I did not start this thread to discuss Intel's legal issues or business
practices, it was supposed to be about Intel's manufacturing technology,
but as usual it's gone off-kilter. So anyways, let me get my two cents
in about the original technological argument before we send it back to
legal and business issues.
As you'll recall, Intel announced its 45nm process with HKMG (High-K,
Metal Gates) to great fanfare. Various websites and forums proclaimed it
an amazing achievement. Well, the standard AMD 45nm SOI without HKMG
process seems to be superior to Intel's, as they are seeing lower power
and thermal requirements at the low-end, and higher overclockability at
the high-end. AMD will be adding HKMG later on in the 45nm process too,
but so far it looks unnecessary.
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Although I like AMD, that doesn't make me hate Intel.
> They've just done some stupid things that their large size
> enables them to survive. I do not think Intel's misbehaviour
> has approached that of IBM, let alone Microsoft.
That belief is not supported by the facts. Intel has already been tried
and convicted by two countries, Japan and South Korea. Now they're in
the fight of their lives in the entire EU, affecting dozens of countries
of course. There is no such thing as lesser misbehaviour when it comes
to anti-trust, you either committed the acts or you didn't.
> Respectfully, I do not believe that Intel acquired its'
> monopoly by illegal means. At critical junctures, they
> just out-competed. Monopolies themselves are _not_ illegal,
> but finding yourself with one (and AMD may also qualify)
> does mean certain behaviours are prohibited under US law.
Intel was kicked out of the memory market quite some years ago, because
it couldn't compete. One can only assume that they took that exit
personally and decided that the processor market was their line in the
sand, the one that no one else shall be allowed to pass. Let's not
forget that at one time there must have been nearly a dozen companies
that produced x86 processors, now they are down to the final two. It
seems like they have outcompeted them, but dead men can't tell their tales.
> Sure, some Intel offices did some illegal things, but I believe
> this is a local matter and not a matter of corporate policy.
> Certainly Intel HQ was quite contrite towards the US DoJ when
> challenged. Contrast MS (take us to court) or IBM (we'll
> talk but lawyer you to death).
It was hardly just a local matter, it's endemic to its entire corporate
culture, worldwide. It's not even beneath them to try to crush a
charity, if they perceive it to be not using their parts. This should
not be a surprise, once monopoly mentality hits, it hits the entire
corporation, like at IBM and Microsoft previously. BTW, just because the
American government hasn't held Intel accountable, that's just a false
sense of security: no one should expect either the US DoJ or FTC (or any
other federal agency, for that matter) were at all doing their jobs
properly during the entire George W. Bush administration.
In Europe, it looks like Intel has already seen the hand-writing on the
wall, even before the EU's competition commission has issued its ruling.
It's now suing the EU for unfairness. I guess it realized the EU was
unfair, when they raided Intel's offices *twice*!!
Intel Calls EU Antitrust Probe 'Discriminatory and Partial' - CIO.com -
Business Technology Leadership
"The European Union's antitrust investigation of Intel is
"discriminatory and partial," the chip maker complained in an action
that's detailed in a recent edition of the EU's official journal, saying
it's not being permitted to properly defend itself against the charges."
http://www.cio.com/article/466613/In...y_and_Partial_
It's also decided to retroactively sue the South Korean FTC, just to
show it's being besieged unfairly by everybody.
EETimes.com - Intel seeks to overturn Korean FTC ruling
"In response to a ruling, Intel has filed a complaint with the Seoul
High Court seeking to overturn the KFTC's final written decision that
was served on Intel on Nov. 7. The filing asserts that ''the KFTC has
made substantial factual and legal errors in formulating its final
written opinion,'' but Intel did not disclose the details."
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=212400117
> What specific actions do you consider Intel "bullying"?
> A certain amount of pressure is normal in business.
> The most persistant oddity has been the Dell sole-source,
> but I'm confident the DoJ has been all over those agreements.
The Dell issue all of those years ago is just one of the points of
contention. One can even argue that Dell has tumbled from the top spot
in the US market, as a result of Intel pulling all of its subsidies from
them ($1bn/year). The fact that Intel pulled its subsidies could also be
seen as a result of AMD's lawsuit making things too hot for them.
But Dell isn't the only example. In Europe, a major computer store
chain, Media Markt, has been accused of taking Intel money in return for
refusing to accept computer models with AMD processors in them.
Intel also gives illegal discounts which are not based on sales volume,
but on market share percentages (e.g. bigger discounts if 80% of your
processors are Intel rather than just 70%, or 90% over 80%, etc.).
Discounts based on volume are perfectly legal, discounts based on sales
proportion are not.
It does not even see a problem with competing against its own partners,
even if that partner is a charitable organization. A few years ago, the
OLPC effort invited Intel to sit in on its board meetings as one of its
partners, hoping that Intel would stop trying to sell its own notebook
against them. Intel used to opportunity tell potential customers that it
sits on the board of OLPC and that it knows for sure that OLPC is crap,
and they should buy from Intel instead. Various world governments sent
the transcripts of Intel's backstabbing sales efforts to OLPC. OLPC then
kicked Intel out again.
Yousuf Khan
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
