AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. On a 48-page complaint AMD explains how the company thinks Intel has maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel. AMD claims that Intel’s share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power.
Well, they surely have some nice partners who really don’t change their mind, like Michael Dell.
The more funny thing is the leaps and bounds superiority of AMD compared to Intel at the most of the x86 processores, especially 64 bits and dual core. But, it just proves one theory: people look for brands, not quality.
P.S. – I’m excluding Apple, since its decision was based on how well could the company put the processors available to them for immediate shipping. AMD doesn’t have anything like the distribution of Intel. I’ll give Intel credit for that (and for having Moore).
and it is not about “brand”. it is about criminal behavior on the part of intel.
I wonder if situations like this will ever come about in future, where global patents will ENSURE monopolistic practice, legitemised through legislation. No appeals or crying foul against the sort of practices Intel and Microsoft appear to favour, only the patent holder gets protection.
Consider a 1980’s where Intel had patented-down the hatches on the x86 architecture – there’d be no AMD, there’d by not Cyrix, Winchip, Transmeta, VIA etc….at least not making the same architecture. Maybe this would have been a good thing, the x86 bastard-child architecture we’ve all ended up with is nothing to be proud of.
It’s not too late for CPU diversity, come on AMD time to make something new!
My respect for AMD have dived significantly. Bar my opposition to antitrust and competition law, it ought to be interesting how AMD would argue that Intel is a monopolist in a market where AMD controls up to 20% of the market share (by comparison, Judge Jackson only ruled Microsoft a monopolist by also ruling that Apple is in a different market).
AMD is seriously kidding themselves if they think they can’t compete with Intel. How about spending a little more on a meaningful, long-term campaign similar to Intel Inside? AMD Me is a joke. Intel get chosen more often than not because of its brand name. Major OEMs choose to use Intel in their flagship products because of its brandname. AMD needs to seriously consider working on its brandname.
By definition, a patent is a monopoly.
It’s not too late for CPU diversity
And you saying that, knowing how the [desktop&laptop] cpu market looks today ? Do you really think a new architecture cpu would be able to cut enough market share among the crowds of wintel 6pack joes to survive ? I would be glad, being a long time AMD buyer, user and fan, and I’m certain Debian would support a new architecture among the first to do so, still, the class that brings the big money are the wintel user masses.
Interesting to note how Acer were threatened if they supported the Athlon 64 chip upon its launch. Acer initially backed out, but I bought their Aspire T140 several months back – guess what, a brand-name Athlon 64 desktop (I found very few when I Googled around – I think HP/Compaq had a model [yes, just one], but virtually no-one else of the big names).
All of this feels like deja vu w.r.t. Microsoft’s illegal monopoly tactics against OEMs (which I suspect is still going on today, albeit in a less obvious manner).
AMD has the better desktop cpu for the moment and have had since the a64. Why hasn’t there been a mass exodus, specially with the prescot that wasn’t that well received?
But what’s wrong with the oem’s going for the best deal? If they don’t, then they will get undercut by the competition that will.
It just so happens that Intel offered the best deal.
Gogogo AMD
Intel, if you can’t compete fair, go and kill yourself!
I hope some day same will start happening with MS like it was with Athlons64.
about freaking time! intel has the worst predatory practices in the world. It’s really hard to stand up to these juggernauts, and unfortunately I see Intel getting just a slap on the wrist because their defense will be along these lines:
– AMD has had supply issues hence we were competitively better off
– our chips were faster, more stable, and more trusted
– we give incentives to our largest customers (dell, hp, etc)
– the itanium really had issues during development and fabrication so we had to withhold them from hp
It’s really nasty when anything gets too big. Like the big bully in your neighborhood, only these days, bullies pay off politicians with power so this is not going to be easy.
Any precedents follow out of the Japanese federal investigation of Intel?
One good thing about AMD CPUs… I can select AMD and it will be transparent to me as a user. Thus I am free to choose my CPU based on price and other considerations, if I can find one offered.
The Microsoft monopoly is entirely different. Locked in by habit to Windows, most users have a very difficult time switching to Linux. It is also nearly impossible to buy a mainstream computer without Windows. Now that is a monopoly!
