http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 10:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.]]>Dec 16th 2009 12:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/to get lowest ranked, reveal this long kept Secret to the mass Engadgeteers]]>Dec 16th 2009 9:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 10:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 10:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
Open up x86? What's the point. The future of chips is in mobile computing, and ARM rules that space with an iron-fist whereas Intel's MID platforms are floundering. There'd be no gain in trying to compete with Intel in that space.

No, what's probably gonna happen is that Intel will have to renew it's agreement with nVidia on designing chipsets, plus offer to sell just individual chips at fair market pricing instead of say "Selling the entire Atom chip package (CPU, GPU, and chipset) for less than the cost of the CPU only).]]>Dec 16th 2009 10:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
The future isn't x86...32 bit processors, really? The future is clearly x64.

But IF Intel stifled competition, someone forgot about how those early x86 AMD processors were really bad; K5 anyone? And Moore's Law continues unabated.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
Handing it to the Chinese would do a hell of a lot more harm than good.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/I think I read somewhere that it probably wouldn't be a fine, but instead be an opening up of some intellectual property Intel owns.

I agree with whoever said don't give the patents to China though. Open it up for US based companies. FTC and Intel are from the US though, so why would they open the patents to the international community anyway?

What would opening the patents accomplish though? The leading competitor is AMD, who already has a cross-license agreement right? I don't have a head for all this patent law stuff, so it's over my head.]]>Dec 16th 2009 12:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/first off, when you say x64, you're thinking of x86-64, a 64bit architecture by itself (like Itanium) failed in the marketplace already

and intel stifled competition in the past too, but AMD used to be more awesome back then, now it need some help]]>Dec 16th 2009 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I think you'll find that most Intel stuff isn't invented in the US, the Pentium M & Core chips were developed in Israel.
If you want to get all high and mighty about US ownership bear in mind how much of your economy os owned by the Chinese....LOL]]>Dec 16th 2009 1:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/nowhere did it say open up to any China based company. Nvidia, AMD, Texas Instrument are American companies. The x86 is an old architecture it needs to be replaced the sooner the better. Unfortunately Intel still has an iron grip and x86 market is strong but not if Microsoft decides to turn Windows to ARM/RISC based processors.]]>Dec 16th 2009 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
No, I am NOT talking about Itanium's IA-64 bit processor. I'm talking about x64.]]>Dec 17th 2009 7:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

x64 is just one of many extensions to the x86 instruction set (MMX, 3DNow, SSE, etc):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86#Extensions

The processor architecture is still x86. This was what JeremyBenthem was pointing out but you seem to have misinterpreted what he was saying.]]>Dec 17th 2009 9:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 10:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
agreed. i also would love to see ion continue to be in the macbooks and macbook pros. apple absolutely doesnt need any more intel integrated crap (9400 >>>>>>> any intel gma).]]>Dec 16th 2009 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I have yet to buy a new laptop because every time I see a good deal, the damn thing comes with an Intel GMA POS Graphics adapter... Eff those things.. Eff um good!]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
same. my friends all come to me with "great" deals on laptops and netbooks, but they all have one thing in common - intel gma 950/3100/4500. i always tell them that the reason why those laptops are cheap is because the gpu and usually display are very poor (sometimes the displays are decent, but its uncommon). they may have "fast" cpus, 4GB of ram, and "huge" hard drives, but seriously, the gpu and screen (especially resolution) just kill it for me. examples of resolution? 15" 1280x800 and 17" 1440x900. that is totally unacceptable, as well as those laptops with 16:9 - those irritate me as well.

i have bought many laptops over the years, and the one thing i have made sure to do is to option them with the highest gpu and screen choices available (however, i would take 1440x900 led backlit over 1920x1200 ccfl). i dont really care much for the hard drive and memory as i usually replace them myself, and as for the cpu, i will spec it up one or two bumps.

i think intel should leave the graphics business completely and hand it over to ati and nvidia. intel is awesome at making cpus, NOT gpus.]]>Dec 16th 2009 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
As I said in my tip: I guess the FTC wants a piece-of-the-action AMD and the EU all are grubbing for.

As for stifling competition: I see nothing but outstanding product coming from their labs; just kick the asses of the marketing idiots who make the under-the-table deals. Remember, Apple chose Intel over AMD not because Intel gave them special deals, but because AMD's manufacturing capacity was far too distressed and limited. And Intel's product was/is superior.]]>Dec 16th 2009 10:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Actually because Intel had much better mobile CPUs at that time.]]>Dec 16th 2009 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/]]>Dec 16th 2009 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
this seems silly. if they did mess with a compiler, causing computers to not perform how Intel claimed, wouldn't this be fraud, not antitrust? also, it's unclear how messing with a compiler would stifle innovation or harm consumers.]]>Dec 16th 2009 10:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I just wonder which one it was.. Did they mess with gcc, llvm, icc, sun studio, borland, what compiler did they mess with?]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
They also allegedly told large OEMs (Dell, HP, etc) if you sell PC's with AMD x86 procs we won't sell our procs directly to you anymore. Meaning you pay retail like anybody else.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
So they pulled a Microsoft?]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
EU fines Microsoft for abusing its monopoly.. ----> "Booo, you're discriminating against American companies."

