Sony, Toshiba and other companies took bribes from Intel!!!

Forget bribing. Intel could of just strong-armed them into compliance. Not that I'm an Intel fanboy but AMD still has lots of holes in their story and will have a hard time proving that Intel is a monopoly.

Well this is irrelevant, companies would not supply substandard chips just so they would receive some money under the table. The potential for loss of business and damage to the company image is much greater than any money intel could give. Secondly that is how business works, if you go to the supermarket and see an apple(fruit not the computer) for 5.00 and you go to another super market and see the exact same apple for 5.00 but that store manager says buy our apple and we will give you a dollar back which would you buy? If you chose the second one then you just took a "bribe". I highly doubt he money intel gave was more than the what they received from the companies purchasing intel processors so intel didn't "pay" them they really just saved them money. Frankly I don't see how it matters anyway, AMD processors are not excessively superior to intels and neither are intels excessively superior to amd's. If either company was then they would automatically get all the business but the truth is you can get similar performance from both brands so the choice is left up to preference or who gives the best deal.

Does this lawsuit seem pointless to anyone else? 50million? to companys that make billions of dollars each year it doesn't seem like much of a penalty anyway especially considering the fine will probably be distributed among all the "guilty" companies. I say the jftc needs to stop wasting their time its not like the companies weren't going to buy intel anyway.

i hate intel with a passion.. Intel is too big.. it is hard for AMD to take over some of their market share.... even with superior high-end, server, low end processors.. AMD is still barely keeping up with their own pace

No it's not pointless. Intel currently owns 80% of the chip market and 90% of all revenues. AMD posted a $17 million loss in the first quarter this year.

AMD has plenty of reasons to take this to court. However, they will need collaboration from the sellers in order to succeed.

LOWER PRICES FOR CONSUMERS!

i think you are really wrong here... Intel is practically taking freedom of choice away from companise to choose which procssors the use.. they can do that.. they hold wut? 85% of the revenue in processors while AMD holds like 10%? thats a big difference...

There are a lot of examples here already.... Like Intel supporting Acer in some development if they didn't support the AMD64 launch or something.... If AMD wins the lawsuit.. it is not about the money they gain directly.. it is the business they will gain .. which could potentially let them grow to how good their products are...

and AMD products are far superior than Intel's... look at the dual cores, AMD-64's, opteron vs xeons? P-M is only thing they have it better

I agree completely.

However, playing devil's advocate here: How is AMD going to prove that Intel is a monopoly? The fact that AMD exists and has a good business alone shatters that notion.

I hate the save the poor underdog mentality. There is a reason intel got big, they saw a market and took advantage of it. Now they are maintaining that market. Why should we make companies work with the little guys to help them get their ideas out there. I think people need to earn what they get it takes hard work, intel wasn't the first chip maker and they won't be the last but right now they are on top and they fought for it. Why should a court interfere to say AMD needs more marketshare. Companies to care about freedom of choice they care about profit and if they could make more profit with AMD they would thats the bottom line. If AMD had a revolutionary idea that would change the processor world and they could step up and make it competitive as far as clock speed, heat issues and actual performance goes the high end systems would move to AMD chips and if they moved that technology to cheaper chips they would take a big share of the market.

AMD just wasn't as lucky, intelligent or as good at marketing as intel so why should intel be made to pay for that. People choose intel chips, they don't have one implanted in their brains that forces them to buy more intel chips. I could see your point if this was mac vs microsoft where mac's operating system is actually better in some ways then windows such as security(that might just be because less hackers try to break macs) and looks but its not. AMD even came out with a 64bit processor before intel and couldn't find a way to take serious advantage of that. As a company its your responsiblity to make yourself desirable to potential clients... if you can't manage to do that you don't deserve their business.

Sorry correction intel made 64 bit chips before AMD but AMD made the 64 bit chips for desktops before intel did sorry for any confusion. And for extra knowledge the first 64 bit chips were made by sun and hp in 1996

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Yes, Intel is the big dog and they deserve to be there. However, you can't let them get away with bribing or strong-arming manufacturers to buy chips. It wouldn't matter how good AMD chips were; if Intel continues to blackmail companies into buying Pentium then AMD has already lost.

Using your logic, it was okay for Microsoft to force out competitors? It would be fine if everyone liked Microsoft but they FORCED people to buy Microsoft just like Intel is doing right now.

