Intel responds to EU charges, deems actions 'beneficial' to consumers

Shortly after the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel asseverating that it used unfair and unlawful tactics against AMD, Intel has fired back a statement of its own in response. Put simply, Intel declared that it is "confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers." Furthermore, the company noted that while it would "certainly have preferred to avoid the cost and inconvenience of establishing that its competitive conduct in Europe has been lawful, the Commission's decision to issue a Statement of Objections means that at last Intel will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations made by our primary competitor." Notably, the chip giant even mentions that the case is actually "based on complaints from a direct competitor rather than customers or consumers," and concludes by suggesting that when "competitors perform and execute, the market rewards them." Settle in folks, this one has just begun.

[Via TheRegister]

[E71 @ Jul 27th 2007 2:56PM]

Go Intel! Show those EU turds what we're made of!

[fahnboi @ Jul 27th 2007 3:10PM]

i hope that's sarcastic. otherwise it's sad to see how far into mindless cheer leading this site has denigrated into

[Matt B @ Jul 27th 2007 3:23PM]

I think the EU just likes to give US companies crap.

[ddaw735 @ Jul 27th 2007 3:36PM]

No to me they just side with an other company. Like what they did with Sony and blueray.
But on another note what is intel suposed do take a three month break and let amd catch up.
(sorry about my english its not that great)

[Rohit Kapur @ Jul 27th 2007 3:30PM]

I miss "intel inside". . .

[steve sway @ Jul 27th 2007 8:20PM]

Indeed:

AMD: leapsbeyond.com > Intel: leapahead.com

[Iam9376 @ Jul 28th 2007 1:22AM]

@ steve

yeah.. but one is false advertising! :)

[Leillox @ Jul 27th 2007 3:36PM]

I think Intel isnt the one to blame for AMD's failure, they had the same chance of comming with something usefull but they didnt even when they were comming from a successfull Atlhon vs Pentium 4 competition with the 64-bit implementation, in-die memory controller, a wonderfull set of chipsets (nvidia mostly). On the other side Intel was getting weaker with the netburst "curse", prescott underperformance, but they kept working without complains (i have never seen Intel directing charges against AMD) and it paid. the israli team came up with the "core" architecture that benefited us. So i dont see why developing does anything bad to the cosumer or the market.

This is like F1 where FIA keep blaming Ferrari of having an advantage over others because they develop better engines than the others.

In real life this is called being "lame", the EC should tell AMD to put themselves together and get to work.

(ATI was doing just great until AMD took over BTW)

[anonymous @ Jul 27th 2007 3:38PM]

beneficial, eh? sounds a little too much like Mother Russia. "This will be good for you ... " *slap*

[Leillox @ Jul 27th 2007 3:39PM]

yeah right....! lower prices of the better performing chips on the market really hurts the consumer...
i hear blah, blah, blah, intel pwned us, blah, blah....

[KoonycosKookybossDonkeyBalls @ Jul 27th 2007 3:55PM]

The IQ level represented by the responses so far appear to be at an all time low.

Seems like most of you don't understand what the case is about. Do you even remember what were the original allegations? that it was about Intel using unfair tactics like penalising PC manufacturers for using non-Intel chips? And that one of the possible direct consequence of AMD's actions was Dell started to use AMD chips? and now even Toshiba is starting to use AMD chips. Ringing any bells yet?

Regardless of whether Intel was right or wrong, this doesn't have much to do with which company has the better chips.

And "Leillox"? you are an idiot. "Lower prices" is only achievable through two or more fairly competing companies. If Intel forces all competitors out of the market, you'd be paying $1000 for a low-end CPU.

[Blah @ Jul 27th 2007 11:32PM]

I agree with your first comment. It is true that they are attacking Intel for completely different purposes than what people think.

But i disagree with your second comment. If there is only one player in the chip business (which will never happen, ever) then that company is always in competition with itself. It will always lower prices when it releases new product. It will price that product competitively, and also lower prices of old product to clear out inventory. No matter who is in the game, one or many, there is always competition.

You people seem to think that if Intel is the only processor maker, all progress in this field will halt. Are you stupid? They want to continue making money, and will release new products to make you buy it. Dont be naive. The only thing that might (and its a big might) is that progress might slow down a bit, but you know what? Developers decide if new processors are needed. If there are programs that become popular, and people want, and Intel doesnt have a processor that can run them efficiently, well, then they will make it. Why? Because if they make a product that people will buy to run that program (think of it in a larger scale, with the evolution of games and programs), then intel makes money. You can make the claim that programmers will only develope as far as a platform will allow it to work with, and you would have a point. Nonetheless, Intel would have every reason to continue to manufacture products, and keep Moores law continuing.

AMD seems to be hanging on by a thin thread, and the EU i see can see that. Just like Microsoft, this most likely came about from competition complaining to the EU, or wherever you go to complain about these kinds of issues, and Intel taking some kind of punishment once this is over, because I assume your guilty.

[fahnboi @ Jul 28th 2007 12:51AM]

@blah:
um. yeah. monopolies are good for us and innovate more cuz they make money. yeah. see trouble with that is that the greed principle does not operate on logic. ask steve balls-mer. name me one instance a monopoly in any sector was optimal (or even good) for more than 12 people.

how far can you take intel fanboyism? hey, to quote a famous philosopher, "blah", what, are you fckuing stupid?

