Timeline Set for Intel/AMD Antitrust Trial 151
Vitaly Friedman writes "The stage is set for the biggest tech battle in years: the antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD against rival Intel. What sort of effect is it likely to have on the industry and the consumer? From the article:
'Last year, the company filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel, claiming that their rival had "unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD" for more than ten years. AMD has already subpoenaed computer manufacturers, retailers, and even Microsoft to provide documentation pertaining to the case. Now, the timeline has been set for the trial of the Megayear to commence.'"
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Megayear = 1,000,000 Years (Score:3, Interesting)
I even linked to Wikipedia so give me my Karma whoring [wikipedia.org] points.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Think a little bit man!
What if AMD's chips were better than Intel's in every conceivable aspect (price, preformance, power dissipation, etc) and they can only manage a 20% market share? Doesn't that scream that's there's an artificial constraint placed on the market somehow?
I'm not necessarily saying this is the case, but stating that someone reached a 20% market share therefore their competitors couldn't possibly be doing anything illegal is just silly.
I'll be interesting to see outcome (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's an easy 5-pointer (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, the market has already corrected for any transgressions, and AMD will be firmly in the driver's seat long before the suit is settled. The lawyers will be paid by future consumers of both brands.
pro-business (Score:3, Interesting)
Pro-monopoly, when pushed far enough, is indifferentiable from communism. You thought we'd gotten rid of that, right?
Eh (Score:3, Interesting)
AMD doesn't have to prove that Intel's tactics caused damages, merely that Intel has "unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD".
Proving damages and proving illegal behavior are two separate things. Even behavior that wasn't successful in thwarting AMD could still be ruled illegal under anti-trust laws.
If AMD wins, they may get damages as one of the remedies, depending on what the Judge thinks is appropriate.
Re:Timeline (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I rather doubt that. The case against Microsoft lost steam when Bush entered office because the federal government was one of the parties in the case. But for AMD v Intel, there's really nothing the White House can do to influence the result.
Intel have 80% market share because... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, Dell threaten to use AMD chips. Intel get a bit upset, and tries to arm twist Dell. What can Dell do here? The popular belief would be that Dell gets scared and stays with Intel.
Really? So they can get their chips cheaper from AMD, and supposedly the consumer wants AMD chips. So Dell says *fsck the consumer* and stays with Intel. Doesn't ring true to me...
Fact is that Dell sells a lot of PC's & Laptops, with Intel chips.... Kinda says that the consumer (at large) is happy to buy Intel based PC products, in my opinion.
As a software engineer, not as a gamer (I don't have the spare time), I notice that Intel chip based PC's perform faster at building software under
I count myself as a member of the consuming public, and I make my choice of PC based upon price & performance at what I want it to do. It is a tool after all. Therefor I buy Intel based PC products. Now if I was a brand enthusiast (as I am with my cars, I love Landrovers) then I would by whatever I was loyal too, regardless of the shortcomings, whatever they may be!
Just my views, take them or ignore them as you see fit