So tell me how are the people with macs and powerpcs or amd chips FORCED to buy intel? I can honestly say right now if an AMD processor was better than an intel processor and I could get the AMD for a decent price there is no doubt I would. But where is that AMD processor? Intel can't be blamed for AMD's lack of competitiveness. And yes it would matter how good AMD chips are. If AMD came out with a 5ghz chip that didn't catch on fire companies would be all over them and all intel could do is wet its oversized diaper. The FACT is AMD is not significantly greater than intel maybe they deserve a little more of the market share but why shouldn't the companies continue business with intel. AMD HAS to do something to prove that too the companies to convince them to use their processors that is competition. Where is the evidence that blackmail is being used, and keep in mind what blackmail actually means.

I don't agree with the "bribes" either and I don't condone the actions but that is how the corporate world is a 50 million dollar lawsuit won't change that. AMD would have done the same thing if they were in intel's position, lets keep in mind this isn't a fight between an innocent little david and a rotten goliath. It is a big goliath and a smaller one wacking each other with their clubs. What about the companies that AMD squished on their way to where they are, don't be naive in thinking that they didn't do that they are a company just like intel and thats how they work.

And by my logic was it okay for Microsoft to force out competitors? Now don't get me wrong I'm not a microsoft fan but let me ask you what exactly is the point of a competition? What is supposed to happen? People lose thats what happens! Its competition, they compete and some lose. Somewhere people get the idea that company a and b are supposed to be able to compete "equally" and both companies should exist and compete fairly forever. God Forbid one company is a better competitor and puts the other out of business, because thats wrong... lets get real companies go out of business every day and why is it that no one starts complaining until it gets down to one big company and some smaler ones? No one was complaining when microsoft was beginning to get big and squashing competition... and no one complained when intel did the same thing. What about google they weren't the first search engine on the internet but they were better competitors now they are number one. Its ironic that people complain about stuff like this, because its their fault they went out and bought intel chips and microsoft windows back when those companies had serious competition. Now that they used that advantage and beat out competitors something bad happened.

One quick edit, the only way to make competition fair would be to make all new technological advances open to everyone. Which means if you come up with a great idea you can't patent it and profit you have to share it for the good of the community so that each company has equal advantage to use it because technically its not fair if intel engineers invent a new chip and that skyrockets their sales though amd engineers would disassemble it to find out how it worked anyway.

Yes, but Google didn't use underhanded tactics to beat other companies. Microsoft did and apparently so is Intel. Competetion is great - when its fair.

Having a vastly greater product then a competitor is also fair if consumers choose yours. This isn't the case here. You can't claim that Intel chips are "better" then AMD chips. They both have strengths and weaknesses. There's no clear winner.

How would you like it if we were running a race and I tripped you when no one was looking? I'm not necessarily a better runner but I end up winning and getting all the glory. Wouldn't you complain?

You want evidence? Let me get some.

EDIT

Some evidenc of Intel's blackmailing:

http://internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3488411
"One manufacturer, according to the report, was limited in the amount of non-Intel purchases it could make, while Intel also put conditions on its rebates, giving them to PC makers that used Intel exclusively or primarily."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8386156/page/2/
"According to the complaint, Intel has forced major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and Hitachi into exclusive deals in return for cash payments and other deals. It also allegedly paid Sony millions of dollars for an exclusive deal on microprocessors and threatened retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms into their products."

http://www.betanews.com/article/AMD_...tel/1119977968
"AMD's case follows an antitrust ruling in Japan where Intel was found to have coerced one OEM into agreeing to purchase all of its CPUs from Intel..."

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/28/tech...md_intel.reut/
"It also said former Gateway CEO Ted Waitt told AMD that Intel offered him large sums not to deal with AMD."

"In 2003, the complaint says, Barrett [then CEO of Intel] visited the CEO of Taiwan computer maker Acer Inc. before the introduction of AMD's Athlon 64 line of chips and threatened "severe consequences" if he supported the launch."

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121625,00.asp
"Another complaint involves the European joint venture Fujitsu Siemens Computers (Holding), which was once a mainstay for AMD's desktop business, with AMD chips powering over 30 percent of Fujitsu Siemens' consumer PCs, according to the complaint. In early 2003, Intel offered Fujitsu Siemens a "special discount" on its Celeron processors. Fujitsu Siemens accepted the offer in exchange for hiding its AMD computers on its Web site and removing references to AMD-powered products from its retail catalog, according to AMD."

"Fujitsu Siemens is also among the companies that reported being intimidated from participating in the Opteron 64 launch in 2003, according to AMD. The others include Taiwan's Micro-Star International, Atipa Technologies, and Solectron."

Okay, so all of that definitely doesn't look like "fair" dealings. This isn't a case of manufacturers choosing Intel because its better/cheaper, it's a case of Intel bullying them into buying their chips.