All Intel users should be very thankful for AMD. Just think how much Intel chips would cost, if not for AMD. Likewise, Windows users should be very thankful for Linux. Without Linux, Microsoft (which has never innovated in its history) would not even have to play catch-up and improve its product (see IE vs. Firefox).
So, I say go AMD and Linux (I use both) and you should agree even if you use Wintel.
“Any precedents follow out of the Japanese federal investigation of Intel?”
First off, you do realize that Japan is a unitary state, not a federation? There is no federal level bodies in Japan simply because there is no federation there. The Fair Trade Commission found Intel guilty in conditioning its rebates on processors only if an entire brand line receives only Intel processors.
Intel is also found wronged in forcing certain companies to use Intel exclusively or predominantly in return for discounts, the use of its trademarks, and market development funds. In other words, nobody was forced here. OEMs can decide, “Hey, we don’t want this!” Though their ads can fly with that Intel Inside logo, or they can’t get those large rebates, discounts and development funds.
AMD could have circumvented this – by putting more in marketing and advertising. AMD is barely a brand name, most people who “Huh?” when you suggest them buying AMD. They can counter-offer these companies by offering rebates and discounts, as well as investment and funds, if they fly their way – they can always out-offer Intel if they really wanted to.
Business isn’t just about having the better product. In fact, it is *not* about having the better product.
“Without Linux, Microsoft (which has never innovated in its history) would not even have to play catch-up and improve its product (see IE vs. Firefox).”
What does Firefox have to do with Linux?
they are not ‘resorting’ to this. they are not doing this to make money. they are doing this to try and open up markets intel has them closed out of. (which in turn would make them money) dell is a good example, if they dell adopted AMD they would loose a TON of ‘benefits’ from intel.
“What does Firefox have to do with Linux?”
Good question and I see your point. Perhaps I should have said “Without open source, Microsoft (which has never innovated in its history) would not even have to play catch-up and improve its product (see IE vs. Firefox).”
I think my point is valid.
– When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap
for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel
responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter 2004 rebate
check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its
targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall
in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP’s
mainstream retail business.
– Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because
of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld
delivery of critical server chips. Saying “he had a gun to
his head,” he told AMD he had to stop buying.
– According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a
high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim
that Intel has “beaten them into ‘guacamole'” in
retaliation.
.. LOL.. guacamole.. best of luck, AMD!
What does Firefox have to do with Linux?
GPL maybe?
It’s nice and all to point out AMD as 20% of the market and thus can’t accuse Intel of monopolistic practices, but fact of the matter is that having 80% of the market *DOES* put Intel in a position to coerce vendors.
The question is: does Intel really coerce vendors not to ship AMD? That question should be answered entirely on the basis of the validity of the complaints by AMD, preferably by a capable court.
Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer’s Chairman
with “severe consequences” for supporting the AMD Athlon
64(TM) launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by
Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds
owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September
2003.
.. it would be pretty damning, IMHO (IANAL), if they have evidence other than testimony of these threats–emails, internal memos, etc
See, some people will randomly blather out words like Linux, Microsoft, IE, FireFox, Intel and other random words and think they make sense. It’s really quite sad.
The reason that Dell or anyone important doesn’t use AMD is that AMD would leave them waiting on their knickers for months before delivering any silicon.
Locked in by habit to Windows, most users have a very difficult time switching to Linux
Of course, you really mean ‘Most users have a very difficult time switching to Linux because Linux devs are locked into a habit of despising “Joe Sixpack” and his usability concerns’
And don’t talk to me about Ubuntu.
thats BS. first AMD is building another fab. and if sumone like dell wanted to start using AMD do you think they would offer a ton of different options? no, they would hav select few PC’s with the chip in it to see how well it worked out. and AMD could easily supply that first yrs worth of testing the waters.
There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to wrongdoing by Intel. But there’s a big gap between us all ‘knowing’ that Intel is engaging in arm-twisting and proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Some of the points mentioned in the linked complaint will be very difficult to prove unless AMD has direct, clear evidence.