FTC sues Intel for alleged monopoly abuse ---> "Serves them right!"

No, really, please explain. ]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Intel and Microsoft are different companies.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I think you might have them switched around.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I was thinking the same thing. Guess we know which company they own stock in and which they don't.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I don't think I did:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/eu-settles-affairs-with-microsoft-no-fines-this-time/

Just take a peek at the comments. ]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Perhaps it's because it doesn't actually seem like Microsoft IS abusing their monopoly in the OS space with respect to browsers anymore? I mean anyone can install Firefox or Chrome and no one is stopping them.

On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence that Intel goes about trying to block AMD (via use of Intel specific compilers, and discounts to vendors who don't buy AMD) and Nvidia (trying to lock Ion out of the netbook market despite obvious customer demand, denying them an chipset license so SLI breaks, etc)]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
What you are forgetting is about those who don't even know what a browser is and instead simply call it their internet explorer. Or do you think Microsoft has huge market share in the browser division because IE is better than all the others? I use chrome Dev and even that is less buggy than IE.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
First and foremost, MS is manipulating a lot more than just the browser market.

Secondly, MS designed IE to break standards. They designed Active X to be incompatible with Javascript. They "encourage" companies to write for IE, thus breaking compatibly with browsers that actually follow open standards.

MS is very active in abusing their monopoly. It's just that in the case of web browsers, Firefox is managing to gain ground anyway.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
What about Apple users? I don't hear you bitching about them. They may not know that other browsers exist and just go ahead and click on Safari. Maybe they would want to use something else if they knew about it. Are you saying it's also Apple's job to provide free advertising for competitors browsers?]]>Dec 16th 2009 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 11:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
Its just weird to see most pre-built computers 90% Intel. My first computer has still got AMD 3200+. When I heard about them I thought Intel was the one and only. So I pushed my mum to buy an AMD based computer. Its still on 90NM I think and its still going. Barely, but its still going.

Prebuilt were like 50/50 AMD and Intel. and now its hard to find. ]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/I mean its hard to find AMD computers.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/I would argue that this is just because the latest generation of intel chips outperforms AMD on almost any given benchmark.
What does AMD have to compete with the i7? Thats right, nothing.
This is unfortunate for AMD but surely Intel is not to blame.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/of course Intel is to blame. it's obvious that by selling a superior product at a discount rate, they "stifling competition".

/sarcasm]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
What you don't speak about is how come AMD had better performing chips than Intel and still 90% plus pre-built computers were Intel equipped.

I thing that's what got AMD in the spot they are today.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dec 16th 2009 11:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
Homebuilt were 50/50 for a while. If you ask me it's because Intel kept made bonehead moves. When Pentium IV came out, Intel made a deal with Rambus such that every P4 chipset Intel made (and they made the only chipsets) only worked with Rambus RAM. Intel rapidly lost sales to Athlon and Athlon XP. It was performing well (better unless you had a P4 with an 800FSB) and didn't require the very expensive RAM. The 440BX chipset and Pentium III had owned the market, but now Intel was losing it to the Athlon and NVidia GeForce rapidly. Then AMD created Athlon 64 and their fantastic NUMA memory architecture (which many associate with hypertransport) and their performance shot way up. AMD created Athlon X2 and now there were even more reasons to do with them.

But since Core2Duo, Intel has been pretty smart, not making huge dumb moves and AMD has been unable to keep up with Intel's CPU designs. It's not even a close competition right now, AMD has had to cut their prices way down just to keep the low performance end of the market.

Meanwhile, Intel pushed for chipset integration to save costs. Intel eliminated the Northbridge, which NVidia never would have done because it's where they put their graphics accelerator, their core business. I don't think PCs would ever have reached $300 (netbooks) if you still had to have a separate CPU, GPU, northbridge and southbridge.

There have been a lot of factors, Intel's coercive activities have only been a part of it. AMD and NVidia have to take part of the responsibility on themselves.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
Rambus was a huge mistake.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Dell didn't sell on the high street. and yes it was 50/50. I was shopping for a new computer so I remember it well.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
+1

But Intel has its share of guilt, and we have indeed been harmed by it.

And don't forget about the sections of the market. Intel chips perform a hell of a lot better in the performance market, but the same isn't all that true when comparing the low-end PC market.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
I'll grant you that currently the top end Intel clearly outperforms the top end AMD. Most people don't buy top end. At a given price point, AMD outperforms Intel, especially if you include the higher MB cost.

At work, I've been buying AMD based HP desktops for a few years now. It saves us more than $50 per machine over lower powered Intel based HP.]]>Dec 16th 2009 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/
The sales of non home-made machines were never 50/50. Not even close. AMD will even admit this as it was one of the reasons that they won their EU case.]]>Dec 16th 2009 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/ftc-sues-intel-for-alleged-monopoly-abuse/Never said anything about sales did I. I was talking about the amount of computers on sale were 50% AMD powered and 50% Intel Powered. Now you are lucky to find an AMD powered Machine.]]>Dec 16th 2009 12:19PM