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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Power supply can zap motherboard? | Eric Popelka | Homebuilt PC's | 8 | June 18th 05 08:54 PM |
intel SE7210TP1-E - eps power supply problem - won't boot | dnt | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:01 PM |
P4EE will cost $1000 | Yousuf Khan | General | 60 | December 27th 03 02:19 PM |
Happy Birthday America | SST | Nvidia Videocards | 336 | November 27th 03 07:54 PM |
Power Surge | David LeBrun | General | 44 | September 12th 03 02:35 AM |