Intel is no stranger to antitrust problems, the company just got nailed with a
$25 million fine in Korea, Europe's been
breathing down its neck for years, and AMD has been trying to drum up antitrust accusations against Intel since
time immemorial, but the FTC just embarked upon what could be Intel's biggest headache yet. The Federal Trade Commission has opened up a formal antitrust investigation of Intel, and has subpoenaed Intel, AMD and other smaller competitors for dirt on the company. Intel is being accused of using pricing policies designed to maintain a near-monopoly on the market, and while the company has been protected from a formal FTC inquiry by former head Deborah Majoras, the new chairman William Kovacic seems to see things a bit differently. A less formal review of the company has been ongoing since 2006.
posted Jun 6th 2008 1:56PM
If Microsoft hadn't lost to Apple, the ipod would have NEVER gotten as far as it did and we probably wouldn't have seen an iPhone appear so quickly.
Mac would be stuck in distant second and no one would even be thinking about them or their software.
Now they wanna sue Intel who'se been making ass kicking processors for years, while AMD has been running around in circles trying to make a processor consumers actually trust.
The C2D hasn't been out too long. Thing is, before that, Intel was flailing horribly while the AMD 64 architecture had completely taken over the gaming arena.
Though it looks like AMD might not come from behind with this one, so eh... who knows.
Yes yes, Apple is going out of business, just like they have been for the last 30 years, blah blah BLAH. I'm not sure why you believe Apple owes Microsoft anything for the success of the iPod, because that really doesn't make any sense.
Thank you for bringing the iPhone into every single article no matter how relavant it actually is.
idiot.
intel has the superior technology. its not a monopoly its just that intel is better.
when companies are not getting the results they want, its everyone else's fault but their own.
blah blah blah apple owes microsoft, bullsh*t, the anti-apple people around here are really getting annoying there are even more than the apple fanboys. its very irritating about people complaining about a company that is popular because of its designs and products. GET OVER YOURSELVES this is the real world we coukdnt care less if you want to give a biased opinion or not. WE ARE THE ONES WHO CHOOSE WHICH COMPANIES ARE POPULAR OR NOT.
Every product that the consumer buys from a certain company makes the company more popular. OMG Apple had a great idea and they made the iPod THIS ISNT RELATED TO MICROSOFT AT ALL. The iPod is a success and that is thanks to the hardware engineering that the apple folks did. Not thanks to microsoft losing. It is quality designs, hardware and software, that makes a product outstanding.
Just because Apple accomplished that doesnt mean that they could only have done it because of microsoft. No that is complete bullsh*t and everyone knows that.
So stop your whining and get off of our site.
popcorn time!
Flashpoint is synonymous with fail.
@ Gadget Chick
The fact Intel makes a better product NOW is not the reason they are on top and not the reason they have all these antitrust allegations....it is because they have been telling companies like Dell and the like that if they use anything besides Intel in their systems that Intel will penalize them....they might lose discounts or they might not get first dibs on the first runs of a new processor...
It is not that they make a better product now...it is the fact they bullied OEM's into using their product and no one else's...
(I am not a fanboy for either side....I run with whoever is on top at the time....my current system is actually a Core2Duo E8400 overclocked to 4.3GHz)
They didn't have a better product back with P4, yet they had a bigger market share. This is their monopoly. Due to this monopoly, AMD didn't have the cash to come up with a totally new chip, like Intel did. simple?
@Loker
@PCIV
Very well put, people need to remember the past and remember who was on top where AMD was still pushing this stuff against Intel, this is not new, its just opening up now.
I can't wait to see something good pop up from AMD soon, hopefully.
Is it only me who thinks the whole "antitrust" case is just a extremely-nonsense crap?
Well, it's their product and they can sell it for ANY price they want, and no one should have right to control the price of Intel's own product! Simple as that. It is something against basic rights and company's sort of privacy.
You have absolutely no idea what all the anti-trust allegations and charges surrounding Intel is about, do you?
Thank god normal people are more intelligent than fanboys.
for once I am happy the gov steps in on cases like this...this "pricing" they call it, makes it so AMD cant compete, sure its good business but the consumer looses...I know its hard to believe the gov actually does things to protect the consumer, sometimes
@me2
Haha. me? Fanboy?
At least I have a brain and can think from different perspectives.
But you don't seem to have one, even though you think what most people think about antitrust, you are flaming me with the "fanboy" word with no evidence of me being a fanboy of Intel. You also don't have respect to others' thoughts and easily call people "less intelligent".
Well Mr. super-intelligent non-fanboy, I wish one day you have a big company and they drain out millions of dollars from you just beucase of YOUR own marketing strategies, you'll be so happy do you Mr. non-fanboy?
yeah I'm a fanboy, I just think of companies' own rights of marketing.
and I'm sure I am less intelligent than you, happy now?
lol a new funny: Can fail.
funny to make fun of people's real names.
haha.
i'm a phanbouy
@Can
He's right, you have no idea what your talking about, you comment on something where you have no clue about what is going on.