[mythicalprogrammer @ Jul 29th 2007 2:50AM]

@Blah

So... being monopoly is when consumers win? Are you stupid? Did you fail economy 101 or history ?

Ok, I'll agree I'm a AMD fanboy and I own their stocks.

You know why Intel and Amd stocks always flux?

1. -> Price competitions -> sell chips at low prices -> less revenue -> consumers win -> I loose (stock holders)

Do you want an OPEC analogy?

[Sean McRoberts @ Jul 27th 2007 5:42PM]

Any company that bullies vendors into utilizing their products should be penalized due to monopolistic practices. It is sad that the legal process takes so long to get underway, and the response from Intels lawyers shows how untouchable they think they are. AMD rocks...Intel blows.

[Jman196 @ Jul 27th 2007 7:00PM]

It's not intels fault, AMD is retarted for not coming out with the 65nms sooner (same with microsoft wtf is taking them so long?, it would cost them less to make them so just freaking make them already) now intel is going to 45nm, while ass-slow AMD is still on freaking 90nms! Whats wrong with you AMD? Get off your lazzy asses and do something for a change (same with you microsoft I want a fucking falcon 360 already!).

[Jmanisslow @ Jul 27th 2007 7:47PM]

bloody hell, one more time.

This is case is about things that happened years ago. AMD is accusing Intel of using unfair practices, like penalising vendors for selling AMD chips.

This is not about current CPU performances and releases.

And I completely failed to understand what the hell you are on about with the Microsoft bits. Are you talking about their product releases? Window Vista? XBox? Zune? what the hell are you talking about? If everybody comes here and starts talking about how slow their favourite company releases products, this site is going to need bloody big storage space.

[jman196 @ Jul 27th 2007 10:09PM]

First of all, the jerkstore called and they're running out of you, second of all, how the hell doesn't it have to do with cpu price or performance, how do you think intel is so popular. You think if you market right (legally or illegally), you can sell millions of 1.0 ghz chips in 2007? How does that make sense? Of course it matters, you're the slow one "jmanisslow" clever name btw.

[mythicalprogrammer @ Jul 29th 2007 2:50AM]

Can you read the article or study what the case is about before you open your stupid mouth?

65nm 45nm etc.. = you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Leillox @ Jul 28th 2007 12:11AM]

Yeah i guess i missed the point in the second comment and i got carried away, my apologies.

Anyways i guess its not "completly" fair from intel to "force" providers to sell their chips only, but i said "force" beacause thats a pretty legal procedure just not really ethical though. what they are relly offering is better deal for exclusivity, sad thing is (well its their fault for being lazy) AMD isnt really up to the challenge and they fail at making the proper counter offer.

[alan @ Jul 28th 2007 12:49PM]

Intel didn't force anybody to anything. They offered better (lower) prices to customers that purchased more of their product. Not much different than Costco offering better (lower) prices to customers that purchase in bulk. So how do lower prices hurt consumers?

[ToAllTheRetards @ Jul 28th 2007 2:49PM]

One last time, just so the idiots can understand,

I don't really care which side you are cheering for, and I don't really care whether Intel is better or AMD is better. The allegations are that, Intel has/had used unfair market practices to force manufacturers NOT to use AMD chips, including:
1) not giving PC makers "kickbacks" if they have been found to sell AMD chips
2) deliberate delayed shipments
and some other alleged actions.

This happened across the years, even when AMD chips were a better alternative than Intel chips. Such as when K7 MP chips were significantly cheaper and better than Xeon DP, but were unable to break into the market because no big PC companies were making machines using them. This was clearly bad for AMD, this was also bad for customers buying machines from the likes of HP, IBM and Dell, because they had no choice but to buy the expensive and less performing Xeon DP chips.

This is essentially what the anti-competition cases are about.

=========================================
To the idiot called Alan:

"Intel didn't force anybody to anything." - This is the meat of the case, it's not decided yet, so I think someone as stupid as you probably doesn't know truth.

"They offered better (lower) prices to customers that purchased more of their product." - Sounds nice, but the extra bit where they essentially charged more or delayed shipments for customers that also buy AMD chips is illegal, if found true.

"Not much different than Costco offering better (lower) prices to customers that purchase in bulk. So how do lower prices hurt consumers?" - Costco doesn't charge you more or refuse to sell you things just because you also buy stuff from another shop.

===========================
To the idiot called "Blah"

"You people seem to think that if Intel is the only processor maker, all progress in this field will halt. Are you stupid?" - Your comprehension ability is nil. What you were supposed to understand is that without an competitor, Intel can charge whatever they like for their CPUs, and they WILL charge whatever they like.

The rest of the paragraph was pretty meaningless, since you got the first part wrong already, until this little gem:
"Nonetheless, Intel would have every reason to continue to manufacture products, and keep Moores law continuing." - Do you actually think Moore's Law is some sort of law they really have to adhere to? it's just an observation of the state of silicon chip development, you dumbass.

"AMD seems to be hanging on by a thin thread, and the EU i see can see that." - dumbass, AMD is raising the issue all over the world, including US and Japan, and other countries where both Intel and AMD chips are sold.

===============
Seriously, you guys with less neurons than a worm should understand that if AMD goes out of business, you'd be looking at Via to compete with Intel in the X86 market, and you WILL be paying $500 for a Celeron chip. Why? because you have no choice. Stupid idiots.

[johnnieblue @ Aug 11th 2007 10:47PM]

Socialist economics suck.