Some people may think that these practices are legal but in reality they are not. I'm not an expert on anti-trust laws but I'll do some research.

And in regards to your comment about competition being fair, that's a bad idea. Competition isn't supposed to be fair. Certain companies have advantages (i.e. Microsoft with Bill Gates - no one else has him). A problem occurs when companies cheat the system to get ahead or stay ahead.

If you make it so no one can get patents, there's no reason for companies to invent new things which will basically screw us all over.

I didn't say intel is better than amd I said amd is not significantly better than intel meaning if companies have been doing business with intel what is there motivation to switch? That would cost lots of money, money to change machines in fabrication plans, money for marketing, money for changing the packaging on their products... so why switch and have to pay more when it won't gain you an significant increase in business. You can't companies to sacrifice their own livelihood to support AMD. The point I am making is that bribes or no bribes the companies would have chose Intel anyway thats the point I have been trying to make this whole time. I think it would really shut Amd up if Intel just did their practices legally just say it outright we will give you the first X amount of chips free which is basically the equivalent to a "bribe" Its the same thing as when you goto a car dealership and they say 2000 cash back. You aren't getting 2000 back you are just saving 200 off your purchase. Intel isn't paying them they are just saving them money because in the end intel is making much more off those companies than any "bribe"

Secondly lets make that race example more accurate and interesting. There are 100 people in the race, in order to win you have to run fastest(best performance), look good(company image) and have the best agent(marketing) Now Intel and Amd are racers they both are running, intel is tripping people and so is Amd (thats how companies work they all have underhanded methods) But intel started better so they are better at tripping people and they have a better image because they have an established brand name. When anyone talks about processors intel comes to mind... why good marketing when people who don't know anything about computers but know intel makes processors you can't expect amd to have a chance. Now Amd wants to call the referee and say hey look intel is cheating but really its just that intel are better cheaters and they started cheating earlier. Take a look at pepsi and coca cola, both are giants but pepsi manages to be competitive with coke and have a pretty large market share. Now is it cheating for coke to say hey mcdonalds we will give you 10 million gallons of free sodas if you make sure you only serve coke in your fast food places? No thats business, and if coke says hey mcdonalds we will stop selling coke to you if you let pepsi in your fast food places is that wrong?

Anyway I am not saying any of this is right but everything in the corporate world is underhanded, all the companies are cheating AMD cheats too, but they aren't as good at it I don't think they deserve to win a lawsuit because they are bad cheaters.

AMD64 runs cooler than p4's, AMD64 are faster than p4's in majority of benchmark testing, AMD64's are cheaper than P4 of the same performance...
AMD64 dual cores are better engineered than Intel Dual Cores.. AMD opteron cannot be compared to any Intel Server processors, b/c well.. Intel wouldn't stand a chance in any catagories of tests...

How is AMD not being competitive technology wise? Are you an Intel fan boy? You either lack knowledge of processors or you are just too ignorant to read about how AMD's been better than Intel for a while... I am not an AMD-fan.. I have a Pentium-M... The Pentium-M is better than anything that was out when i got it..

Intel deserves to be on top.. they were amazing before... They are the best marketing bunch ... AMD is no where near that.. That is why Intel is on top.. and should be on top.. but this doesn't qualify them to use illegal moves to prevent AMD from growing... The court is not giving free market share to AMD.. AMD is, like what Intel was, they are just trying hard to gain market share by stopping Intel from blackmailing.. AMD realize they have superior products, even Intel knows that.. but one of the things preventing them growing is Intel's ways of doing things.. I give credit to Intel.. but simply AMD should be a lot bigger than they are...

College, your argument is still flawed.

If companies could do business with AMD without getting punished by Intel then they would. Don't forget, Intel makes more then chips. If companies start using AMD, Intel can pull out their other products. Remarkably similar to what Microsoft did with Windows, Media Player, and IE.

Two, giving out $2000 cash back isn't a bribe. It's a marketing tool. Giving out x amount of free chips isn't a bribe. It's an advertising strategy. Intel isn't doing this. They actually pay people to not buy AMD.

Three, with the whole race thing. Yes, Intel has brand recognition and they can use that as much as they want. Legally. And you can't just say that AMD cheats like Intel. No one knows that and certainly you don't. Intel was found guilty of engaging in corrupt business practices by the JFTC.

Fourth, your point about Pepsi and Coca-Cola is dead wrong. Pepsi and Coca-Cola are oligopolies. Intel and AMD are not. Basically, Pepsi and Coca-Cola have "agreed" to keep prices similar. Go to the grocery store and check the prices of Coke and Pepsi. They will not be very different. Why? If Coca-Cola cuts prices, Pepsi will be forced to do so and vice versa. By not doing anything they both end out on top. Intel and AMD are not in this market structure so your reasoning is invalid.

