Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Federal Trade Commission Files Suit Against Intel For 'Anticompetitive Tactics'

I choose to use Windows. I also choose to use OS X. However, I am FORCED into using Intel. Up until a little while ago, I could not buy a Dell with an AMD CPU in it.

I almost hope that the U.S. Gov. is harsher to Intel then they were to MS.
 
Bafflefish said:
There are many different X86 compilers out there. The X86 architecture is really just an instruction set, and thus companies/developers are free to create their own X86 compiler that will determine how to process the instruction set code.

Both Intel and AMD add extensions to the architecture, and thus companies usually have to try and support the extensions that both companies add (at least, that's if the developers want the software to run as efficiently as possible on either an Intel or AMD processor).

The problem is that, as far as I know, when AMD adds extensions, they have to offer the extensions to Intel under the terms of their licensing agreement for X86. However, I'm not certain if Intel is required to do the same. The compiler would then have to be able to handle these extensions.

What Intel is partly accused of doing, is basically taking their X86 compiler, which ideally would be optimized for both Intel and AMD processors (if you're doing fair competitive testing, after all) and optimizing it so that performance was seen to be greater on their own products under a "comparative testing environment".

Someone such as cmaier (who has far more experience in this field) may want to correct me on this, but I believe it's perfectly legal to have an optimized compiler if its optimized to support any new extensions added to the instruction set. So, for example, let's say Intel had just added in SSE4 support, and AMD hadn't yet implemented it. Intel is perfectly justified in using a compiler optimized for SSE4 and showing the performance enhancements as a result.

My guess as to what Intel actually did (and I haven't read the full complaint, so this is only from what I've seen on the surface) is that they actually modified the compiler to not be able to handle certain functions of AMD's X86 line. Thus, Intel was saying "Hey, all things being equal as much as possible, our system performs better!", when in reality, they had crippled AMD X86 support.

If that is the case, it reminds me somewhat of what nVidia pulled during the GeForce FX fiasco, where in game-based benchmarks its performance was being trounced by the Radeon 9*** series, but in 3DMark the FX had a suprisingly high score. It was later revealed that nVidia had optimized their drivers to produce an artificially high 3DMark score, so as to lessen the negative press they were getting amongst review sites and enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the compiled code actually checks to see if the processor is from AMD and, if so, the compiled code ran slower due to artificial delays (disabling of optimizations, whatever). In other words, if the AMD chip is modified to itself as an Intel chip, the code suddenly ran faster. This was not a situation where Intel simply chose to optimize to take advantage of its own op codes; it put in code specifically to detect if the code is running on AMD, and to then slow things down.
 
Hmm. It looks like the FTC is concerned about Intel leveraging its monopoly to take over the graphics chip market (for example, by forcing Apple to buy Arrandale, graphics included :)

Refusing to license nVidia the bus was also not a bright move.
 
AidenShaw said:
Nvidia has a license for the bus, which is the problem ;) ....
Click to expand...
Where are the Nehalem/Westmere chipsets then? MCP99 was mentioned back in the summer but something happened over a license for QPI/DMI only products.

Otherwise nVidia does have the license for front side bus just like VIA does. AMD has pretty much pushed nVidia out of their platform as well. There's no license issue but it looks like the 980a is the end of the road for SLI on AMD processors.
 
America's beloved capitalism is partly founded on law which targets anti competitive practices (as the argument goes).

Intel has played unfairly according to this law many times. This is not about Intel's strength in design but it's tactics in selling its products. The issue about the compiler is a further issue as well which may be decided to be anti competitive
 
thejadedmonkey said:
I am FORCED into using Intel.
Click to expand...
Let's say you are. It is about 4x the performance of the PowerPC alternative Apple eschewed in favor of it.

While it is indeed true that if Intel did not have policies to enforce its intellectual property that was not submitted for standards, and to support its most loyal customers, AMD and other firms might have done better.

Intel, a CORPORATION with STOCKHOLDERS that have a PUBLIC DUTY OF CARE did things to be selfish. Yet, another PUBLIC agency has an OPPOSING view to the other PUBLIC interest. The PUBLIC agency with the best jurisdiction and assertiveness and willingness to go for blood wins. AGAINST THE OTHER PUBLIC INTEREST, with an associated public cost on both ends, thus assuring MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION to the PUBLIC.

"F them." - FTC, and SEC, and DOJ, and . . .

Rocketman
 
Rocketman said:
Let's say you are. It is about 4x the performance of the PowerPC alternative Apple eschewed in favor of it.

While it is indeed true that if Intel did not have policies to enforce its intellectual property that was not submitted for standards, and to support its most loyal customers, AMD and other firms might have done better.

Intel, a CORPORATION with STOCKHOLDERS that have a PUBLIC DUTY OF CARE did things to be selfish. Yet, another PUBLIC agency has an OPPOSING view to the other PUBLIC interest. The PUBLIC agency with the best jurisdiction and assertiveness and willingness to go for blood wins. AGAINST THE OTHER PUBLIC INTEREST, with an associated public cost on both ends, thus assuring MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION to the PUBLIC.