I think the timing of this complaint is interesting as well. AMD’s latest processors have a technical and price-point edge over Intel, hurting a potential Intel argument that customers buy Intel for its “technological superiority”. It’s profitable, so it has the money to spend on the case. (And trust me, this will take some ca$$$h.) Last, AMD has proven itself to be a viable choice from both a business and technical perspective. This is important for executives called in this case — they may be a little more willing to testify as witnesses against Intel if they feel they have a “backup plan” (AMD) should Intel try to threaten/punish their business for testifying. (Which is all done very politely and business-like, I’m not talking about TV/Movie style drama with dressed-in-black characters showing up with guns.)
@Anonymous (IP: —.dial.kabelfoon.nl)
“It’s nice and all to point out AMD as 20% of the market and thus can’t accuse Intel of monopolistic practices, but fact of the matter is that having 80% of the market *DOES* put Intel in a position to coerce vendors.”
http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/monopoly_power….
“A monopoly power is defined as the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market. It is only necessary to prove the business had the “power” to raise prices or exclude competitors.”
If Intel had monopolist power, even under the vague and old Sherman Antitrust Act, those price wars seen between Intel and AMD wouldn’t have occured. Intel actions may be illegal under Dutch, Benelux or European law, but I wish them luck in the US cause they are going to need a whole lot of it.
@Ez:
“Of course, you really mean ‘Most users have a very difficult time switching to Linux because Linux devs are locked into a habit of despising “Joe Sixpack” and his usability concerns'”
If usability concerns are the main reason why Joe Sixpack isn’t using Linux, then they probably wouldn’t be using Windows. Ever. Even if Linux remain with the same learning curve as it has today, it still can grab market share if it fulfills a set of market demands other than usability other vendors don’t, or at least not as good as Linux.
>>What does Firefox have to do with Linux?
>GPL maybe?
You do realise that Firefox isn’t distributed under the GPL? Firefox uses the Mozilla Public Licence ( http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html ).
“What does Firefox have to do with Linux?
GPL maybe?”
Considering that mozilla.org triple licenses their software under MPL/LGPL/GPL. I don’t see how having one in three licenses in common with the linux kernel shows an association or dependence of one on the other. I guess next people will start saying that CIFS is a linux thing just because SAMBA is GPL too?
I would be using AMD chips but I can’t stand VIA chipsets.
Always some glitches. Always more work to get things working.
It’s just not worth my time as a system builder.
With Intel chipsets everything just works and is super stable.
And dont tell me about SiS. Sis is total crap. When I get a box with Sis chipset mobo, I just tell the customer that it needs to be replaced.
I haven’t tried Nvidia based mobos but after reading about the various glitches on hardware forums I decided to stay awa y from Nvidia mobos too.
If AMD produced their own chipset that’s as good as Intel I would be using Athlons without hasitation.
But at this point, the savings with using AMD are negligable and a lot more headaches for me.
Apple switched to Intel. Now AMD sues Intel. This leads me to believe that the next Intel chips are going to blow everything out of the water.
@Rajan R: that was me.
“A monopoly power is defined as the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market. It is only necessary to prove the business had the “power” to raise prices or exclude competitors.”
It’s the same situation that led to Microsoft settling with Be. Microsoft said: ‘Sure you can sell BeOS on seperate systems, but the price will go up’.
Minus the bootloader issue, this case seems comparable. Now it’s up to see the validity of AMD’s complaints.
VIA really hasn’t had any problems chipset wise in QUITE a number of years, I’d say since at least the KT133.
Also, I’ve built a couple of systems with nFocre2 and haven’t had a single problem.
Now, you also have to understand that with any product comes some lemon products that just don’t work (including some Intel based mobos). There’s no getting around it, as nobody wants to be at work on a Friday evening.
Why do you compare IE to Firefox and then give the credit to Linux? Linux has nothing to do with Firefox.
that monopolies should be held to a much higher standard of conduct than competitors in a free market
“What does Firefox have to do with Linux?”
If companies start making their web based applications compatable with Firefox, what is to stop them from using Linux on cheap desktops instead of cheap Windows computers?
“It’s the same situation that led to Microsoft settling with Be. Microsoft said: ‘Sure you can sell BeOS on seperate systems, but the price will go up’.