Fifth, you just admitted that Intel cheats but because supposedly everyone else does it, it's okay.

Where's the proof that AMD cheats? I showed you some articles in which Intel has been engaging in unfair practices. I want to see something about AMD.

"Some people may think that these practices are legal but in reality they are not. I'm not an expert on anti-trust laws but I'll do some research."

Legal doesn't equate fair anyway many laws are unfair. Now lets look at this, so a company is not allowed to say we won't give you our chips if you use the other guy's chips too. Well if intel said that why didn't those companies take amd chips? Well...

That might not seem fair but that is how business works the strongest survive its a competition not a tea party. I think it is perfectly fair to put a clause in a contract that says this contract binds our companies and you can't work with our competitors. Thats how companies who put in bids for contracts work. I don't know what sport you like so I am trying to use an example you will know... say David Beckham decided to come play soccer in america, he signed a contract with DC United that says he can play with DC United and nobody else, but he really wanted to play at Manchester too. Should he be allowed to play at Dc United and Manchester United? Is it unfair for DC to have a binding contract? Or to offer him benefits to stay with DC united.

And the word bully is being used here... I wish someone would "BULLY" me by giving me millions of dollars. Lets be realistic Intel wasn't bullying anyone when they gave them money. They said we are Intel and we want you to use our chips and not AMD. What do we have to give you to make that happen? Intel didn't send ninjas into the other company's board rooms and shove millions of dollars of cash down their throats. So if Intel is being sued the other companies should be sued too because they willingly accepted the money. AMD just accuses Intel of bullying because they are competitors and it will make intel look bad. (watch as the intel stock drops because of these reports, though it won't drop much because this lawsuit is going nowhere)

And for quick reference 1Cent Intel made 64 bit processor before amd but they used them strictly for servers ad workstations... and I find it funny that America loves the underdog story when two guys start a company from their garage but when that company becomes number one it somehow transformed from their champion into a corporate monster how ironic

You would be correct if these companies signed a binding contract with Intel. This isn't about that. This is Intel using behind-the-scenes antics to get others to buy Intel. That isn't legal.

Bullying and bribing aren't the same. Intel tried bribes first then resorted to bullying.

Also, you keep going back to "fair" business laws yet you don't acknowledge my points.

By the way, Intel's stock went up when this news hit 2 days ago so you're wrong again.

that was a fair judgement. and i think you are right.. i probally just don't know the laws anywayz.. isn't it just like exclusive sponsors? thats not illegal right? i hope AMD wins anywayz.. 1 company getting too big is never a good thing

In reply to 1Cent, if AMD has better products than they have bad marketing. If you talk to someone who doesn't know much about pc's and ask them which chip they would get intel is the name you are likely to hear why? Good marketing. If your marketing sucks you can't expect to make money. How often do you see AMD making a progressive marketing campaign, Name a commercial. I bet a lot of people remember the Intel blue man commercials. So don't blame intel that AMD's marketing sucks.

In response to ABS636 so far in the suit of amd against intel Amd has only made statements there is no proof yet. I am sure that AMD has made illegal practices also but it is not in intels interest to pursue revealing that. To intel this lawsuit is minor, a roadbump in the big picture. But that is how the corporate world works you scratch my back I scratch yours, companies aren't just looking to do business they will take whatever unfair advantage they can get to move ahead of their competitors? Why because if they don't their competitors will do the same to them. So when one company gets an advantage the others have to scramble to keep up which is why when one company gets cheaper intel chips they others stay with intel and hope next time they get the deal. I'm not saying its right but that is how it works.

EDIT: I agree one company getting to big is never a big thing. AMD needs a full revamp of their marketing. That is how apple manages on the brink of survival they are very intelligent and they are planning for the long run. Apple gave free computers to schools so they first computers kids use are... apples(the first I used was an apple and I hated pcs when I was first introduced) So apple is building customer loyalty with the youth. And in 20 years who is going to have the majority of market buying power? The people who grew up from the youth of today. Corporate business is corrupt and if you want a share of it you have to seize it not expect it to be given to you.

Yes, the JFTC found Intel's "behavior" to be monopoly-like. That's a fact. You can't deny it.

Also, by what you just said, AMD has a valid case.

true.. AMD has superior products.. but if i was a company.. and i know my computers sell a lot better with crappier Intel chips.. well i'll probally go for the Intel.. avg users don't know anywayz.. if i can get more profit.. i will.. + intel will probally give me extra money if they bribe too =)