Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

FTC launches antitrust probe of Intel

nytimes.com — The Federal Trade Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation of Intel, the world ’s largest maker of computer microprocessors, for anticompetitive conduct, government officials and lawyers involved in the proceeding said Friday.

Bury

skored 92 days ago, made popular 91 days ago

349 diggs
digg it

TSSaloic, on 06/06/2008, -12/+7AMD, AMD, AMD.
- jonoxplor, on 06/07/2008, -7/+2SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS
  
  But intel are being asshats about the USB and SLI thing...
Ryan0617, on 06/07/2008, -3/+3Bad intel!
GordonClass, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7Can't beat them sick the government on them.
Darthyoshiboy, on 06/07/2008, -6/+17What a load of crap, Intel's got competition from every side, AMD was slaughtering them for a good while. This is an attempt to end run the market in a period where AMD's offerings do not compete in their own right. It is simply unconscionable that we would seek to hinder a company that offers a better product for cheaper than it's competitor simply because the competition thinks that it's unfair.
- chrisk9, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Intel has been charged with antitrust violations recently in Japan, Korea, and EU. A quick google search shows the merits of this probe.
  
  Intel and Antitrust: A Brief History
  http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142443-page,1/ar ...
  
  And how exactly does Intel have competition "from every side"? The uP market is two-player and Intel has been proven to pay off OEMs NOT to go with AMD.
  - Darthyoshiboy, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3"Intel has been charged with antitrust violations recently in Japan, Korea, and EU. A quick google search shows the merits of this probe."
    
    All countries where, according to the article, they "use antitrust often to protect rival companies".
    
    Intel may have it all wrapped up for the Desktop segment, but there is more to being a IC manufacturer than just Desktop PCs. The fronts that Intel faces competition on are many and varied, they are up against manufacturers like Toshiba, Sony, IBM, VIA, Nvidia, and yes AMD/ATI. How are they not getting competition from every side?
- carlosos, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4The unfair part is saying, "I give you a discount/money if you don't sell the competitors product."
iizh, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2As long as Nehalem's Bloomfield comes out before they screw over Intel, I'll be happy.
Betrayer, on 06/07/2008, -7/+7"accusations that Intel’s pricing is intended to maintain a near monopoly on the microprocessor market"
what a bunch of CRYBABIES, just because you cant get the deals with large companies.(today it is common for entertainment hardware to be sold at a loss)
when is the last time you saw an AMD commercial... HELLO...... AMD.... is anyone home..... how can you sell if you dont advertise.
- cubicledrone, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0You forgot to screech "free markets" enough.
TheInformer, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2Yes we need to go after Intel for price gouging. Their profit margin is higher than the evil gas companies!
[/sarcasm]
Morghin, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4What the hell're all the fanbois yapping and crying foul about? If Intel's mucking with the market to create a monopoly, then this is a damned good thing - it might end it, and what you get is cheaper and better hardware because you'd have actual competition.

If they're not mucking about in the market, then all kudos to Intel for being an awesome organization, and all suck to AMD for not trying hard enough to stand up to Intel while spending too much time yammering about unfairness instead of making awesome products. ¨

Competition's good. Monopoly is bad. Go read about instead of going all fanboi about the whole thing.

Once again, it's a probe to find out if Intel hasn't been playing fair. Whichever the result, the above comments are pretty useless.
- Chalks777, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2I'll admit, I'm an AMD fanboy. I agree with you though, if AMD is just whining about complete bs, then I may have to switch to Intel on my next build. On the other hand, I would not be surprised at all if these allegations were true.
diggcommentguy, on 06/07/2008, -4/+2exxonmobile
AlexFinn, on 06/07/2008, -6/+1Anyone else read "Anal Probe" at a quick glance?
- Chalks777, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2no.
spyd3rweb, on 06/07/2008, -4/+3Be successful in your business, get punished by the government...
- dsmx, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Be successful in your business but don't use anti competitive practices to achieve that success. Which is the point of this investigation.
smacksaw, on 06/07/2008, -5/+4I love how Intel can chide AMD for it's "failures", yet the reason AMD failed is because Intel signed exclusivity agreements with manufacturers so that they would not sell AMD processors.

I think that if you get locked out of the market, you're going to fail. Yet I'm sure there are people out there who refuse to concede that point. Therefore, please buy me a copy of 2K Sports NFL Football 2009 for PS3. Thank you.
- bdbr, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because its so damned hard to find an AMD-based systems these days. :rolleyes:
chrisk9, on 06/07/2008, -2/+10Many of the AMD-haters really don't seem to acknowledge the anti-competitive practices of Intel. Intel has been charged with antitrust violations recently in Japan, South Korea, and EU. There is merit to this US probe.

EU slaps Intel with formal antitrust charges
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070726-eu-s ...

