What did I tell you? What did I tell you??

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by deusexaethera, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I told you. :fawk:

    - - -

    [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]FTC opens formal probe of Intel chip business[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
    Jun 7, 5:29 AM (ET)

    By JORDAN ROBERTSON
    [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]

    SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - Escalating the world's largest computer chip maker's legal woes, the Federal Trade Commission has opened a formal probe into Intel Corp. (INTC) (INTC)'s sales tactics, a victory for its much smaller rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) (AMD)

    Intel disclosed Friday that it has received a subpoena from the FTC for records about Intel's microprocessor sales, which dominate the world market with a roughly 80 percent share.

    The FTC's two-year investigation had been considered "informal" until that point, and Intel, which is already fighting antitrust charges in the European Union and was fined this week by antitrust regulators in South Korea, said it had been cooperating.
    By opening a formal investigation, Intel said, the FTC will be able to get access to documents revealing Intel's communications with certain customers - documents Intel couldn't voluntarily provide because of a protective order that is part of a sweeping antitrust lawsuit AMD filed in 2005 that isn't expected to go to trial until 2010.

    "From our perspective, it's not a surprising event nor is there any really substantive change in the relationship we've had with the FTC," Bruce Sewell, Intel's general counsel, said in an interview.

    The FTC's intensifying look at Intel's business practices is a result of AMD's long-running campaign to convince antitrust regulators around the world that its business has been hurt by Intel's aggressive tactics. AMD also said Friday that it received a subpoena this week from the FTC - though the company said it is not a target of the investigation.
    The two companies have been fighting for years over what AMD claims is Intel's intimidation of computer makers into striking exclusive deals for the chips they use in their new machines.

    AMD claims the rebates and financial incentives Intel offers to those companies for buying more Intel chips are designed to prevent AMD from gaining market share - and that Intel threatens those manufacturers that it will retaliate if they introduce models based on AMD's chips.

    AMD argues that Intel's volume discounts are sometimes so steep that AMD can't cut its own prices enough to compete without losing money on the sales.
    Intel has repeatedly denied breaking any laws. It said Friday that the sharp drop in microprocessor prices over the past seven years shows that the "evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling."

    In an interview last week with The Associated Press, before the company received the subpoena, Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini noted that Intel has been investigated by the FTC and the Department of Justice before, and he said he stands by the company's actions.

    "I think there's nothing we've done that warrants further investigation by the U.S. government," Otellini said.

    Should the FTC find Intel violated federal law, Intel could face severe fines, and the way the world's computer chips are bought and sold could change.

    AMD said the probe helps it hold Intel accountable for sales strategies that it argues have hurt AMD's business and technology consumers.

    "Intel must now answer to the Federal Trade Commission, which is the appropriate way to determine the impact of Intel practices on U.S. consumers and technology businesses," Tom McCoy, AMD's executive vice president and chief administrative officer, said in a statement. "In every country around the world where Intel's business practices have been investigated, including the decision by South Korea this week, antitrust regulators have taken action."

    Another major legal headache for Intel is the lawsuit AMD filed against it in U.S. District Court in Delaware in 2005 - a case that could mean billions of dollars in damages if AMD wins. The parties are now exchanging documents in the "discovery" phase of that case.
    AMD's complaints have also triggered antitrust investigations in several countries outside their home U.S. market as well.

    The European Union has accused Intel of paying manufacturers to delay or cancel product lines using AMD chips and selling the manufacturers its own chips below the average cost of producing them.

    And on Thursday, Intel was slapped with a $25.4 million fine by the Korea Fair Trade Commission, which accused the semiconductor giant of using hefty rebates to convince Samsung Electronics Co. and other South Korean computer makers to not use central processing units, or CPUs, manufactured by AMD.

    Intel shares fell 97 cents, or 4.06 percent, to close at $22.90 on Friday. AMD shares fell 35 cents, or 4.5 percent, to close at $7.43.
    [/FONT]
     
  2. Ebtromba

    Ebtromba Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    alexandria, VA
    ugh..

    America: where we want you to succeed. but not too much
     
  3. Ameter

    Ameter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    97,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    reading the article, I was wondering how it was bad for the consumer that CPUs were exceptionally cheap
     
  4. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    yea, that article really only shows me that what Intel did was a GOOD thing.

    I mean AMD was ahead for many years with their Athlon lineup. Now Intel is fucking them good in the ass with old-fashioned american innovation and now AMD is crying to uncle sam. Fucking commie bastards.
     
  5. skinjob

    skinjob Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aztlán
    The suit was filed in 2005, when athlon was still on top. So, I don't think AMD were crying about being uncompetitive tech-wise. But, I don't think they get much sympathy now that they've dropped to ball.
     
