Username or EmailPassword
Intel working with OEMs is by definition competition. Anti-competitive behavior would include using government to force AMD to do or not do particular things... such as patents and other so called intellectual property statutes. If AMD can't compete on price they can't compete. Too bad. If they can't compete on technology they can't compete. Too bad.
Do you all advocate going after ARM for having a monopoly on the ARM architecture? Or go after those who produce ARM CPUs for being in a cartel? Intel is not a monopoly in the CPU industry. There are plenty of competitors and they all work within the same paradigm. What the EU wants is money and favor from those who dislike the big guys, not competition. If you want to punish Intel for wheeling and dealing in a way you don't like... don't buy their products and try to convince others to do the same and work toward convincing the OEMs that other companies chipsets will gain them more income and happier customers.
All this does is provide an illegitimate advantage to those companies (AMD and VIA) who aren't as well established. It's a subsidy, a bailout.
I'm hearing a lot of argumentum ad miserecordiam, argumentum ad consequentiam and argumentum ad verecundiam. Where's the economic, social, political, moral analysis of such behavior?
Paying OEMs and retailers to NOT sell products from the competition is not working with OEMs, but more like bribery.
If Intel releases better processors and AMD can't compete, AMD will flop no matter what, but that's irrelevant when it comes to whether Intel broke the law and if they should be punished for that.
1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
2. Something serving to influence or persuade.
It's exactly a bribe... so what? It was done without the threat of violence so was in no way illegitimate.
The only thing here which is wrong IMO is the fact Intel can use the guns of government to enforce so called intellectual property rights. That's a monopoly granted and enforced by the government which limits competition to those who play by their rules.
So what if they broke some law. Just because a law exists doesn't make it right, legitimate or moral. Sorry to jump the shark so quickly but it was the law to own other humans once and to turn in Jews to the SS. Did they break the law? Sure. Should they be punished. Absolutely not.
I should note that some definitions of bribe include giving money for 'dishonest' behavior. That doesn't change my argument insomuch as the governments intervention except in where such a bribe would be contrary to existing contracts which that "dishonest" action may have broken. In that case the government is simply the arbitrator to a private contract conflict. It doesn't appear to me given the evidence that even that has occurred. Edited 2009-05-13 15:53 UTC