New York attorney general files antitrust lawsuit against Intel
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 4th 2009 12:09PM
posted Nov 4th 2009 12:09PM
No matter how it tries, Intel just can't shake those pesky antitrust monkeys off its back: the attorney general of New York today filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the chipmaker, saying it unfairly prevented AMD from competing under state and federal law. That's pretty much what the EU just fined Intel $1.45b for in May and exactly what AMD itself is suing Intel for in Delaware, so we're guessing things are a little busy for Chipzilla's lawyers right now -- and it's just going to get worse, as the smart money says this is all just a precursor to the Federal Trade Commission dropping the hammer sometime soon. Hey, maybe this would be a good time to for Intel to distract everyone with some USB 3.0 chipsets?
Ooo. Another lawsuit.
treble damages?
OH MY GOSH I AM SO FREAKING HAPPY TO SEE THIS
IN YO FACE INTEL!
BET YOU LIKE IT HUH, DONT YOU!?
Shit Happens..............
If the New York attorney general was so worried about anti-trust why does he waste his time with Intel - why not go after Big Oil and the Pharmaceutical companies do us all a huge favor.
Oh wait, they are prolly paying him not to do that --- duuu...
File one for all the sleep issues I had with my x58 mobo. :)
As much a fan of competition as I am, I can't say AMD's plethora of problems can be entirely blamed on Intel's sneaky dealings. These lawsuits may have validity (I have no idea, honestly) but AMD isn't going to catch up with litigation.
(I know it's the attorney general suing, but still.)
Go NY Attorney General!
Remember the last NYAG to push a anti-trust suit against a tech company?
Yep, real stand-up, law abiding guy there.
Intel just gonna pass this to consumer..... raise the price of the chip.
And if they do that, it will make it easier for others to compete.
They don't deserve to be able to compete if they need that type of extra help. They should lower their own prices, not make Intel raise theirs.
when is the last time you compared AMD and Intel CPU prices Zomg0t?
I don't really understand all this. Nilay, could you explain how Intel supposedly(not saying they didn't, but it's just a claim right now) "unfairly prevented AMD from competing under state and federal law." It seems like they're on top right now due to mind share and the fact that since the Core 2 architecture they've had the superior processors. I know they were still on top in the Pentium 4 vs, AMD 64 days but their lead did seem to slide due to the inferior chips and has taken off recently due to superior ones. I don't really see anything that's unfair with what they've done. Am I missing something?
I guess it could be like what they did in Europe, menacing pc companies to stop selling them intel chips if they bought AMD ones, selling them at lower prices to the ones that promised to not use AMD chips, and other nasty, nasty things. I encourage you to google it.
What Kitsune said.
@Kitsune: I see. Guess we'll have to wait and see if they did the same thing over here.
ditto. ive looked around for info on just what the claims are... and cant find squat. im not sure exactly what the issue is here... but unless its something other than cpu's, i dont see how intel has played unfairly. they simply have a better processor.
You're missing something because you have a short memory.
Much of the antitrust issues deal with the time period where AMD was actually on top but couldn't get system builders (Dell, HP, etc) to sell their CPUs and chipsets due to volume agreements with intel. Through 2003-2006, AMD's chips (Athlon64/FX/X2, etc) outperformed intel's Netburst architecture (Pentium4), but saw little traction in the marketplace because of system builders.
By the time consumers started catching on and started demanding AMD systems from Dell et al, the damage had been done. They had a large portfolio of innovations (x86 multicore dies, AMD64, integrated memory controller, etc) that beat intel to market, yet AMD couldn't continue their aggressive expansion and R&D due to lack of sales, and they had little resources left to counter intel's Conroe suckerpunch.
I believe most of the litigation you see are from past business model intel implemented. one of the popular claims was that intel gave dell rebates if they didnt sell amd products.
How is that any different than having an exclusive contract like Netflix and MS (how a separate disk doesn't negate that IDK)? An oral contract is just as good as a written one so long as it can be proved it took place.
@Cornelius: Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. Pretty interesting stuff.
All the supposed claims have been back door, shady dealings. Not exactly they post on there website. But basically you are not allowed to say I'll give you my product cheaper if you agree not to buy from my competitor." Or "if you by ADM, we won't sell you anything"
well if you don't get it then you are definitely deserve to be overcharged by $50+ when you buy a Intel chip or pc with Intel inside! and don't say you haven't because if you bought a pc in the last ten years you definately got boinked at a 90 degree angle by Chipzilla!