If they can sell at ANY price then thats where a Monopoly is created. Bully out AMD because Intel has more money, Thank you FTC.
Can: How is it a fair market if intel can make their price whatever they want? If they have 80% market share and 500 billion more than amd then you could see this happen. Amd comes out with a new chip, comparable with intel's new chip. The catch is, intel has the capital to sell their product for $20 and lose $180 on every chip because they have 80% market share and 500 billion extra. Amd can't afford it because they have much less capital to lose on each chip sold.
Thats not "good marketing" at all. If you don't stop this then no one can compete with intel and then the advancement of the processor halts.
The Federal Trade Commission has opened up a formal antitrust investigation of Intel, and has subpoenaed Intel, AMD and other smaller competitors >>>>forfdirt
Yeah "forfdirt", I thought it was a successfull attempt to use a word I didn't know! Some legal jargon or something. LOL!
also: successful.
Dang, foiledfagain!
Thanks.
OOps.. someone moved the CSS files for Engadget again...
"using pricing policies designed to maintain a near-monopoly on the market" - that has got to be one of the weakest things I have ever heard.... Yeah you know If I was running a company I would price my products to high so that I can lets other people have my potentional sales..... huh?
I wasn't aware that a "near-monopoly" was a crime?..
...I always thought that that was the ultimate goal for any corporation.
In the US, if a company controls about 70% of the market, its a monopoly. Waiting for an absolute monopoly to occur before acting would be too late.
The goal of a corporation is to make a profit - having a monopoly makes profit-making easier. Capitalism teaches you how to make money - it doesnt provide values though - like competition, fair play, better cars for the environment and for our wallets. That is the big problem of any capitalist regime - there are no values, only profit. The only values held by a corporation are the values of it directors and shareholders. And who cares about values when you are making money? Lie cheat steal murder just to make a profit. The only "real" check on corporations is the state, with competitors a distanct second - remember OPAC (its an oligopoly, not a monopoly, but same rules apply). OPAC is a multi-national conglomerate with too much power and the US is now powerless to assert itself. The world is different now - its not like the 70s anymore.
Bottom line - this investigation gives AMD a fighting chance to survive - otherwise, its curtains for AMD.
The real allegation seems to be that it was the CONDITIONS they placed on OEMs in order for them to get that pricing. It isn't the pricing itself, but the anti-trust conditions that were imposed. I found several articles, along with several posters' comments. Rebates or low prices were offered in exchange for the OEMs keeping AMD out much of the time.
The EU, Japan and South Korea also took them to task for this.
Monopoly? So what, pray tell, is keeping AMD and others from developing a superior architecture to best Intel at its own game, other than the limits of their in-house talent? Competitive pricing and having a *currently* superior product are not a monopoly make, amiright? What's stopping the likes of Dell, Acer, Lenovo, HP/Compaq, Gateway, Apple et al from simply going somewhere else?
AMD had a superior architecture for several years, but intel kept raking in profits. why? uncompetitive activities.
Now they have used their ill-gotten financial clout to actually make some awesome chips, AMD can't compete because it doesn't have as many researchers etc.
If Intel rapes AMD to death that is a fairly major concern.
David: nail meet head
Very nicely put David
This is just a warmup to what's coming to all successful businesses if Obama wins the Election, Intel is just an easy target what with THE best processors and power/dollar in the market
So maybe if the EU somehow doesn't screw over Intel maybe Obama's people will and "save" AMD from the big bad bully (with a better product)
WTF about this is related to Obama...
Haha. I hope you're kidding. I love all the pro-monopoly talk going on. Do you have any idea how much a monopoly can hold back an economy as a whole?
Just look at AT&T and their hold over radio that started way before anyone who reads engadget was born. In short, it led to the destruction of radio as an open medium (very similar to what the telecoms industry is attempting to do to the internet today.) Not to mention that it put off the television by 20 years or so because it was fat and happy controlling radio.
No competition = No incentive
.. I don't know where to start Scotty boy.. intel used to sell weaker processors for more money, and they kept epic market share.. they managed it.. it happened.
There being accused of being in business, and using pricing policies that give them more business? Guess everything I learned at pepperdine about pricing strategies was way off base : \
@ Scott
Obviously ... just like everything you learned about English.
There != They're != Their
Grats on your Pepperdine Edumication though ...
Wow, how much does it cost to get a lack luster education there?
Your right grammar has never been my strongest skill, common sense was.
Scott...
If you don't have the common sense to construct a proper sentence while bragging about a Pepperdine education, how you can you expect anyone to believe you can construct a proper conclusion about the subject at hand?
Just remember:
Common sense is just that - common. But how often would you say the common population is right?
So what you have managed to do is attack me... The person trying not talk to you about something that we have bother read on a blog. What you have managed to do is show that you are more intent on making someone look stupid or sound stupid. But you still have not said anything about what the article is about. Nice job.
This is the second time in a week I've had to say this
AMD, you have a golden opportunity here......dont' screw it up.
And they'll screw it up anyway and then reward their CEO with another $10MM bonus.