South Korea regulators fine Intel $25 million
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9960491-7.html

Intel and Antitrust: A Brief History
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142443-page,1/ar ...
- dsmx, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2That's far to much logic for the intel fanboys.
- Darthyoshiboy, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Your supporting article from PCWorld seems to back up the notion that it has been sour grapes that have lead people to bring antitrust charges against Intel, not Intel's own practices. They have been cleared of charges on multiple occasions here in the USA. The only venues where they seem to be labeled anti-competitive are those where the laws are built to protect rival companies, more than they are meant to protect the market.
FuckXboxx, on 06/07/2008, -6/+10It's about ***** time.

Intel only has an advantage over AMD because it can afford to spend so much ***** money on research thanks to deals with companies like Dell where they agree to ONLY sell Intel chips.

Every CPU I've bought for the last 12 years has been an AMD. Every PC I build for customers/businesses has an AMD processor. AMD cares about gamers...therefore I care about AMD.
- Darthyoshiboy, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Just to set the record straight, there is no exclusivity deal with Dell and Intel.
  http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dell_s ...
  The fact of the matter is that Dell's primary customers are businesses, businesses that want to be certain that they are getting a stable and rock solid computing experience while at the same time not caring so much if they are not getting the best performance available. The CEO of XYZ Corp. doesn't know his CPU from a BTU, and decides to buy from a comfortable familiar company rather than somebody he's never heard of that doesn't cater to his type. Intel has a reputation in the business world of producing stable and business oriented products, how does it not make sense for Dell to tie their product/name to an established business that has a favorable reputation with their target customer? Dell uses Intel because it makes business sense for them to do so, not because they are anti-AMD.
  
  P.S. If AMD really cared about us gamers, they never would have sold us out by buying ATI. Worst decision ever!
  - Chalks777, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2I've got to say... I'm really loving my two crossfired radeon 3870s. For a grand total of $310. Crysis running on high settings on a 1680x1050 monitor without a single hitch makes me happy.
- l800LEMMINGS, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2it helps intel when amd has been shooting themselves in the foot with delayed product launches time and time again and that their boasted product has not been living up to its name, phenom(ena)
  
  i like amd but it's sad to watch this
goffy59, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3AMD allowed me to upgrade from single core to dual core without needing to upgrade my motherboard, memory, or video card. Intel would of forced me to change everything. Thats why I stay with AMD. Because they actually release products that don't force you to throw money away on technology thats bound to change. Intel does do some shady crap. Look at the Pentium 4. Especially there P4 with Hyper threading. Hyper threading was pretty useless and IMO was a waste of money. So I got rid of my 2.8Ghz P4 w/ HT and bought me an Athlon 3500 which was faster and more reliable. Eventually I bought an Athlon x2. Based on that; I will stay with AMD. Because I feel like they care about their consumers more then Intel does. I used to be an Intel fan until they started to release ***** products. I understand Intel has amazing products right now, but so does AMD. And AMD hardware has worked better for me. Memory Controller on Chipset = fail. I have ddr1 yet I can run Crysis and Assassins Creed just fine. I think its great AMD places the memory controller on the CPU rather then the Chipset.
- Chalks777, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Ugh, that's the one thing about AMD that I hate. When I overclock my system, having the memory controller on the CPU makes it a little harder to squeeze the max perfomance out. It's because any change I make to the CPU also affects the memory.
  - goffy59, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I actually hear the opposite from experienced OC-ers.
- ortucis, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2I had to upgrade my mobo when I moved to AM2 from the 3500+ AMD64 processor. So yeah, you need to upgrade when the only model of cpu in the market is the latest one and that requires new chipset.
  - goffy59, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I was talking about the 939 socket. But yeah. But I was able to use single core and dual core using the same socket.
gkiltz, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1Better late than never!
What took so long?
mobling, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Intel used to be the good guy. Maybe that was a long time ago, but memories of Intels 8088 & 8086 sure bring back memories of a better company. I guess it was inevitable that somewhere down the line the would end up with a Ballmer equivalence. Come on Intel, repent while there is still time. You could become that great company you used to be. But, until that day....go AMD.
- krische, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the FTC would ban them from buying AMD. Intel would then be a monopoly without AMD. Much like Microsoft would be a monopoly without Apple.
JasonCox, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4You know, 2 years ago when AMD actually had good chips I would have cheered this, but now, meh, frak it.
nglenn2, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Intel needs AMD, just as much as AMD needs Intel. A few years back you would have said that AMD has the fastest processors out there, which they did. However, if it wasn't for AMD's performance lead, would Intel have been motivated to develop new much faster processors? Probably not. For example, Intel's "tick tock" program started a few years ago because of AMD's performance lead. In the end, beneficial to the consumer.
Barackalypse, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2I always laugh when the federal government investigates anticompetitive behavior, its rather like a fat man investigating obesity in men who are skinnier than him.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

FTC launches antitrust probe of Intel

Login or register to add a comment