"F them." - FTC, and SEC, and DOJ, and . . .

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Um. You're not allowed to pay customers to not use your competitors products. You're not allowed to pay software vendors to make their software run slower on competitors products. You're not allowed, if you're a monopoly, to refuse to sell the product you have a monopoly on unless you also buy a product in another market. You're not allowed to put code in your products that says "if (chip is AMD) {needlessly run slower;}" This has nothing to do with intel's intellectual property. (Heck, AMD invented x86-64, and Intel licensed that for $0. I was there. Intel and AMD have a massive cross-license agreement and always did. ) This has to do with Intel uses forbidden tactics to obtain a monopoly, and now trying to leverage that monopoly to obtain another monopoly (in graphics chips).
 
cmaier said:
Um. You're not allowed to pay customers to not use your competitors products. You're not allowed to pay software vendors to make their software run slower on competitors products. You're not allowed, if you're a monopoly, to refuse to sell the product you have a monopoly on unless you also buy a product in another market. You're not allowed to put code in your products that says "if (chip is AMD) {needlessly run slower;}" This has nothing to do with intel's intellectual property. (Heck, AMD invented x86-64, and Intel licensed that for $0. I was there. Intel and AMD have a massive cross-license agreement and always did. ) This has to do with Intel uses forbidden tactics to obtain a monopoly, and now trying to leverage that monopoly to obtain another monopoly (in graphics chips).
Click to expand...

You said it. /thread
 
Since this FTC lawsuit is based on a lot things that happened many years ago, isn't it possible INTEL influenced IBM with respect to PowerPC and Apple too?
It always seemed like IBM made grandiose claims that its Power technology was faster and superior to INTEL CPUs, but somehow, by the time Apple got a hold of the CPUs, they always seemed to not meet IBM's claims.

Part of this lawsuit involves IBM and IBM was much more beholden to INTEL back then than it is now.
INTEL always claimed they wanted to steal Apple from IBM/MOTO.
Isn't it possible they did dirty deals with IBM to hurt Apple?
I could easily see IBM doing it too since they never really saw Apple buying their PowerPC chips as important to their bottom line and you'd have a hard time saying IBM didn't take Apple for granted as a customer.
 
Livestfastest said:
Since this FTC lawsuit is based on a lot things that happened many years ago, isn't it possible INTEL influenced IBM with respect to PowerPC and Apple too?
It always seemed like IBM made grandiose claims that its Power technology was faster and superior to INTEL CPUs, but somehow, by the time Apple got a hold of the CPUs, they always seemed to not meet IBM's claims.

Part of this lawsuit involves IBM and IBM was much more beholden to INTEL back then than it is now.
INTEL always claimed they wanted to steal Apple from IBM/MOTO.
Isn't it possible they did dirty deals with IBM to hurt Apple?
I could easily see IBM doing it too since they never really saw Apple buying their PowerPC chips as important to their bottom line and you'd have a hard time saying IBM didn't take Apple for granted as a customer.
Click to expand...

IBM was not beholden to Intel - its pc business was always seen as a nuisance internally, and they were trying to design their own x86 processor - IBM thought of Intel as a competitor (and still does). The reason the PPC's never lived up to IBMs promises is that IBM is great at process design, but lousy at CPU design. I've worked with those guys, and they're terrible.
 
cmaier said:
Um. You're not allowed to pay customers to not use your competitors products. You're not allowed to pay software vendors to make their software run slower on competitors products. You're not allowed, if you're a monopoly, to refuse to sell the product you have a monopoly on unless you also buy a product in another market. You're not allowed to put code in your products that says "if (chip is AMD) {needlessly run slower;}" This has nothing to do with intel's intellectual property. (Heck, AMD invented x86-64, and Intel licensed that for $0. I was there. Intel and AMD have a massive cross-license agreement and always did. ) This has to do with Intel uses forbidden tactics to obtain a monopoly, and now trying to leverage that monopoly to obtain another monopoly (in graphics chips).
Click to expand...

I am the one that posted the link to the actual complaint. I am the one not defending Intel for the issues raised. My problem is not declaring them guilty, but the fact the regulators did not address these things when they first discovered them by a letter to Intel. They waited 10-15 years, letting AMD and others twist in the wind, and the regulators chose to exploit it now in a public way, to justify their existence with this madness, will soon have a hearing resembling a monologue, and shortly after that will fine Intel and keep the cash FOR THEMSELVES and forget AMD or anyone else getting compensation for all this PUBLIC effort.

Rocketman
 
Rocketman said:
I am the one that posted the link to the actual complaint. I am the one not defending Intel for the issues raised. My problem is not declaring them guilty, but the fact the regulators did not address these things when they first discovered them by a letter to Intel. They waited 10-15 years and chose to exploit it in a public way, justify their existence with this madness, will soon have a hearing resembling a monologue, and shortly after that will fine Intel and keep the cash FOR THEMSELVES and forget AMD or anyone else getting compensation for all this effort.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

The last time this came up, Bush quashed it. Now we have an administration that is more serious about reigning in anti-competitive business practices. They aren't going to fine Intel - they are going to get a consent decree. And AMD already got "compensation."
 