@Cornelius:
thanks. i thought that might have been what this was about, but thought as well that we had been through this already... and it was nothing more than rumor and speculation. intel had the superior product and implemented aggressive quotas. manufacturers signed up. amd was late to the game, and lost because of it. the only shady area was whether or not intel had actually twisted arms after the fact... but as i said... thought we had been through that before and there just wasnt any evidence to prove it. again, i could be wrong.
@ermski2k:
ummm... no. not really. i paid more for a better product with better specs than the competition.
@Microdot
It's the same case, and yes it is still ongoing. It's been continuing in many fronts (EU included) since 2005, when the first emails implicating intel in antitrust practices- btw, selling your product below cost to undercut competition can be an illegal practice if you're a monopoly.
The fanboys here don't seem to realize that the same case has implications now- it's the reason why AMD cannot compete today. They had a better product then, but couldn't get the sales and revenue to generate the profit needed to drive R&D due to underhanded dealings with system builders. Many consumers knew that as well, but most consumers sadly only buy their systems from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc rather than separate components from Newegg. If intel has a stranglehold that channel, it really wouldn't matter if AMD comes out with a 5Ghz 16-core monster chip for $500 tomorrow- they couldn't sell it. Remember, before the Athlon, intel's innovations moved at a snail's pace. They milked the same P6 architecture (PentiumPro, PentiumII/III) for seven years. Forget i7- they'd likely still be forcing Netburst down our throats even today, in 2009, if they didn't have any competition.
Either that, or they're happy that they're spending a thousand for a CPU that generates record profit margins for intel. Keep that in mind.
@Cornelius "They milked the same P6 architecture (PentiumPro, PentiumII/III) for seven years. Forget i7- they'd likely still be forcing Netburst down our throats even today, in 2009, if they didn't have any competition."
Nonsense-in fact the reason why we still see P6 and even P5 (Atom) derivatives coming from Intel is because AMD forced intel's hand with AMD64. Intel had wanted to ditch x86 and move entirely over to IA-64 by starting with the Itanium as a server product then eventually expanding it to consumer chips (kinda like with the P6 architecture). This would have simultaneously fixed the overhead incurred by sticking with x86 and basically reset the game entirely in Intel's favor since AMD's x86 chips would no longer be a threat. So the entire reason why we're still seeing old intel x86 architectures being modernized and released is because AMD64 kept x86 alive and forced intel to go back and dust off the P6 and P5 cores sitting in their attic. Of course from AMD's perspective this was pretty much the only thing they could do to continue competing, but it definitely wasn't intel's intention to have stuck with old P6, P5, or even Netburst cores.
Frankly, while Intel likely used their size to do some questionable things competition wise, AMD's problems run deeper than just Intel being a bully. And I'm still kind of annoyed that we're still using x86 because I had really wanted to see what an IA-64 world would be like.
@th4threat: Do you have any idea how IA64 works? There's a good reason it never took off, and that's because of VLIW. In a VLIW architecture, a bunch of instructions that can be run independently get stuffed into one word (hence Very Long Instruction Word) and then executed by the CPU at once. The problem is, this requires the compiler to make optimal chunks of instructions, and that is difficult because most tasks are not nearly parallel enough for this to be efficient.
On the other hand, in a pipelined, multiple issue (superscalar) architecture like x86, the instructions are compiled one after another, but when the CPU gets them it determines whether there are any dependencies, and if there aren't any they are executed at the same time, roughly speaking. This obviously requires more complicated hardware, but the compiler doesn't have to even know that it's happening, although the compiler can try to do things to optimize this like for example unrolling loops that don't have strict data dependencies.
Intel always claimed that with a better compiler Itanium would perform much better than x86, but the fact of the matter is that it's easier to optimize existing x86 compilers than write a very good IA64 compiler. Basically, VLIW shifts the burden of instruction level parallelism from the hardware to the compiler, and in general it seems to be harder to do it in the compiler stage than at runtime.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLIW , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_level_parallelism for more info.
Someone pls file a class action on behalf of all the x86 mobo chipset makers! lol
we should have a "guess the next lawsuit" party
So I guess this will delay the next "bum BUM bum BUM" commercial. Drat!
