Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

snip


Sunday school teacher morality? Not even close, just enforcement of laws
that are already in place, specifically designed to stop this kind of
behaviour. A sociopathic behaviour so common that the laws have already
been in place for hundreds of years.


You don't think use of the loaded term "sociopathic" a little over the
top?

Psychopathic is little over the top, sociopathic is right in line.

Your comments seem uncharacteristically intense. No plausible action
against Intel will restore the fortunes of Sun.

Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?


Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron. I just don't understand
the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed
player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this.

I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for
Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the
business.

Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that
(security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD
can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might?
Show me where anybody is really harmed.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Yousuf Khan
snip rather interesting exchange

: I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have
: for Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts
: the business.

Oh, ya think? I present to you sir, exhibit A:
http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

more snip
j.

Robert Myers wrote:
Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?



Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron.

Believe it or not, I work for IBM these days.

Sun isn't the only one selling AMD stuff though. Mind you, they are the
only major ones I can think of that are 100% AMD -- they've given up
their Xeons completely.

I just don't understand
the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed
player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this.

Not really, I'm just responding to your arguments with equal force.

I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for
Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the
business.

I have that resentment of Microsoft too. I can't wait for the day when
Linux becomes as ubiquitous an OS as Windows, such that some games can
be developed on it.

But that day hasn't arrived yet. There's still something more that needs
to be done to finally take Microsoft out.

Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
computer revolution. But so what?

You don't think Intel's monopolistic practices have harmed the market?
Okay, then let's talk about a company you do think has harmed the market
-- Microsoft. How has Microsoft's practices hurt the market?

I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took
IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for
them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either.

We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that
(security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD
can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might?
Show me where anybody is really harmed.

AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
paid attention you'd have known that.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:28:41 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Sun? What's Sun gotta do with it?

Sun...your favorite vendor...AMD...Opteron.

Believe it or not, I work for IBM these days.

Sun isn't the only one selling AMD stuff though. Mind you, they are the
only major ones I can think of that are 100% AMD -- they've given up
their Xeons completely.

I just don't understand
the intensity of your animus against Intel. They're a heavy-handed
player? Yes, they are. But you really seem fixated on this.

Not really, I'm just responding to your arguments with equal force.

Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf.
It is not a big deal.

I have the kind of resentment for Microsoft that you seem to have for
Intel. Gates and Ballmer are...nuts, and their nuttiness hurts the
business.

I have that resentment of Microsoft too. I can't wait for the day when
Linux becomes as ubiquitous an OS as Windows, such that some games can
be developed on it.

But that day hasn't arrived yet. There's still something more that needs
to be done to finally take Microsoft out.

Microsoft isn't going to be taken out in any scenario that will leave
other players in any kind of familiar arrangement.

Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
computer revolution. But so what?

I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them
out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS.
Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit
of the industry.

You don't think Intel's monopolistic practices have harmed the market?
Okay, then let's talk about a company you do think has harmed the market
-- Microsoft. How has Microsoft's practices hurt the market?

I think I did say how Microsoft has hurt the market: through security
problems, which were massively exacerbated by the deliberately
predatory design of Internet Explorer, and by customers fed up with
buggy software. It's true that Windows XP isn't the disaster that the
Windows 95 variants were, but it's still clumsy and ugly and simple
maintenance requires frequent rebooting.

I don't really think it's possible to overestimate how much
badly-designed security has cost the industry in lost progress,
bloated software (layers of fixes), lost good will, and actual money.

Someone who was bought by Microsoft has described Bill Gates as being
in the business of turning other people's good ideas into mediocre
products. I think it's pretty accurate. Microsoft can do it because
it is a monopoly.

I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took
IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for
them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either.

I never thought of IBM as evil (if you except its involvement with the
Third Reich, but that was before my time). And, as I said, the market
was more effective at dealing with IBM's monopolistic tendencies than
the Justice Department.

We're stuck with Microsoft, I guess, and the ongoing effects of that
(security problems, alienated users) should have everybody angry. AMD
can't sell as many of its me-too processors as they otherwise might?
Show me where anybody is really harmed.

AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
paid attention you'd have known that.


The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
technology.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf.
It is not a big deal.

And the point is?

It's already certain that it's not going to get much of a fine. They
were talking about 3 million yen, which is about US$29,000 -- if it goes
to trial. But it's not the fine that Intel has to worry about, it's the
civil lawsuits afterwards.

