on technology, performance and a lot of you are building your own systems, so these issues don't directly affect you. Obviously the rest of the market doesn't work that way, and I'd be glad to see that change; it benefits the end user and that's all I care about.
Right now AMD builds the best desktop CPUs, Intel offers the best value on dual core desktop CPUs and Intel has the best mobile chips. It would be nice if the entire market purchased based on those purely technological comparisons.
What will come of AMD's lawsuit? AMD told me that they are in this for the long haul and they aren't expecting to even go to trial in the next 18 months. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but I do know that things aren't entirely balanced today; and I am a fan of anything that drives innovation and produces better overall products for the end users.
One thing is for sure: I would hate for just AMD or Intel to exist, we need both and we need balance. If this lawsuit results in more balance and better competition based on technology rather than marketing ability, then more power to AMD.
Your thoughts?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
SV - Friday, July 22, 2005 - link
Yes... Thats good. being a small biz owner, I got involved in a BIG BIZ (big boys) fight like this and had to kiss and make up.! Sometimes revenge with even law-suit is a great way to kick ass...!!!!!!!GO AMD.!
Xpander - Thursday, July 21, 2005 - link
I hope AMD wins this one! I hate this Intel monopolistic way of being ! Every It Shop recomends Intel products, even if AMD is much more cost effective !I paid 1200 $ for a p233 mmx back in 1998. I still regret that.
For 600 i got an AMD 1600+ in 2001. And it was great !
Now I have an Barton 2500+ on Asus a7n8x e deluxe and I`m very satisfied with it! My brother has the same !
Good luck AMD ! Keep it going !
alan - Monday, July 18, 2005 - link
while true, AMD is sueing them under section 2Dan - Thursday, July 14, 2005 - link
102: "Intel has to be considered a monopoly first before it can be violating anti-trust laws"Not so. The Sherman Act covers two basic offenses: Monopolization and Restraint of Trade. Even though Intel isn't a monopoly, they can still be civilly or criminally liable for restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Pete - Thursday, July 14, 2005 - link
Where is Anand? This is not like him...dev - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
What may be seen as strong arm is generally correct, intel are now the microsoft of chip design, but most people who want real world performance still go other places linux vs microsoft, or in this case amd.as a tech, i just make sure that i give what will do the job better
Christopher - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
Something tells me that Intel and Microsoft are taking leaves out of each other's books, by threatening people who try to compete with them and by twisting manufacturer's arms in order to get them to stick with Intel, when AMD chips are really the better chip on the market.Tim - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
It seems that AMD is not the only one suspicious of Intel. The EU raided Intel's European offices today on suspicion of allged antitrust behavior. Perhaps this isn't just hearsay (for all of you nay-sayers in the crowd). As they say here in America, the proof is in the bottom of the paper shredder.Read more:
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml...
viditor - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
"while Intel dominates the market, it does not have a monopoly"I don't think that there's any question that Intel certainly IS a monopoly, though proving it will take time. Remember that a monopoly only means control of the market, not being the only one in it. The US regards any company with greater than 50% marketshare to be a probable monopoly...
Insomniac - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
Stan: Intel has to be considered a monopoly first before it can be violating anti-trust laws. It's clear the alleged behavior would qualify as anti-trust under U.S. laws, however, while Intel dominates the market, it does not have a monopoly. Until Intel is considered a monopoly, they are just competing.