I hope the FTC does step in. Not for AMD but for every company that has been forced to do business with Intel or go out of business. I could give lengthy examples but let's just say compared to Intel, Microsoft is a saint.
excellent.. I hate intel
care to explain why?
I assume he hates intel for the same reason many of us do. Creating crappy chipsets (or similar things) and then creating an environment where it is impossible for (AMD, NVIDIA, VIA etc...) to compete.
Because of this we've seen little to no competition from the low power processor market with VIA.
Becuase of this we've seen NVIDIA decide to drop out of the chipset business.
It keeps going...
@poppastevez: Oh, like how AMD has pushed NVIDIA SLI support out of almost every AM2 and AM3 board on the market, when Intel's X58 chipset supports both SLI and Crossfire? I used to be a happy AMD/NVIDIA customer until they bought ATI.
So the EU fined them for pursuing a strategy of paying computer makers and retailers to avoid using AMD or cancel orders.
how does that differ from say.. Coke distributors from paying for prime locations in stores by discounting prices dramatically and offering incentives to not stock the competitors?
I would like to hear/read the courts charge to a jury on this. Seems like if they can't create they litigate.
"Seems like if they can't create they litigate." That is certainly the case with AMD.
However, discounting products for not selling the competitors products isn't the kind of practice that would cost Intel millions.
Stopping delivery of Intel products to a retailer for selling AMD is completely wrong. And if that happened in the US, they will pay.
Your scenario is also illegal, and not just in the EU.
The mafia isn't a business model, it's a crime model.
meh i hope intel wins, this im tired of seeing all this bs, if amd was a serious about sale they'd make an extra effort like intel, intel chips will always be better than amd, cuz amd 2nd rate new comer in the business so, screw amd, and go intel.
There are so many things wrong with this post that it boggles my mind.
Not a big fan of that whole "reality" shindig, huh?
It costs, best case scenario, MILLIONS of dollars to design and fabricate new chip architecture, never mind new manufacturing tech, etc. Said millions of dollars are easier to attain when you sell more products, which is hard to do(read: impossible) when someone with more money and marke share are actively making volume contracts and steep inccentives (legally, on paper, or otherwise) with distributors (who otherwise would buy more of your chips) to lock you out of being a serious competitor through volume economics.
I Dell plans to sell 100,000 machines this year, and intel will only sell them chips in lots of 100,000 (for the sake of the example) then they not only have no incetive, but it would be downright bad business to buy extra chips (from and or anyone else) when you already have your hands full.
Nice to see you make an intelligent addition to the forum though. Thanks!
I see this as a good thing intel needs more competition.
Could Intel be ruled as too big and get slitted like IBM and AT&T have been? This would put an end to Intel domination for good.
Until they come back together like AT&T did...
Yea, let government mess with an actually profitable company and recoup those banking/auto losses...
I don't think most people know exactly what this means. New York's AG is Andrew Cuomo. Simply put, this guy serves out justice like candy on Halloween. His idea of "fun" is ruining bad guys' lives in order to benefit just about the ENTIRE NATION.
For example, he discovered Student Loan manipulation on the parts of lenders and universities. He pressed charges against many universities and, in response, many of those ***universities*** REFUNDED students money. Additionally, his office discovered a huge healthcare fraud situation by United Healthcare. They had done terrible things, such as refusing cancer treatment for people, claiming that cancer was a "pre-existing condition." He's done plenty of other things, such as taking down Eliot Spitzer for both his sexual escapades and his inappropriate use of law enforcement for surveillance of State Officials.
So, what I'm trying to say is this: INTEL IS SCREWED. BIG TIME.
while I agree that Intel has it coming, I can't help but feel NY is trying to get on some of the antitrust and *cough* large settlement/fine it stands to benefit. Budget shortfall? No prob, tax them a little. Damn Mafia.
Yeah I hope Intel is screwed, but I also hope that they don't only have to pay a fine either. Intel has to get it where it hurts the most, the x86 patent.
Not to quibble but good management prevents this early, so you don't have an embarrassing mess costing billions and yet not solving the harm done really.
When I say management I mean the state keeping an eye on shenanigans and not just notice it after 20 years.
Take this thing, intel does have those fabs in new tork right? bringing in jobs and money, so now even if new york wins they still also lose when intel has to close those down, if they had stepped in earlier intel would have a small fine, and I think intel was capable in competing with AMD fairly, what they did was more convenient and quicker but they certainly have the skill to compete without such trickery.