A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel's agreement with the FTC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 4th 10, 04:10 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,296
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Agreement.pdf

***
So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires:

(1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like.
(2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets
sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated.
(3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license.
(4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the
CPU alone.
(5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels.
(6) Intel can only offer volume discounts.
(7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a
competitor.
(8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only
so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I
think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such
agreements at a time.
(9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell).
(10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the
presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug.
(11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors.
(12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for
its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this
anymore.
(13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this
compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's
misrepresentations.
(14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are
optimized for Intel processors only.

  #2  
Old August 5th 10, 05:12 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 4, 11:10*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre...

***
So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires:

(1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like.
(2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets
sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated.
(3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license.
(4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the
CPU alone.
(5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels.
(6) Intel can only offer volume discounts.
(7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a
competitor.
(8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only
so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I
think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such
agreements at a time.
(9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell).
(10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the
presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug.
(11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors.
(12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for
its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this
anymore.
(13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this
compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's
misrepresentations.
(14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are
optimized for Intel processors only.


You left out the part where the federal government is dictating
details of technology (PCI-X for six years).

Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a
joke.

Robert.
  #3  
Old August 5th 10, 05:15 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 5, 12:12*am, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:10*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:





http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre...


***
So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires:


(1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like.
(2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets
sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated.
(3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license.
(4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the
CPU alone.
(5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels.
(6) Intel can only offer volume discounts.
(7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a
competitor.
(8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only
so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I
think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such
agreements at a time.
(9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell).
(10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the
presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug.
(11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors.
(12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for
its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this
anymore.
(13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this
compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's
misrepresentations.
(14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are
optimized for Intel processors only.


You left out the part where the federal government is dictating
details of technology (PCI-X for six years).

Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a
joke.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html

"We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory for
consumers," Joshua Wright, an assistant professor of law at George
Mason University Law School in Arlington, Va., wrote in a blog post
after Wednesday's decision. U.S. government agency settlements are not
always that "meaningful, from a consumer welfare perspective,"
according to Wright, who also served as a scholar in residence at the
FTC.

Robert.

  #4  
Old August 5th 10, 03:13 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Intel Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

Robert Myers full-quoted:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html

"We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory
for consumers,"


Would doing nothing and allowing Intel to continue to strong-arm
customers have been better for consumers?
  #5  
Old August 5th 10, 03:20 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Intel Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

Robert Myers wrote:

You left out the part where the federal government is dictating
details of technology (PCI-X for six years).

Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers?
What a joke.


The joke is that PCIe was foisted on consumers as a replacement for AGP
primarily to drive redundant video card and motherboard sales when the
reality was that there was a negligible real-world performance increase
with the new bus.

Do you really want to keep seeing needless forced-obsolescence for your
investment in computing hardware?

Intel should be forced to support PCIe for 12 years - not 6.
  #6  
Old August 5th 10, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Sebastian Kaliszewski[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre...

***
So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires:

(1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like.
(2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets
sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated.
(3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license.
(4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the
CPU alone.
(5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels.
(6) Intel can only offer volume discounts.
(7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a
competitor.
(8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only
so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I
think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such
agreements at a time.
(9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell).
(10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the
presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug.
(11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors.
(12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for
its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this
anymore.
(13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this
compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's
misrepresentations.
(14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are
optimized for Intel processors only.


You left out the part where the federal government is dictating
details of technology (PCI-X for six years).


So what?

Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a
joke.


Yes of course, monopolistic practices are good for customes -- according
to Robert Myers

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
  #7  
Old August 5th 10, 06:15 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 5, 10:13*am, Intel Guy wrote:
Robert Myers full-quoted:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html


"We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory
for consumers,"


Would doing nothing and allowing Intel to continue to strong-arm
customers have been better for consumers?


I should have quoted the rest:

quote

Wright sees other potential problems. "This settlement has the FTC
getting itself involved in Intel's business arrangements, competitive
strategy, and even product design at a remarkably deep level," he
said, expressing concern about government micromanagement of Intel
business practices.

/quote

It's a very bad precedent and, yes, it would have been better to have
done nothing, if the something included having bureaucrats and lawyers
micromanage a business, especially a high-technology business.

Robert.
  #8  
Old August 5th 10, 06:18 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 5, 10:49*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre....


***
So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires:


(1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like.
(2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets
sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated.
(3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license.
(4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the
CPU alone.
(5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels.
(6) Intel can only offer volume discounts.
(7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a
competitor.
(8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only
so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I
think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such
agreements at a time.
(9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell).
(10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the
presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug.
(11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors.
(12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for
its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this
anymore.
(13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this
compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's
misrepresentations.
(14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are
optimized for Intel processors only.


You left out the part where the federal government is dictating
details of technology (PCI-X for six years).


So what?

Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a
joke.


Yes of course, monopolistic practices are good for customes -- according
to Robert Myers


And you don't think the FTC and the European Commission are
monopolies? Really, Sebastian, what's written in your history books
about the miracles of government-planned businesses and all the
munificent benefits they bestow through the intrusive exercise of
power?

Robert.
  #9  
Old August 5th 10, 07:25 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

In comp.sys.intel Intel Guy wrote:
The joke is that PCIe was foisted on consumers as a replacement for
AGP primarily to drive redundant video card and motherboard sales
when the reality was that there was a negligible real-world
performance increase with the new bus.


And how about today with PCIe Gen2? I'm not a HW guy, but how much
headroom remained in AGP, or PCI-X for that matter?

Do you really want to keep seeing needless forced-obsolescence for
your investment in computing hardware?


Intel should be forced to support PCIe for 12 years - not 6.


Would you like ISA bus support with that?

Given that PCIe Gen1 seems to date to 2004 and it is now 2010, if
Intel supports PCIe for another 6 years, it will indeed have supported
it for 12 years.

IIRC Infiniband is already at 40 Gbit/s, which probably makes for
"fun" with a dual-port HCA even in a x8 PCIe Gen2 slot. Dual-port 40
Gbit Ethernet will be equally fun, and haven't the IEEE done the spec
for 100Gbit now (or am I getting ahead of them?)

rick jones

* not clear if first product shipped then or if that was just the spec
- I'm going from a Wikipedia article - btw, wikipedia asserted that
AGP was from 1997

--
the road to hell is paved with business decisions...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #10  
Old August 5th 10, 10:43 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,296
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 8/5/2010 12:12 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
You left out the part where the federal government is dictating
details of technology (PCI-X for six years).


As I said, those were my initial quick reads. But the PCIe issue is
something they did for Nvidia, to give it plenty of time to adjust. Also
it falls into the general idea of Intel now having to provide product
roadmaps to its competitors. This is generally good because Intel has
very recently been playing games with the USB 3.0 specs, first delaying
giving them the specs, and then when it finally gave them the specs, it
decided that it might want to replace it entirely with some kind of
optical link instead. Does nothing but provide instability in the PC
standards.

Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a
joke.


Probably really good news for everybody listed above, including you Robert.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel to pull x86 cross-licensing agreement with AMD in 60 days Yousuf Khan General 0 March 16th 09 09:11 PM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Homebuilt PC's 47 November 22nd 06 10:18 AM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Storage (alternative) 6 October 15th 06 05:06 AM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Nvidia Videocards 0 October 13th 06 08:07 PM
Support contract agreement not met; what does Dell do about it? Clint Dell Computers 8 April 6th 06 09:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.