You know, that's total BS. Sorry that AMD can't put out a chip that's worth a toss. How is that Intel's fault? What, do we file suit against Coke because Pepsi and RC can't hang?
It's called competition people, wake up. Maybe the fact that Intel is kicking AMDs ass should be enough to motivate them to bring on some new talent and start getting serious about chip design.
I think it sucks that every time a company does a great job of putting out a superior product, they're punished for it. What's the motivation to be a leader when you are punished for it? Maybe we should all come out with mediocre goods and services from now on and see how far we get.
And the whole lot of you miss the entire point.
This isn't an AMD vs. Intel fanboi war as you all are making it out to be. If you RTFM, you'll see that it is about Intel giving rewards (or punishment) to desktop and server manufacturers for using their CPUs. Choice or not, you leave that incentivisation to the CUSTOMER, not another company that makes the choice for you. That is antitrust, and is a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act:
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[5] In other words, innocent monopoly, or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve his status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. Put another way, it has sometimes been said that the purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors, but rather to protect competition and the competitive landscape.
This also violates a portion of the Clayton Antitrust Act as well. But I would call 'threats and rewards aimed at the world's largest manufacturers' a nefarious deal and a way to preserve their status. Just those saying 'Intel is the Best/AMD sucks/etc.' very well easily proves that.
BL.