Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://www.reed-electronics.com/el [...] 0?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>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> http://www.reed-electronics.com/el [...] 0?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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

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

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/rea [...] d=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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 9 Mar 2005 11:18:14 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>And there was this posting recently, about historical efforts by Compaq
>to break Intel's power in the past.
>
>http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> http://www.reed-electronics.com/el [...] 0?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.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> 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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:51:04 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> 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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> 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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

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/semi [...] 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

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> 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.

Well, that's exactly what it was, on the day that they raided Intel's
office, they also paid a visit to the offices of about five PC makers,
NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi. Obviously to get
corroborating evidence, that perhaps was missing from Intel's own
offices?

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/semi [...] Feb_17.pdf

If true, this is extremely severe, at least under US law.
Japanese law may differ. But the prez of Intel Japan either
knew, or ought ot have known. And possibly the Intel CEO.

> 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.

I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, that's exactly what it was, on the day that they
> raided Intel's office, they also paid a visit to the offices
> of about five PC makers, NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and
> Hitachi. Obviously to get corroborating evidence, that perhaps
> was missing from Intel's own offices?

Corroboration is good from all sources. On something
as big as this, they'd pull out all the stops.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 14:12:09 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:


>
>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.
>

A reasonable person in the business might want to be careful about
making allegations that sound actionable. On the face of it, one
might guess that Intel structures its discounts to make life as
difficult as possible for its competitor AMD. Also on the face of it,
whatever Intel may be thinking, it seems unlikely that they would
structure deals in a way that make it easy to show that they are doing
something illegal.

Corporate values have changed over the years, with significant events
leaving a lasting impression: McDonnell-Douglas being charged under
RICO for bribes to foreign officials, the collapse of Enron, the
collapse of WorldCom--I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Now there's
Sarbanes-Oxley, so that board members can't say they didn't know.

Guys with desks the size of putting greens have could stand having
their every move examined by a jury of Sunday school teachers? What
kind of world do you live in, Yousuf? No offense. I respect your
high standards, but the world just doesn't work that way.

Intel is worse than most? I doubt it.

RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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/seminar/2005/Arai_Feb_17.pdf
>
>
> If true, this is extremely severe, at least under US law.
> Japanese law may differ. But the prez of Intel Japan either
> knew, or ought ot have known. And possibly the Intel CEO.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> I meant it as "not so stupid as to do these illegal things".
> No-one is smart enough to evade detection forever.
>

I have little doubt that Intel knew exactly what it was doing and
that they planned to continue until they got caught. They simply
weighed the benefits against the risk and decided it was worth
it. And it looks like they were right: when they were finally
caught all that happened was a finger wagged in there face while
momma said "bad boy".