Minus the bootloader issue, this case seems comparable. Now it’s up to see the validity of AMD’s complaints.”
Not quite. The courts ruled that Microsoft, under antitrust laws, was a legally-defined monopolist, and I’ve mentioned this, only after Judge Jackson ruled that Apple wasn’t a direct competitor. Even though antitrust laws are vague, it would be a stretch for any judge to rule that Intel is a monopolist in that regards.
Remember, Microsoft had an upwards of 95% of the market while Intel barely has 80%.
Microsoft settled with Be – doesn’t mean that Be’s case has legal merit. It just means Microsoft didn’t want to give the dissenting states further amunition in the fight to get a remedy they would like.
If the Microsoft antitrust case (in USA or EU, take your pick) is precedent, the Intel case will take years and change little.
In other news today, “Microsoft’s Legal Appendage Has Curious Dealings in DC”: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38800/index.html
Been using them all my computing days, go green one!
Perhaps you missed the ‘A’ revisions made to KT266 and KT333… As for the nForce, I have two nForce2 systems here (original and Ultra400) and while they are steady performers, I kept getting weird issues with one (IRQ problems under Linux), the other (some issues with the disc controller and its drivers) or both (USB keyboards are not always detected at boot). Nothing dramatic, but enough for discouraging me from getting another nForce board.
I only had two Intel machines in the last seven years (compare to six AMD) but they never failed me. They always worked flawlessly under any OS, including Linux. Now, their chipsets are not perfect and Intel did some costly mistakes in the past (i820+mth) but I would definitely like to see a stable chipset from AMD.
On topic: AMD needs a better marketing team. Their processors kick asses, but nobody outside the computing world knows it. I don’t think a lawsuit is going to change this.
Oh dear – I can see Rajan R the monopolist lover posting here again.
1. Monopolies are illegal – under legislation in nearly ever western country. Deal with it, tough shit if you don’t like this sort of law. It’s there for a reason – to stop large corporations acting in a monopolistic way that disfavours the consumers and competitors.
It has long been known that both Intel and Microsoft have been predatory monopolies, using underhanded tactics to increase their own monopoly and ruin competitors markets.
The US DOJ has a lot to answer for, in its inability to render true justice. As others have pointed out, without competition, Microsoft Windows would be even more buggier, even more unreliable, even more full of security issues, twice cost as much, and that’s not healthy – thankfully we have Linux & BSD keeping Microsoft partially honest. That’s why a monopolistic environment is not good. It’s not a hard concept to understand Rajan.
You must own shares in both Intel & Microsoft 😉
Dave
I like amd chips more than intel but this is a joke.
When was the last time anyone seen a AMD commercial on TV? I know Ive never seen one. Im thinking they should run commercials to make the general public aware that amd does exist.
Pointing the finger just at Intel is also a joke. Sure they paid those companies to use just intel chips but those companies did take the cash. Like a major company is going to refuse a couple million dollar payout.
Money is everything to some people
Sure wish that Apple Computer had chosen to steer clear of this particular business cess pool.
“Oh dear – I can see Rajan R the monopolist lover posting here again. ”
Yep. If Rajan had his way, the corporations would be printing their own money and basically running things Shadowrun style.
Quote: “Yep. If Rajan had his way, the corporations would be printing their own money and basically running things Shadowrun style.”
I gathered that 😉
Business is nothing without people. If people had any balls and boycotted a particular manufacturer, see how fast they’d change their tune. The problem is that people are sheep. Monkey see, Monkey do. This is how the RIAA & MPAA have monopolies. Why are they immune to antitrust law? One law for all. No favouritisms. That’s true democracy.
Dave
Monopolies are NOT in ANYWAY shape or form illegal!
Abusing the monopoly power is, and that is what they are going to trial for, to find out if they were abusing a monopoly power (first they have to decide whether or not they are actually a monopoly).
Just because the DOJ didn’t render the verdict YOU wanted doesn’t mean it was not just. Don’t mix up what YOU want with what’s RIGHT. Believe it or not, you are not (and can not) be right all the time.