AMD is certain to pounce on this and start asking for compensation for
lost sales, and it will use this indictment as evidence in its civil
suit. Over several years, that's equal to a few billion greenbacks.

Then the very same system manufacturers that turned it in may start
asking for compensation from Intel too, if Intel decides to punish them
by reducing their discounts.

On an outside chance, you might even see various chipset manufacturers,
like VIA, SiS, Nvidia, etc. suing citing lost potential sales from
AMD-based systems.

There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford:
fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or
fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage.
Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto
anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward.

Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
computer revolution. But so what?


I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them
out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS.
Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit
of the industry.

And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry
would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?

Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the
exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone
(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business,
etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or
has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
competition and consumers?

I was absolutely pleased when Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq finally took
IBM out in the late 80's. IBM was an evil company, and now I work for
them. So past evil doesn't have any relevance to modern deeds either.


I never thought of IBM as evil (if you except its involvement with the
Third Reich, but that was before my time). And, as I said, the market
was more effective at dealing with IBM's monopolistic tendencies than
the Justice Department.

I did, IBM was in bad need of a take down back then (80's). It's now no
longer evil, just binignly self-interested.

AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
paid attention you'd have known that.



The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
technology.

You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory
controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will
be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too. By contrast,
Intel's most recent attempt at innovation, Itanium, has only one thing
new going for it: an instruction set, and that's not likely to have much
of a long-term influence on processor design afterwards.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:51:22 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:
Intel might get the equivalent of a parking ticket out of this Yousuf.
It is not a big deal.

And the point is?

It's already certain that it's not going to get much of a fine. They
were talking about 3 million yen, which is about US$29,000 -- if it goes
to trial. But it's not the fine that Intel has to worry about, it's the
civil lawsuits afterwards.

AMD is certain to pounce on this and start asking for compensation for
lost sales, and it will use this indictment as evidence in its civil
suit. Over several years, that's equal to a few billion greenbacks.

Then the very same system manufacturers that turned it in may start
asking for compensation from Intel too, if Intel decides to punish them
by reducing their discounts.

On an outside chance, you might even see various chipset manufacturers,
like VIA, SiS, Nvidia, etc. suing citing lost potential sales from
AMD-based systems.

There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford:
fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or
fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term damage.
Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto
anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward.


I'll be fascinated to see this work itself out.

Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have had
a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.

Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern deeds.
Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
computer revolution. But so what?


I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take them
out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent DOS.
Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the benefit
of the industry.

And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the industry
would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?

Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the
exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now gone
(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86 business,
etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill or
has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
competition and consumers?

You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think of
myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from
the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies
have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of
Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it
was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of players.
There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression.

Intel, bye-the-bye, needs a credible competitor, and its credible
competitor for x86 is AMD. Intel has no interest in destroying AMD,
although Intel surely would like to limit x86 (won't happen, of
course--the market always wins). Microsoft, on the other hand, simply
buys up and/or annihilates competition. Microsoft's credible
competitor now is Linux. It's amazing that Microsoft even got near
the SCO, but the fact that they did shows just how nuts they are.

snip


I did, IBM was in bad need of a take down back then (80's). It's now no
longer evil, just binignly self-interested.

AMD hasn't been a me-too processor company in a number of years, if you
paid attention you'd have known that.



The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
technology.

You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory
controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it will
be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too.

AMD invented onboard memory controllers? You're filled with amazing
insights. Intel copied AMD64? What choice, exactly, did they have?
That's what AMD's monopolist friend Microsoft dictated. What Intel is
going to do about interconnect is a little fuzzy to me, but I'll be
startled to see hypertransport.

By contrast,
Intel's most recent attempt at innovation, Itanium, has only one thing
new going for it: an instruction set, and that's not likely to have much
of a long-term influence on processor design afterwards.

Innovation isn't going to come from the register-file and execution
unit world of microprocessors. Your comment about my not liking Cell
and your apparent belief that I think Itanium is just the most
wonderful thing ever shows that you've paid little attention to what I
have said already, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

I'll be interested to see the Itanium drama play itself out, but the
drama of Itanium at this point has to do with business issues, not
technology.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
There's only one course of action and outcome that Intel can afford:

fight the charges and win. Accepting the charges without a fight, or

fighting the charges and losing will cause it severe long term
damage.
Both outcomes will label it a monopolist which will open it upto
anti-trust lawsuits from that point forward.


