Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan
 

http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...09320?nid=2019

quote
Specifically, the JFTC found that one manufacturer was forced to agree
to buy 100 percent of its CPUs from Intel; another manufacturer was
forced to curtail its non-Intel purchases to 10 percent or less; Intel
separately conditioned rebates on the exclusive use of Intel CPUs
throughout an entire series of computers sold under a single brand
name in order to exclude AMD CPUs from distribution; and the
mechanisms used to achieve these ends included rebates and marketing
practices that includes the “Intel Inside” program and market
development funds provided through Intel’s corporate parent in the
United States.

The recommendation also notes that Intel imposed these restrictions in
direct response to AMD’s growing market share from 2000 to 2002 and
that as a result of this misconduct, the combined market share of AMD
and a second, much smaller CPU company fell from 24 percent in 2002 to
11 percent in 2003.
/quote

chrisv wrote:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...09320?nid=2019

For some reason, the story started to get a lot of play today, even
though it broke last week, just before the weekend. I posted a link
about it too. There's probably hundreds of links in Google about this
story already.

Some of the articles even quote European regulators saying that they too
have an investigation going on about it. Prior to this, it seems like as
if AMD was whistling into the wind, nobody wanted to hear about it. AMD
would file a complaint and the regulators would find no evidence. It was
an ongoing cycle. I think the difference this time was that Japan
actually raided Intel's offices without warning. Prevented Intel from
getting rid of evidence, probably.

Yousuf Khan

And there was this posting recently, about historical efforts by Compaq
to break Intel's power in the past.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readm...msgid=21117891

It's interesting reading the account by this ex-Compaq employee who
found that Intel was becoming less and less cooperative the more and
more it was accumulating power. I found the same thing, I used to be
able to call an Intel 800 number and get all kinds of documentation for
free from Intel, then it started charging for it.

Yousuf Khan

On 9 Mar 2005 11:18:14 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

And there was this posting recently, about historical efforts by Compaq
to break Intel's power in the past.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readm...msgid=21117891

It's interesting reading the account by this ex-Compaq employee who
found that Intel was becoming less and less cooperative the more and
more it was accumulating power. I found the same thing, I used to be
able to call an Intel 800 number and get all kinds of documentation for
free from Intel, then it started charging for it.


Is that because you've become powerful enough for Intel to worry about
you? Let's be friends, Yousuf. ;-).

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
It's interesting reading the account by this ex-Compaq employee who
found that Intel was becoming less and less cooperative the more and
more it was accumulating power. I found the same thing, I used to be
able to call an Intel 800 number and get all kinds of documentation for
free from Intel, then it started charging for it.



Is that because you've become powerful enough for Intel to worry about
you? Let's be friends, Yousuf. ;-).

What, you didn't know? :-)

But seriously, Intel became a much less friendly company sometime ago.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

chrisv wrote:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...09320?nid=2019

For some reason, the story started to get a lot of play today, even
though it broke last week, just before the weekend. I posted a link
about it too. There's probably hundreds of links in Google about this
story already.

Some of the articles even quote European regulators saying that they too
have an investigation going on about it. Prior to this, it seems like as
if AMD was whistling into the wind, nobody wanted to hear about it. AMD
would file a complaint and the regulators would find no evidence. It was
an ongoing cycle. I think the difference this time was that Japan
actually raided Intel's offices without warning. Prevented Intel from
getting rid of evidence, probably.

Yeah, the mindset of the evil businessman is truly a wonder. Intel
has so many advantages over AMD, so much more money, and yet they fell
the need to cheat. Lie, cheat, and steal, and if you don't get
caught, it's all good.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
AMD would file a complaint and the regulators would find no
evidence. It was an ongoing cycle. I think the difference this
time was that Japan actually raided Intel's offices without
warning. Prevented Intel from getting rid of evidence, probably.

I doubt it. Evidence is very hard to get rid of.
Most likely AMD's complaints got minimal investigation:
[Intel to cop]: "Oh no, we would never do that." Case closed.

This time some [brave?] Japanese company probably complained
to MITI and produced documents that showed their discount
was dependant on %Intel, not just volume Intel.

Japanese law may permit the whistleblower to remain anonymous.
US law probably wouldn't. I doubt even Dell could risk
Intel's retaliation. If indeed Intel has gone to the Dark
Side, and this isn't an isolated bad-saleman case.

-- Robert

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:51:04 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

If indeed Intel has gone to the Dark
Side, and this isn't an isolated bad-saleman case.


[Intel to cop]: "These are the actions of a renegade
[salesman/manager/flunky]. Intel employees have been repeatedly
instructed to stay within the law. Here is a memo that we sent to
everyone on the subject."

I'll get whacked again for the "everybody does it" mentality, but,
everybody does it. That's not to say it's okay, but it's hard to get
excited about it.

For all that everybody whines and bitches, Intel is not a monopoly and
probably never will be. People who don't want to buy Intel chips have
realistic choices, much more so than people who would rather never
give another nickel to Gates or the co-predators who live in that
ecosystem (like symantec).

Even had AMD been forced out of business by Intel, the choices people
have wouldn't be as good, but they'd still have choices and Intel, for
all its muscle and meanness, hasn't forced AMD out of business.

The Japanese nor the European nor anybody else's action is going to
make a difference unless and until somebody uncovers a pattern of
behavior complete with smoking guns. I assume Intel just isn't that
stupid.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
For all that everybody whines and bitches, Intel is not a
monopoly and probably never will be. People who don't want
to buy Intel chips have realistic choices, much more so than
people who would rather never give another nickel to Gates or
the co-predators who live in that ecosystem (like symantec).

The legal definition of monopoly requires "market control",
not 100%. There is little doubt in my mind that Intel controls
the market for desktop and laptop CPUs. If they dropped the
price, everyone else would have to follow. If they raised
the price, few/none would lag (full fabs).

The Japanese nor the European nor anybody else's action
is going to make a difference unless and until somebody
uncovers a pattern of behavior complete with smoking guns.
I assume Intel just isn't that stupid.

Smoking guns (incriminating docs from high levels) would help
prosecution, but aren't absolutely necessary. A widespread
pattern would be just as good. US Antitrust law is a scary beast.
The burden of proof is "guilty until proven innocent".

I agree that Intel isn't that stupid, and most likely this
is low-level overzealousness. Intel also plays nice with
the DoJ in stark contrast with Microsoft. Charging for
dead trees documents doesn't make them nasty.

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
Smoking guns (incriminating docs from high levels) would help
prosecution, but aren't absolutely necessary. A widespread
pattern would be just as good. US Antitrust law is a scary beast.
The burden of proof is "guilty until proven innocent".

I agree that Intel isn't that stupid, and most likely this
is low-level overzealousness. Intel also plays nice with
the DoJ in stark contrast with Microsoft. Charging for
dead trees documents doesn't make them nasty.

I doubt it's just a low-level overzealousness. For example, one of the
companies, NEC, was required to limit its purchases of non-Intel
processors based on region of the world it was destined for: 90% within
Japan, 70% to Europe, and 80% to rest of the world. It's all listed in
here. How can specifying marketshares throughout the world be
considered low-level, unless Intel also has marketshares throughout the
Solar System?

http://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/semina...rai_Feb_17.pdf

I keep hearing "Intel isn't that stupid", what is that supposed to
mean? They aren't that stupid as to do these sort of things at all, or
that stupid as to _get caught_ doing these things? My feeling is it's
the latter.

Yousuf Khan