  6. GOGZILLA

    GOGZILLA Double-Uranium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,760
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Plantation, FL
    well bros the problem is that when one company gets a huge market share they can take profit loss by slashing prices which makes companies without upper hand in the market unable to compete thus destroying them and then we have a monopoly that can do whatever they want with their prices. not sackriding but monopoly laws exist for a reason
     
  7. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    they don't exist for any useful purpose. We broke up the bell systems (at&t) and yet at&t has gone around and bought most of the rboc's back up and still have a controlling interest. On top of that, they also are buying dish network, already own a major share of the cable network, and are the largest wireless carrier. Yea, breaking them up did a whole lot of good :ugh:
     
  8. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    monopolies are bad for business and to not understand this is amazing. it is only because AMD exists that customers are benefiting from the competition between them and Intel. before AMD started actually making a product that could compete with Intel, Intel could do no wrong. they could charge whatever they wanted, could release new technology at whatever pace they decided and basically made complete decisions about which way the market would go. with AMD there, Intel has stepped it up bringing some great technology to market simply to keep their marketshare.

    so, what intel is doing right now is bad for us overall. yeah, in the short term we'll benefit from better pricing, but if they go far enough and ruin AMD then we lose. competition brings better pricing, more innovation and better products.


    oh, and remember that pothead is quite the intel sackrider so they can do no wrong. that and he has to be disagreeable.
     
  9. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio

    Yep, yep.

    And they wouldn't be crying now either, if they were still making the fastest cpu's.
     
  10. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Fucking right. Our phone system was the best on the planet before the breakup. All busting them up accomplished was a feather in the cap of regulators, by letting them look like they accomplished something.

    You want a good read, look into how things went down during the Rockefeller years of Standard Oil.
    The regulators were fucking idiots to go after Standard Oil.
    Prices had been steadily declining throughout the "monopoly" years. Yeah, better stop that shit folks.
     
  11. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    except I used to use AMD processors in the good athlon days. technology changes... you either adapt or you die.
     
  12. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not bad for the consumer that CPUs are cheap, it's bad for the consumer that Intel's economies of scale are putting all their competitors in the dirt. What if AMD and VIA and Transmeta really did go out of business? What makes you think Intel would continue to innovate at all if they didn't have a lead to maintain?

    Competition is important for more reasons than just price. Don't be mindless consumers and allow yourselves to forget that.
     
  13. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's the mentality of a person who wants power and influence for the sake of having it. Those are the sorts of people that I hope get hit by a bus for the sake of society as a whole.
     
  14. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm not looking for the government to break up intel and/or regulate them, but there are laws to make sure that companies maintain fair business practices and it is the responsibility of the government to enforce them.


    this is horrible for business. both companies should be making their best product, marketing them as best they can and pricing them appropriately. then, let the best company win. but, for intel to go out of their way to purposefully fuck AMD's business and relationships up hurts us as customers.
     
  15. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    It did. There is now competition in telephone service, which you would not have had with Ma Bell being one big monopoly. Seriously - lookup the history of monopolies and the reason for these laws. The abuses before monopolies were made illegal were overwhelmingly shite.
     
  16. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    actually the bell monopoly existed because of the government. once upon a time there WAS competition. the government gave bell exclusive operating rights in exchange for regulation.
     
  17. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, fine. Then the government realized what it hath wrought, and it reversed position.
     
  18. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    yet it's allowing them to buy back all the companies again. They are still a monopoly, and growing stronger and more powerful.
     
  19. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are multiple companies serving (all?) areas for IP/voice/cable. How they more powerful they?
     
  20. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Land lines aren't a competitive market anymore, though. There's no money to be made selling basic phone service nowadays. Now, in the long-distance fiber market, they're competing against Verizon and Qwest and Sprint and a couple others whose names I can't recall right now, and in the cellular market they're competing against Verizon and Sprint and a slew of local cellular providers. So where there's money to be made, there is competition to contend with. Order is preserved, and civilization will live to fight another day.
     
  21. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    I have to be honest.... I have no idea what you're trying to say.
     
  22. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter how big the bells get, because there is competition in the market now.
     
  23. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    can someone point out what was so horrible before the competition? If anything it was a lot more clear. AT&T stuck with phones. That's it. Now they've got the #1 hold on wireless. They're buying Dish (#2 sat provider) they already have signifigant cable assets. They've got fibre backbone assets. They've still got the local and LD assets. They now do consumer internet services.

    It's a big mess.

    I personally didn't see the problem with the way it was. Rates were actually quite reasonable. And the network was spectacular. AT&T's Long Lines division did an absolutely specacular job maintaining the network.

    You also must consider that POTS service is still a geographic monopoly. You may not have AT&T as your local telco, but whoever is your telco is the only one you have in regards to physical prescene (for me it's Qwest). So it's still a monopoly... There isn't really choice for POTS service. Let's not get it confused with wireless or voip services that MAY be substituted in SOME cases.

    Honestly, if it would have kept AT&T out of the internet, television, and wireless markets, I'd rather they kept the POTS monopoly.
     
  24. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't care if AT&T is a huge conglomerate, as long as I can choose another provider. As to AT&T as a telephone monopoly... I dunno, I was a little kid.
     
  25. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he meant you totally butchered that sentence, and you should go back and edit it so it reads like English.
     

Share This Page