I'll be fascinated to see this work itself out.

This story has already died down. It seems to play itself out in
distinct intervals, and then the mainstream press seems to forget about
it. It started 11 months ago with the raid, it reawakened last week
with the indictment. And likely the next event will be the court trial
itself. Then after that, will be all of the civil trials.


Intel didn't make the microprocessor revolution, but it was an
absolutely critical player. If their monopolistic practices have
had
a negative effect on the market in the same way that Microsoft's
monopolistic practices have, I've never been able to identify it.


Past historical achievements don't have any relevance to modern
deeds.
Even Microsoft can be called an absolutely critical player in the
computer revolution. But so what?


I wouldn't call Microsoft an absolutely critical player. Take
them
out, and we might be using OS/2, or some descendent of Concurrent
DOS.
Lotus, Corel, and the like would be bigger players, all to the
benefit
of the industry.

And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the
industry
would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?

Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the

exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now
gone
(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86
business,
etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill
or
has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
competition and consumers?

You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think
of
myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from
the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies
have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of
Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it
was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of
players.
There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression.

If the auto industry is the model for this industry, then your
characterization of that industry is inaccurate. Not only is the auto
industry not shrinking down to a small number of players, it
continuously gets new players. At one time it was believed that the
only companies left standing would be the Detroit Big Three, especially
GM which had well over 50% of the worldwide marketshare. Now GM is down
around 30% worldwide, and some minor players have grown into major
world players over the past 30 years -- first the Japanese, and then
later the Koreans. Basically the auto industry seems to go in cycles of
consolidation followed by reinvigoration.

Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
the truck makers are to the auto industry.

Intel, bye-the-bye, needs a credible competitor, and its credible
competitor for x86 is AMD. Intel has no interest in destroying AMD,
although Intel surely would like to limit x86 (won't happen, of
course--the market always wins). Microsoft, on the other hand,
simply
buys up and/or annihilates competition. Microsoft's credible
competitor now is Linux. It's amazing that Microsoft even got near
the SCO, but the fact that they did shows just how nuts they are.

Don't know if you remember this, but Microsoft has actually invested
money into Apple and Corel in the past, after almost killing both of
them. It just woke up one day and figured if these guys go down,
they'll have no defence against the government calling them a monopoly.
I don't think Intel operates any differently, it in no way is helping
AMD, and it is usually just trying to pound AMD into the ground most of
the time. That's because Intel doesn't need to aid AMD, like Microsoft
need to aid Apple and Corel. However, if AMD got so badly pounded one
day, then Intel would have to come to the realization that it may need
to directly help AMD. But it hasn't come down to that yet.

Up until now, AMD has been bravely doing the "up by your own
bootstraps" method to compete against Intel. However, that'll only go
so far before Intel starts feeling threatened. This anti-trust case may
be the final push needed to get AMD on equal footing with Intel.
Everything balances out eventually.


The real credit, AFAIK, should go to IBM's expertise in process
technology.

You mean the credit for AMD64, Hypertransport, and internal memory
controller go to IBM? Intel has already given in to AMD64, and it
will
be copying Hypertransport and memory controller too.

AMD invented onboard memory controllers? You're filled with amazing
insights. Intel copied AMD64? What choice, exactly, did they have?
That's what AMD's monopolist friend Microsoft dictated. What Intel
is
going to do about interconnect is a little fuzzy to me, but I'll be
startled to see hypertransport.

Who said invented? We were talking about innovation. And an onboard
memory controller is certainly an innovation that we have never seen
any other PC processor company try before.

Of course Intel copied AMD64, doesn't matter what their reason was.

Intel is trying to create CSI, which is a Hypertransport work-alike.


I'll be interested to see the Itanium drama play itself out, but the
drama of Itanium at this point has to do with business issues, not
technology.

All of their business issues were as a result of a rejection of their
technology.

Yousuf Khan

On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

snip


And so you're saying that if Microsoft hadn't taken all of those
companies and products down with its monopolistic policies, the
industry
would be much better off? More competition, better products, right?

Take off your Itanium-colored glasses and see how Intel is doing the

exact same thing. There's been a number of x86 makers that are now
gone
(dead or absorbed): Cyrix, NexGen, Centaur, Rise, IBM's x86
business,
etc. Then there's the chipset competition that it's trying to kill
or
has killed: VIA, Chips & Technologies, Serverworks, UMC, ALI, SIS,
Nvidia and ATI. Trying to corner the market in WiFi networking too:
Broadcom & Atheros. So tell me again how Intel hasn't really harmed
competition and consumers?