The comment system is F*&^#D
Wow a $10 M&M, thats a nice bonus!
Retro77 the "MM" is used in finance to denote "Million" for dollars.
http://www.riskglossary.com/link/mm.htm
On a sad note for AMD. I just read Anandtechs reviw on Nahalem. AMD better come out with something soon (~1 - 2 months) that absolutely kicks the living sh*t out of Nehalem or there are basically bankrupt.
They let the far superior SLi out of their grasp for sh*tty ATI graphics.
So a Quad-SLi, Skulltrail Nehalem based system is the system to beat.
Yea Madmike, good luck with the Quad SLI Nehalem... considering Intel and nVidia are at war over intel being allowed to use SLI in their chipsets and nVidia saying no. Now intel wont allow nVidia to manufacture chipsets to support nehalem. Doesn't look like there will be any SLI for nehalem.
"Ha Ha"
fin
What's the FTC is it like the FCC with balls
/dull joke
And cooler toys.
will you guys stop talking and choose a piece already.
i call number 1
intel FTW!!
3 - Sammy
Go!
As big a fan of AMD I am, after reading the article, I can't really see what the big deal is. All companies do this in one way or another. It's called business.
If things had been different, AMD would be in this same situation.
Its hard to see the big deal because the article points vage assertions of Intel's conduct.
In the US - it is not illegal to be a monopoly. But if you are a monopoly, your actions are more limited than if you weren't a monopoly. The US likes competition, so monopolies cannot interfere with competition, but non-monopolies can - the reason being there is someone bigger out there. May the best product/service win without cheating or rigging the game. There is a line between being a more efficient corporation and cheating/bullying. The fact that AMD had a better product for a few years yet showed no respective profit - points more to cheating/bullying that it does efficiency. This doesn't mean thats what Intel did - just something doesnt smell right. It could also be that AMD is an inefficient business - which developments as of late, seems more plausible now. I wouldn't easily dismiss either point - that Intel abused its monopoly power or that AMD just doesn't know how to run a business well. But I do think that this fight needs to be fought.
Great post larcen007!!
The fact Intel makes a better product NOW is not the reason they are on top and not the reason they have all these antitrust allegations....it is because they have been telling companies like Dell and the like that if they use anything besides Intel in their systems that Intel will penalize them....they might lose discounts or they might not get first dibs on the first runs of a new processor...
It is not that they make a better product now...it is the fact they bullied OEM's into using their product and no one else's...
(I am not a fanboy for either side....I run with whoever is on top at the time....my current system is actually a Core2Duo E8400 overclocked to 4.3GHz)
If they really did that, then they DESERVE this investigation!
Intel bullied Dell? The government is doing the bullying here.
That is what AMD stated the last time they made allegations against Intel about monopolistic practices....They seemed to have solid evidence and testimony to back it up too...
I like how when 'evil corporations' like Microsoft or Verizon conduct potentially anti-trust business practices, everyone on here is like 'go, go, get them bastards, make them pain for their heinous crimes!'
But when every fanboy's favorite Intel faces the same allegations, it's more like 'oh, this is a bunch of crap, it's not their fault they make a better product, so just leave them alone, cause my C2D is suuuwwweeett'
Intel can charge whatever they want, it's their product. They built the labs that made the chips. They hired the engineers. They successfully marketed their product. AMD has failed and now its running to the gubbment for halp. As a result we'll get an inferior product from AMD just because they're a lousy competitor.
It's not what they charge...
I believe that Intel fans have finally got their revenge on AMD because a year or two back all their friends would laugh when they hear they still using Intel P3 and P4 while everyone is going for an AMD Athlon 64. I used both processors and listened to a lot of debates about this endless topic. Both companies SUCK, Intel for bullying other companies like HP and DELL while focusing on eating up the market to be a Monopoly and AMD for not making great process for the high end market and telling on Intel. Although they both made great processors in the past and still do, they both have to focus on one thing, (competition) so we users can get the most out of their products. That would be a happy ending for everyone.
Engadget's piece is LAME and UNINFORMATIVE, and is probably the reason why there are so many silly comments here about the FTC bullying Intel or Intel having the right to define its pricing policy.
THE FTC ISN'T GOING AFTER INTEL'S PRICING POLICY. It's going after a distribution scheme where Intel's clients only get rebates or get bigger rebates ONLY IF THEY DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH AMD. Read the piece in nytimes, it says so much more clearly.
As many have posted here, this practice gave Intel an unfair advantage and managed to get it through the heat back when AMD was biting its heels with better and cheaper CPUs without much trouble. Sure Intel has better products now - but if AMD goes belly-up I so does Intel's incentive to innovate. Which is all the worse if it could have been prevented by the FTC and they didn't act.
I don't know American law very well but I'd assume that it's the FTC who must prove that Intel's conduct was unlawful. So if Intel does get fined I for one don't believe it will be because of a whim by the folks at the FTC, but because they managed to prove that Intel broke the law, the same law that applies to any other company in the same situation.
Just my USD$.02