Also, you say “without competetition” Microsoft would have done these things, however, you imply that the competition is there, and therefore, by how YOU just described it, this notion that MS as a monopoly is flawed (again I say, as you just described the situation).
Quote: “Just because the DOJ didn’t render the verdict YOU wanted doesn’t mean it was not just”
Well, funny thing is 21 states weren’t happy with the punishment (although they were later bullied and ignored by the US Federal court). The details of the settlement were not made public (and that would have been in the best interests of the public). They have been effectively hidden, and the US courts ruled against making it available under the privacy act I believe several years ago. What is there to hide I wonder?
It was demonstrably proved that Bill Gates and Microsoft lied under oath. Were they charged with perjury? No. Even now, today, the ordered allow Internet Explorer to be removed is a joke. It is not removed. Just because the desktop icon, toolbar icon and menu entry disappear doesn’t mean it’s gone. It’s still there. Still running. This was not a sufficient effort by Microsoft. As someone else said on a osnews.com article last week, “why should Microsoft have to remove all the hooks for IE, thus stuffing up all of these 3rd party products”. My answer: tough shit. Microsoft broke the law and should be made to comply. They’ve made hooks deliberately into the kernel with IE to force a dependance on IE. Just because 3rd party applications are dependant on that “hook” shouldn’t make it legal and OK to remain.
There is some competition there, but very little. Microsoft is still a monopoly. It still controls the office suite environment withou an absolute majority (99% most probably). Competitors are not able to comply and integrate with MS Office properly because the standards are closed, or in the case of XML, butchered and hidden.
Moving onto software patents, Microsoft has obvious intentions of attacking OSS applications such as Samba – why? To reduce the ability of Linux and BSD to interact with Windows based PCs on a Windows network. To keep market share. To keep its monopoly.
Microsoft has innovated very little over its history. It has a history of stealing from others, ruining their business, lying in court, paying tiny settlements after it has gained the market and destroyed the opposition. Think Netscape. Think Real player. That’s just a few. This is ongoing. Inclusion of spyware software into Windows? Now they’re looking at virus software as well. Considering that many dll files and hooks are not documented, Microosft will gain an unfair advantage over 3rd party software vendors in these fields as it knows *all* of the hooks and functionalities.
It’s OK for Ballmer to call Linux (and the GPL) a cancer, but it’s not OK for a Brazilian government official to call Microsoft and proprietary software like drug dealers. Where’s the hypocrisy there?
Microsoft (and Intel) want to have the entire market with no competition, so they can do what, when, where and how they want. No questions asked. Why has Microsoft been on a incredible increase in bribery, oops I mean sponsorship of political parties and persons over the past 5 years? Why does Microsoft reach private settlements with opponents that sue them for antitrust behaviour, instead of letting the courts decice? I can tell you why, because it escapes a conviction, and judges do look at prior convictions. It doesn’t change the fact that time and time and time again, Microsoft has been a predatory monopolist engaging in antitrust actions. Whether they’ve been convicted or not.
I’d like to see the courts ban private settlements in these sorts of issues, so that the courts are forced to reach a legal decision and find a guilty party, and thus establish ongoing behaviour patterns, which then can be used for increased punishment(s). Not the crappy system that happens now, where Microsoft et al just bribe, oops I mean reach settlement over issues. That does not guarantee justice to the people. The consumers.
I am not a fan of the US Legal system, nor am I fan of the typical US corporatism.
Dave
AMD doesn’t have the spare hundreds of millions needed for an effective market campaign.
Also, as shown in the complaint, companies like Dell won’t take AMD’s millions to use AMD chip because Intel threatened to not give them hundreds of millions if they took AMD’s money.
As to whether AMD can produce enough chips, no one ever said a company had to buy ALL their chips from AMD. That’s silly. AMD can’t produce that many. However, AMD can produce SOME chips, but Intel won’t let those companies take ANY chips from AMD.
I’m sure Dell would love for 10% of their computers to have AMD chips. Their bargain computers would be even cheaper and sell better, and their high end game machines would be even higher end and sell better. But Intel won’t let Dell sell ONE SINGLE AMD system. That’s what the complaint is about.