I'm surprised no-one has brought up Intel paying 1.25 billion to settle their antitrust case with AMD:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html

Seems to be an admission of guilt there so the case against them must be strong.

Can someone explain to me why there is need for another case? Is it because the FTC have to enforce their rules even if the damaged parties have already been compensated? Or are the issues more far reaching than just AMD? Or perhaps even referring to different practices?
 
Bundle pricing is an issue? C'mon. AMD just needs to step up their game. As I see it, there are still AMD chips being used, albeit not as many, therefore they're not 'stifled.'
 
vjl323 said:
This should have happened years ago. As bad as Microsoft is [and IBM before them, if there's any old-timers here], Intel is worse. That's why the 2006 decision to go Intel was so disappointing to me - Intel makes Microsoft's aggressive business tactics look like Barbie.

I hope this suite has some teeth in it, and gets the job done. Intel has caused a lot of problems in this industry and it's about time they paid for their illegal ways.

/vjl/
Click to expand...

Please. These companies become monopolies for a reason. They have the best products. Microsoft became the company it is today because it dominated the market. Intel chips are lightyears ahead of AMD. And Apple is on top because they make innovative technology.

Apple forces you to buy their hardware to use their software. It is almost as though they don't want any other company making a competing product. And that's not a monopoly? That's not anti-competitive practices? Oh I know...it's because you folks like Apple. That's why it's ok. If Microsoft started making computers as well, and limited their Windows software from being installed on anything except their own hardware, there would be outrage, and you know that it would take the Federal Trade Commision about 30 seconds to file a suit against Microsoft.

Apple is what it is because they make amazing products that people want. It's the same for Microsoft and Intel. Deal with it.
 
jimmyjoemccrow said:
I'm surprised no-one has brought up Intel paying 1.25 billion to settle their antitrust case with AMD:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html

Seems to be an admission of guilt there so the case against them must be strong.

Can someone explain to me why there is need for another case? Is it because the FTC have to enforce their rules even if the damaged parties have already been compensated? Or are the issues more far reaching than just AMD? Or perhaps even referring to different practices?
Click to expand...

There are other aggrieved parties (nVidia, Via, Montalvo systems, etc.)
 
rileyes said:
Please. These companies become monopolies for a reason. They have the best products. Microsoft became the company it is today because it dominated the market. Intel chips are lightyears ahead of AMD. And Apple is on top because they make innovative technology.
Click to expand...

In a capitalist economy, items rarely become a monopoly because they are the best. So DOS was SOO good now was it?

rileyes said:
Apple forces you to buy their hardware to use their software. It is almost as though they don't want any other company making a competing product. And that's not a monopoly? That's not anti-competitive practices? Oh I know...it's because you folks like Apple. That's why it's ok. If Microsoft started making computers as well, and limited their Windows software from being installed on anything except their own hardware, there would be outrage, and you know that it would take the Federal Trade Commision about 30 seconds to file a suit against Microsoft.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, its the PC choice market to use Windows because Microsoft put it out there. Microsoft could take it back at any moment, AND THE GOVERNMENTS CANT DO 20 *****.

rileyes said:
Apple is what it is because they make amazing products that people want. It's the same for Microsoft and Intel. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

What have you been drinking. Intel/Microsoft was a monopoly before they made good chips/software.
 
This dispute has been raging for some time. When the alleged offenses occured Intel did NOT have the stronger products. Its true that AMD have never matched that success again, but the case isn't referring to the present.
 
rileyes said:
Please. These companies become monopolies for a reason. They have the best products. Microsoft became the company it is today because it dominated the market. Intel chips are lightyears ahead of AMD. And Apple is on top because they make innovative technology.

Apple forces you to buy their hardware to use their software. It is almost as though they don't want any other company making a competing product. And that's not a monopoly? That's not anti-competitive practices? Oh I know...it's because you folks like Apple. That's why it's ok. If Microsoft started making computers as well, and limited their Windows software from being installed on anything except their own hardware, there would be outrage, and you know that it would take the Federal Trade Commision about 30 seconds to file a suit against Microsoft.

Apple is what it is because they make amazing products that people want. It's the same for Microsoft and Intel. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

AMD chips kicked Intel's butt for years, and got hardly any market share during that time because Intel was PAYING customers not to use AMD chips. Give me a break.
 
cmaier said:
AMD chips kicked Intel's butt for years, and got hardly any market share during that time because Intel was PAYING customers not to use AMD chips. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
K6-3, Athlon, and Athlon 64 are the longest reign of performance chips. Before that you have clones that ate heavily into Intel's low end market. I feel that AMD was pushed too hard into a monolithic quad core in 65nm with Phenom/Stars. 45nm seems to be the sweet spot to start off compared to Intel's supposedly inferior MCM. Intel could make a smaller 65/45 nm dual core and bin it out as it pleased instead of the gamble of the monolithic quad for that time.

I do remember some mention that AMD's high end server purchasers were the group that forced AMD to go monolithic quad core so early. Then again the Opteron/Athlon 64 did it so well for dual core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back