The latest development in a pending antitrust suit by CPU manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) against its cheif rival, Intel, comes in the form of a glimpse at the case AMD will present in a Delaware federal court. According to a report by Michael Williams, director of ERS Group, an economist hired by AMD, Intel allegedly pocketed $60 billion in ill-gotten, or "monopoly," profits from a decade of anti-competitive behavior. Naturally, Intel dismissed the claims as "wildly speculative and based on flawed assumptions about Intel and the market." "The only thing one can conclude from the study is that if you pay someone enough money you can get them to say almost anything," said Intel spokesman Chris Mulloy.
In the wake of antitrust charges filed by European Commission regulators, AMD hopes to revitalize its case against Intel in the US; the company plans to show the study to US regulators over the next several weeks, in an effort to encourage government action. The study itself bases the $60 billion calculation on the charges filed by the EU commission, as well as a Japanese antitrust case against Intel in 2005. In the report, Williams concludes that absent Intel's market behavior, the average $1,000 computer would cost consumers nearly 1.5 percent, or $14.89, less.
However, doubts about the accuracy of the report come not only from Intel, but from other antitrust lawyers around the US; they point at that economists can differ significantly in their analyses of a market. Colin Underwood, an antitrust attorney with Proskauer Rose in New York, states "Economists are hired to offer opinions to support a case, not to question it. They are hired guns. They will only shoot at the target you want them to shoot at."
Intel has continued to claim it has broken no antitrust laws in any country and vowed last week to persuade EU officials to drop the charges filed against the company.
View: Full Story on SiliconValley.com
In the wake of antitrust charges filed by European Commission regulators, AMD hopes to revitalize its case against Intel in the US; the company plans to show the study to US regulators over the next several weeks, in an effort to encourage government action. The study itself bases the $60 billion calculation on the charges filed by the EU commission, as well as a Japanese antitrust case against Intel in 2005. In the report, Williams concludes that absent Intel's market behavior, the average $1,000 computer would cost consumers nearly 1.5 percent, or $14.89, less.
However, doubts about the accuracy of the report come not only from Intel, but from other antitrust lawyers around the US; they point at that economists can differ significantly in their analyses of a market. Colin Underwood, an antitrust attorney with Proskauer Rose in New York, states "Economists are hired to offer opinions to support a case, not to question it. They are hired guns. They will only shoot at the target you want them to shoot at."
Intel has continued to claim it has broken no antitrust laws in any country and vowed last week to persuade EU officials to drop the charges filed against the company.
View: Full Story on SiliconValley.com
"Feed the Children' Campaign
Maybe their just upset that they are not good at business and people do not like their product
LOL
I think taking intel to court in both the united states and the eu is "anti-competitive"
or spreading false information about your competitor but it looks bad for amd already what do they have to loose
Last edited by MvT Cracker on 03 Aug 2007 - 00:08
If you meant AMD has been whining a lot sense they lost a few percentages of the market share, say that. But, Intel has always been ahead of AMD.
Agreed. I assumed you meant market share because so many are quick to bring that up first whenever AMD and Intel are mentioned.
Pentium 4 was not a disaster but it did not sell as well as the athalon at that time amd was ahead and intel did not sue them they worked hard to make a better product amd fanboys never die they become trolls and spread false information like amd dose
Last edited by MvT Cracker on 03 Aug 2007 - 23:37
"doubts about the accuracy of the report come not only from Intel, but from other antitrust lawyers around the US"
So, in other words, there's a good chance AMD is just whining and upset because they can't be a market leader. Sure makes me want to continue to buy Intel. At least they can behave professionally and don't throw lawsuits around when they are low on funds.
how is intel offering rebates cash back to resellers/system builders and giving away free stuff illegal?
I do not see amd making a better product or advertising or offering rebates or cutting prices or making good business choices
And I think taking intel to court in both the united states and the eu is "anti-competitive"
For those who say "Well that's just how business is, the consumption of larger companies devouring smaller ones is normal" I agree, but there must be limits imposed upon such devouring, so that the consumer doesn't get ****ed in the end. As is the case now with CPUs. The Core 2 Duo are Intels response to AMD kicking their ass for two years, but what happens if AMD never again is able to take the performence lead? Oh that's right more stagnation in the CPU market, and jacked up prices for for minor gains in technology.
Last edited by Epimetheus on 03 Aug 2007 - 04:06
i honestly agree with you, but think it through a bit, its not so cut and dry
i honestly agree with you, but think it through a bit, its not so cut and dry
...and then they're able to jack up the prices to whatever they want, making regular joe smoe's paycheck meaningless.
i honestly agree with you, but think it through a bit, its not so cut and dry
...and then they're able to jack up the prices to whatever they want, making regular joe smoe's paycheck meaningless.
So Intel(The Man) is charging more, while AMD(the one who The Man is holding down) is charging less for their product. Even though The Man has a much larger market share. For some reason what you said in your last few post makes no sense.
I said that even though the benefit of having a large company is a steady and increased paycheck, that company is able to increase their prices due to lack of competition--rendering the large paycheck useless. I apologize if I disguised that in a way your brain was unable to comprehend and made you take the offensive on someone you agree with.
Wait, no I don't. Thanks for agreeing with me, and learn to read.
I know first hand how they do business, they threaten, intimidate, bribe, whatever it takes to stop you from selling AMD products and you have to obey them.
If AMD were making huge amounts right now, they wouldn't be complaining - lets just call it the SCO tactic, when in doubt, litigate.
Pip'
When was the last time any of us went to a computer store and they had only one brand of processors?
Exactly.
When was the last time any of us went to a computer store and they had only one brand of processors?
Exactly.
True. I chose Intel btw because AMD refuses to support my operating system of choice. Therefore, AMD has locked itself out of the possibility of having me, and many people like me, as their customer.
When was the last time any of us went to a computer store and they had only one brand of processors?
Exactly.
If I choose to only sell intel because I have had good experiences with intel and bad ones with amd whats wrong with that its my store my choice what I buy and sell
but your right most stores do stock both
and Intel dose not force people to not buy or sell amd products and dose not pay people not to
they offer rebates amd dose not
Bill Gates
old quote but its always good
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.