You'll inevitably accuse me of moral relativism. I prefer to think
of
myself as a pragmatist. The economics of hardware are different from
the economics of software. It's amazing that any of those companies
have been able to survive, with or without the malign intervention of
Intel. The inevitable march of progress in computer hardware, as it
was in automobiles, is toward a smaller and smaller number of
players.
There is no win for consumers in trying to halt that progression.

If the auto industry is the model for this industry, then your
characterization of that industry is inaccurate. Not only is the auto
industry not shrinking down to a small number of players, it
continuously gets new players. At one time it was believed that the
only companies left standing would be the Detroit Big Three, especially
GM which had well over 50% of the worldwide marketshare. Now GM is down
around 30% worldwide, and some minor players have grown into major
world players over the past 30 years -- first the Japanese, and then
later the Koreans. Basically the auto industry seems to go in cycles of
consolidation followed by reinvigoration.

The appearance of new global players is a completely different
phenomenon, IMHO. As an industry matures, it consolidates. In the
new world order, as an industry hyper-matures (the auto industry) it
goes through a completely new global expansion phase that in some ways
recapitulates the original growth phase of the industry. This
particular phenomenon (globalization) may never happen again, as
larger and larger parts of the world compete on a more level playing
field. It doesn't, in any case, have anything to say about the
effects of Intel's business practices on markets in industrialized
countries.


Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
the truck makers are to the auto industry.


It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?

RM

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote:

On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
the truck makers are to the auto industry.


It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?

What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the
memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while
back.

As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who
knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.c...001.01.01.html
might contain about legal actions?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:41 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:55:49 -0500, Robert Myers
wrote:

On 12 Mar 2005 11:02:29 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

Hopefully that is the model for the microprocessor industry. Right now
it's starting to look as if we're only going to be left with two
players, Intel and AMD. That's less competition than I'd like to see in
this industry. Sure you'll have other semiconductor makers like IBM,
TI, Freescale, etc. who will make processors too, but they will be like
the truck makers are to the auto industry.


It's really tangential from the point of the post, but it will be
fascinating to see whether intel (with it's symbiotic "competitor"
AMD) keeps its place of dominance against globalization and against
all recent history to the contrary. Looking to that recent history,
though, the place to look for new competition is not US companies.
Wonder where the "red flag" processor will be ten years from now.
Wonder where x86 will be ten years from now?

What? You think some Chinese genius is going to stamp his CPU in the
memory of Chairman Mao?:-) I thought we'd been over that already a while
back.

Did we completely dispense with China? I don't remember the thread
and I can't find it.

As for Intel/AMD, you have a good point about the symbiotic relationship:
Intel is now in the strange, never before seen, situation that they
actually, crucially need the cross-license agreement to survive in the new
x86 world - absolutely no question of living without it. AMD has, of
course, just as much need and I wonder if they would even think about
taking civil legal action against Intel for their marketing sins. Who
knows what the "hidden" sections of the agreement,
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.c...001.01.01.html
might contain about legal actions?

Whatever the contract says, I'd be bug-eyed to see AMD go after Intel
in court. It would make as much sense as a New York or Chicago
gangland turf war. Why would anybody want to mess with a good deal,
especially now that AMD looks much less insecure than it once did?
AMD may not really want to mess with Dell, either, since I suspect
that the concessions that Intel offers there make it a pretty
unattractive customer.

But speaking of dividing turf, I see that Via is still at it with
Esther, now due out fourth quarter this year, with IBM, apparently,
doing the fab. Via has, apparently, been doing well in the chipset
business at Intel's expense, and not entirely with AMD processors.
That makes it sound a little less crazy that Via would want to stay in
the processor business, even though, as far as I can tell, their
recent offerings have been uncompetitive for western markets.

I mean, _who_ is going to outfit the world with PC's? Not Dell,
surely. The margins are going to be miserable, and Intel-style
marketing probably won't do it.

The only really pressing requirement for performance will be
throughput, something that Via has been able to deliever on. In this
brave new world, no one will care how fast a processor compiles the
linux kernel. We may miss most of this action, because it will be
taking place in other markets, but it's hard to believe that the
effects won't eventually wash up on the shores of North America and
Western Europe.

RM