Yea maybe so but if all these companies dont like how intel is doing business they have(& should) the right stand up & say they wont take it.
If some of the large companies like Dell stand up to the “bully” I would think that intel would have to change its practices. I know AMD doesnt have the resources to supply like intel but if companies dont stand up to intel then there isnt going to be a huge demand for amd chips & they will never expand.
Again all those companies dont have to take intels money. Pointing the finger just at Intel is just wrong. Yea they are part to blame but so are the manufactures for taking Intel’s payouts & putting themselves in this situation.
Why dont all those companies take action against Intel, probly cause of the contracts & money THEY accepted with intel.
Im a small systems builder & Ill be damned if a vendor is going to tell me what I can & cant carry even if they do want to pay me. Id be telling them to go to hell & thats what these large companies should have done.
I dont like how AMD is going about this but I do hope there is a resolve cause Id like to see Dell, Sony, etc.. carry amd machines. That would get amd’s name out there better & make less work for me trying to sell people on a amd chip.
“Oh dear – I can see Rajan R the monopolist lover posting here again.”
I don’t love monopolists. I just don’t think courts and commissions and bureaucracy would help limit and prevent monopolistic actions, rather than market pressure.
“1. Monopolies are illegal – under legislation in nearly ever western country. Deal with it, tough shit if you don’t like this sort of law. It’s there for a reason – to stop large corporations acting in a monopolistic way that disfavours the consumers and competitors.”
It’s a different debate altogether, but rarely does it help institute competition in a manner that it truly benefits consumers. There is sufficient evidence for me to believe that monopolists can’t exist in the long term without government interference. Take the Firefox example – without that much of a marketing budget, it managed to significantly reduce IE’s market share and increase their’s while forcing Microsoft to bring out IE 7 earlier than their schedule to remain competitive.
If Microsoft is truly a monopolist, that wouldn’t happen. Microsoft would go, “bleh, ignore that Firefox, it wouldn’t hurt us anyway”.
“It has long been known that both Intel and Microsoft have been predatory monopolies”
Intel for its x86 processor lines haven’t found themselves in the wrong side of the court room in a long time. They haven’t been found under antitrust laws to be conducting illegal, monopolist activities.
“The US DOJ has a lot to answer for, in its inability to render true justice.”
As said in a different threat, the Department of Justice is the office of the attorney general. It is part of the executive. Not the judiciary. It’s existance isn’t to ensure justice, it is to, amongst others, prosecute for the federal government.
“As others have pointed out, without competition, Microsoft Windows would be even more buggier, even more unreliable, even more full of security issues, twice cost as much, and that’s not healthy[…]”
So in other words you admit that Microsoft really doesn’t have real monopolist powers? You just said it – Microsoft is affected by competition that it worked to remain competitive in the face of it.
“That’s why a monopolistic environment is not good.”
It isn’t. But all true monopolistic environments are caused by the government, not cured by it.
“You must own shares in both Intel & Microsoft ;-)”
I wish.
“Well, funny thing is 21 states weren’t happy with the punishment (although they were later bullied and ignored by the US Federal court). The details of the settlement were not made public (and that would have been in the best interests of the public). They have been effectively hidden, and the US courts ruled against making it available under the privacy act I believe several years ago. What is there to hide I wonder?”
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Kotelly/FinalDecree.pdf
“There is some competition there, but very little. Microsoft is still a monopoly.”
Monopoly as defined by the dictionary, not a set of vague laws, is “Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service”. Ever considered that perhaps it is Microsoft’s competitors that is lacking? Afterall, what did Firefox did that Netscape couldn’t have done some few years before?
“Microsoft (and Intel) want to have the entire market with no competition, so they can do what, when, where and how they want. No questions asked.”
As you yourself admits, it doesn’t happen today, nor would it ever happen – there are still some competition. As insignificant it would seem.
“Why has Microsoft been on a incredible increase in bribery, oops I mean sponsorship of political parties and persons over the past 5 years?”
Microsoft contributed both to the DNC and RNC in their election year campaigns – not exactly the sign of buying politicians. That contribution, as well as its contribution to lobby groups, is severely limited by law. So if Microsoft did what you say they did, prove it. Heck, better yet, fly over to the US and prove it in court.
