AMD (finally) sues Intel

[seekenneth]

---

thats if the consumers are so god damn dumb.

[vern]

You're right, Intel was innovative... but only way back in the 80's. Intel may have been the father of x86, but ever since AMD released the Athlon XP, AMD64 (which Intel copied with their own version, EM64T), and the Athlon 64 FX, Intel has become way behind them. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD, and any other hardware review site like hardocp & tom's hardware. They will most likely go for AMD.

Are you implying that Intel no longer innovates? Intel has different plans and different architectures that are not in line with AMD's plans. Both companies have different phi***phies competing in the same industry. To imply that Intel copied AMD's technology is saying that Intel had their Splinter Cell steal AMD's plans. Both companies invented two ways of doing the same thing. As for review sites, none of them have ever said anything along the lines of "AMD is almost always better" ... because the fact is, their chips that were meant for to attract those who like benchmarks aren't much better than Intel's, and in many ways inferior to Intel chips.

This type of innovation from AMD can only mean one thing: Intel spends way more money on marketing/advertising, while AMD focused more on R&D.

Lets not speculate on how much money the companies spend on marketing because the fact is, neither company markets/advertises much to the common Joe. Fact is, Intel just has better partnerships and deals with companies that matter, and that is the heart of the anti-trust problem, not who innovates. Not who spends more money.

Read: large number of patents != innovation

I beg to differ. To a technology company, patents are their life blood. Did AMD release any new line of chips without a boatload of patents? No. You call AMD's technology as innovation, and what protects that innovation from outright theft? Patents are what keeps some tech companies alive, from SCO to Transmeta.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying that Intel is the bad guy, nor am I saying that AMD r00lz:

I thought it seemed like you laid guilt without defense.

Bottom line: we need both companies to exist. Competition is good. End of story.

No contest there.

[fd]

Read: large number of patents != innovation

I beg to differ. To a technology company, patents are their life blood. Did AMD release any new line of chips without a boatload of patents? No. You call AMD's technology as innovation, and what protects that innovation from outright theft? Patents are what keeps some tech companies alive, from SCO to Transmeta.

correct! if you know how dirty this patent game is then you'll understand.

[darkwing]

actually ang gi protest sa AMD kay ang strong arm tactics sa Intel dili about patents..

[seekenneth]

stroing arm tactics, thats business. kung ang amd ang naka una sa intel mao rasad ang buhaton nila. jeez, guess they ran out of ideas mao gi sue nalang nila.

[darkwing]

From anandtech-also read the complaint filed by AMD first before commenting, naa sad sila valid points...

AMD sues Intel - Tuesday, Jun 28, 2005 2:03 PM
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?

[darkwing]

just 1 point in the suit

6. Consumers ultimately foot this bill, in the form of inflated PC prices and the loss
of freedom to purchase computer products that best fit their needs. Society is worse off for
lack of innovation that only a truly competitive market can drive. The Japanese Government
recognized these competitive harms when on March 8, 2005, its Fair Trade Commission (the
“JFTC”) recommended that Intel be sanctioned for its exclusionary misconduct directed at
AMD. Intel chose not to contest the charges.

serves Intel right for its exclusionary misconduct

[seekenneth]

@darkwing - amd fan boi sad ka noh. Geez business is business, you cant really judge a company thats trying to get rid of thier competitor.

anyone would do the same when it comes to business. period. and thats a fact. shesh...

[darkwing]

I'm not an AMD fan boi, I'm just a fan for innovation, in fact my first computer was a 80386 and considered the AMD K6 as inferior, but starting with Athlon XP I never used Intel anymore, anyways just read the lawsuit, and just like the article, I follow this line: 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. If Intel has illegaly violated US anti-trust laws, then it should be fined in the civil suit case, also because this is a not a criminal suit, AMD has just to prove that it has been hurt by illegal tactics by Intel in order to be awarded compensation, more likely however this will be settled out-of-court As I said, pls read the lawsuit in order to hear AMD's side, as these excerpts alleges:

40. Sony. With the introduction of its Athlon microprocessor in 1999, AMD began to
make notable inroads into Intel’s sales to major Japanese OEMs, which export PCs
internationally including into the U.S. By the end of 2002, AMD had achieved an overall
Japanese unit market share of approximately 22%. To reverse the erosion of its business, in
2003 Intel paid Sony multimillion dollar sums, disguised as discounts and promotional support,
in exchange for absolute microprocessor exclusivity. Sony abruptly cancelled an AMD Mobile
Athlon notebook model. Soon thereafter, it cancelled plans to release AMD Athlon desktop
and notebook computers. As a result, AMD’s share of Sony’s business dropped from 23% in
2002 to 8% in 2003, and then to 0%, where it remains today. In proceedings brought by the
JFTC, Intel has accepted the JFTC charges of misconduct with respect to Sony.

41. Toshiba. Like Sony, Toshiba was once a significant AMD customer, but also
like Sony,Toshiba received a very substantial payment from Intel in 2001 not to use AMD
processors. Toshiba thereupon dropped AMD. Its executives agreed that Intel’s financial
inducements amounted to “cocaine,” but said they were hooked because reengaging with AMD
would jeopardize Intel market development funds estimated to be worth $25-30 million per
quarter. Toshiba made clear to AMD that the tens of millions of dollars of additional
marketing support was provided on the explicit condition that Toshiba could not use AMD
microprocessors. In proceedings brought by the JFTC, Intel has accepted the JFTC charges of
misconduct with respect to Toshiba.

45. Gateway/eMachines. From 2001 to 2004, Gateway was exclusively Intel. In
2001 former Gateway CEO, Ted Waitt, explained to an AMD executive that Intel offered him
large sums not to deal with AMD, which he could not refuse: “I have to find a way back to
profitability. If by dropping you, I become profitable, that is what I will do.” Shortly
thereafter, Gateway stopped purchasing from AMD and issued a press release announcing its
Intel exclusivity. The announcement came within weeks of similar public announcements of
Intel exclusivity by both IBM and Micron.

82. Intel also disrupted AMD’s launch of its Opteron server chip, which was rolled
out on April 22, 2003, with few in attendance and little industry support. A computer industry
journal reported Intel’s fingerprints: “They all [vendors] told me that prior to the launch, they
received a phone call from Intel. Intel asked if they were going to the launch. If they replied
yes, the Intel rep asked them if it was ‘important to them to go’, or ‘if they really wanted to
go.’ Pressing the vendors, I got the same response, ‘Intel is too smart to threaten us directly,
but it was quite clear from that phone call that we would be risking our various kickback
money if we went.’”

[darkwing]

grabe naman sad ni Intel diay kung tinuod ni...

86. As retaliation for dealing with AMD, Intel has also used chipset pricing as a
bludgeon. For example, in 2003, Acer had committed to launch the AMD Athlon XP. Acer
executives worldwide had been working with AMD to bring the product to market post-launch.
But, on the eve of the launch the Acer management in Taiwan pulled the plug. AMD learned
from Acer executives that Intel had threatened to raise chipset prices by $10 on all Intel-based
Acer systems if any processor business was awarded to AMD outside of Europe.