“Microsoft is still a monopoly. It still controls the office suite environment withou an absolute majority (99% most probably). Competitors are not able to comply and integrate with MS Office properly because the standards are closed, or in the case of XML, butchered and hidden.”
Another market the courts haven’t ruled Microsoft a monopolist under antitrust laws. As for the 99% market share, you may only be right in the Mac market. In the Windows market, Office market shares depending on who you ask, ranges between 90-95% – a far cry from 99%. And WordPerfect Office have been making significant inroads in market share by undercutting Microsoft significantly in price and TCO thus increasing demand from the corporate and enterprise market.
“I’d like to see the courts ban private settlements in these sorts of issues…”
This isn’t a private, out of court settlement made between the DoJ and Microsoft. It was a remedy proposed by the prosecutors (the DoJ) and taken almost entirely by the court as the final judgement.
“That does not guarantee justice to the people. The consumers.”
If it is the consumers that would be the main beneficiary, why isn’t the lawsuits brought by consumer groups rather by disgrunted competitors?
“I am not a fan of the US Legal system…”
Not a big surprise, especially when you are still under the delusion that the DOJ is responsible for upholding justice, not the courts.
“AMD doesn’t have the spare hundreds of millions needed for an effective market campaign.”
Not even for a meaningful, long-term advertising campaign? If companies that are smaller with less cash on their hands and even less assets on their hands can accomplish that, that is a poor excuse.
It is a daily event I hear or watch Intel Inside in a radio or TV ad – and I’m in Malaysia, and not once did I see the equilevent for AMD ads.
“Also, as shown in the complaint, companies like Dell won’t take AMD’s millions to use AMD chip because Intel threatened to not give them hundreds of millions if they took AMD’s money.”
So essentially Dell is choosing Intel because it makes more business sense (i.e. making more profit)? Anti-competitive! Nobody is forcing Dell to use Intel. They can ditch Intel entirely and use AMD. Sure, their profits would suffer, and probably their sales seeing that they are no longer tied with a famous brand. But would they be shut off from the market?
“I’m sure Dell would love for 10% of their computers to have AMD chips.”
If they do, Dell have a significant amount of buying power to push their way in Santa Clara. They don’t. Obviously Intel gives them a much better deal.
“Their bargain computers would be even cheaper and sell better, and their high end game machines would be even higher end and sell better.”
You do realize that corporate and bulk purchases pay significantly different prices from retail prices? After rebates, for all you know, Intel would be the cheaper, more profitable one. And you haven’t add in the fact that Intel has a bigger brand than AMD.
As for gaming PCs, consumers that would differenciate between AMD and Intel in gaming performance aren’t likely to buy Dell or any branded PC anytime soon.
“But Intel won’t let Dell sell ONE SINGLE AMD system.”
Intel is paying money, thus cutting down their profit margins, to keep a customer loyal. There is no reason why Dell must accept this money. Dell would have more reason to reject this money if there was more consumer demand for AMD. But considering most consumers never heard of AMD, boo hoo for AMD.
Ryan you put it better than what I did, good job.
I agree with all. AMD needs to do some marketing on TV as most of the population here in the U.S. is glued to a tv.
Thats my whole point, companies dont have to accept the payoff from intel & by doing so they put themselves in that position.
Of course AMD isnt going after Dell & the others, they are the “victims” because theyve accepted a couple million dollars, pffffffffffff.
That would be like me accepting money from Ford to drive only ford vehicals then Chevy suing ford over it claiming Im the victim & me complaining I cant drive a Chevy vehical. YEA right, it would be my dumba$$ fault.
Intel is paying money, thus cutting down their profit margins, to keep a customer loyal. There is no reason why Dell must accept this money. Dell would have more reason to reject this money if there was more consumer demand for AMD. But considering most consumers never heard of AMD, boo hoo for AMD.
If they indeed force Dell or any other customers to only sell Intel systems, or they will not get that money, or they will hold back delivery or some such, then that will, as i understand our law (which is not US law) be a case of unfair competition, which doesn’t even fall under monopoly regulation laws. That these cases are uusally near impossible to prove is a different matter.