Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Intel

Intel Antitrust Trial 39

strredwolf writes "I just heard about this one through ABCNEWS: Intel's being sued in a seperate antitrust case for not releasing the technical specs on upcomming chips to competitors such as AMD, IDT, and Cyrix. I guess Microsoft no longer feels alone in being under goverment scrutiny. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Antitrust Trial

Comments Filter:
  • Why should Intel (or anyone else) *have* to give competitors an inside track on the technical specs of future products? Last time I checked, it's not illegal to keep your competitors in the dark.

    Also, read the linked article, and I saw no statement there insinuating that this is what the suit is about. Just that "Intel abused its market influence to freeze out and punish competitors."
    --
    This post brought to you by synaptik, in glorious PLAINTEXT.
  • Why should Intel (or anyone else) *have* to give competitors an inside track on the technical specs of future products? Last time I checked, it's not illegal to keep your competitors in the dark.

    Intel produces a lot more than CPU chips -- and it's known that incompatibility with motherboards' chipsets is a serious problems for competing processors. Not to mention "secret" and "patented" CPU connectors (slot 1, 2 ...)

  • After reading the ABC news story, this sounds like the case that was announced several months ago is finally going to trial.

    IIRC, in that case, Intel was being accused of licensing their technology to various other companies, then refusing to deliver the info unless those companies gave up trade secrets that were germain to areas Intel might want to enter, but were not part of the original license agreement. Kind of like what Microsoft has done with some of their licensing agreements ;).

    I know that this was the crux of the matter with Intergraph; I'm not sure how AMD & Cyrix fit in. In any event, the case wasn't about Intel being a monopoly; it was about them using their market muscle to avoid fulfilling their contractual agreements. I hope that's still all it's about.

  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    What some of you seem to be missing is this, whenever one is granted a patent that information must be kept in the US Patent office for all to see. Including one's competitors. If you get a patent on one technology and use that to hide the development of another you've violated both the spirit and letter of the law.

    Even though Pepsi and Coke don't have to release their entire formulas, they do have to list ingredients. Intel may not have to explain how they've implemented MMX and Katmai, but they do have to tell what they are.

    LK
  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    4-5 years ago AMD controlled 30% of the 486 market. Today they have a CPU market share appriximately the same as Apple's complete unit Market share.

    AMD and Cyrix have made considerable progress recently, however Intel still dominates the market.

    This is in large part due to consumer ignorance, for example most people that I deal with think that a celeron 333 is "faster" than a Pentium II 300.

    Intel has done their best to flood the market with chips at various speeds and arcitectures in order to confuse the unsavvy public.

    LK
  • Monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share. It means enough market share to dictate terms to customers or control essential services. That can happen with less than 100% market share, but would definatly require a strong majority.

    For MS, the case is very strong. If MS chose to charge an exhorbitant license fee to any given VAR, they would be seriously crippled or even bankrupted. Let's face it, Linux is good, and if you specialise in servers, you'll do well preloading Linux only. In the desktop market however, you'll loose most of your customer base that way (sad but true).

    The case for Intel is a bit harder to judge. It is possable to sell AMD only hardware so that is not the issue. As I understand it, the Intel suit is based on them having the market power to patent slot1 and dictate that motherboard manufacturers license the patent in order to use Intel CPUs. Furthermore, was it unfair monopoly style competition to block AMD and Cyrix from proiducing a CPU compatable with slot1? In an open market, a move like that should be close to suicide (witness Apple and closed standards in the '80s, the MicroChannel archetecture etc.)

    This does NOT stifle innovation. Intel is free to improve their CPUs all they want. If they really need slot1 to produce a better CPU, fine. They do not, however, need to prevent AMD from producing a slot1 CPU in order to improve their own CPU.

  • err, no. intel wants you to keep on upgrading, it's the only way they can survive. they are very smart, and realise that low margins/high volume and a constant upgrade cycle/path are key to long-term success. and it's worked, and jealous, incompetent competitors want to government to help them.
  • you have absolutely no idea what 'fascist' means, do you? easier for you to post nonsense than think for yourself, isn't it?

    the only supporters of socialism are those who are stupid, dishonest and lazy and hate folk who aren't.
  • Bravo Intel!

    My best wishes in this battle against low-lives who want to rape your investment in R&D. I'm amazed at how some people think that stealing the product of others' work is a Good Thing.

    Intel is under no moral obligation to give anyone its specs.

    Eugene

  • Intel has a monopoly basically. They drive (READ- control) x86 processor innovation. They will be broken up. Which will be a good thing.

    Ex Machina "From the Machine"
    xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
  • Monopoly means 100% market share. M$ only has about 95%, and Intel has a lot less than that. Neither is a "monopoly."
  • Does anyone else think that the article says something different from the summary, or is it just me?
  • Last time I checked, there was no law that said that an industry leader (read: dominant company) has to give specifications to smaller companies. The last time the government tried this (In the defense industry, the government made all blueprints of the AIM-9 missile public domain after 2 years.) the original developer went bankrupt when a competitor just waited for the design to become public domain, then started manufacturing it for half the cost because they didn't have to shoulder the R&D cost.
    Is the government trying to bring this brilliant idea to the computer industry now?
    While we're at it, why don't they just force the writer of the best Operating System to release the source code??? Oh, wait, that's already been done...
  • Maybe I'm the only one who ever payed attention in any kind of economics course, but as we move into the 21st century I hate to tell you, but most of the economies are now tied together. So you can sit around waving your made in the u.s.a. tag all you want, but unless we some how take a role in the world economies there won't be much inovation and growth of buisness.
  • Intel is far smarter than Microsoft.
    Just look at Microsoft's defense - Bill Gates suffering sudden inexplicable memory loss.
    Just look at the dumb tape that Microsoft botched.
    And look at how Microsoft let incriminating memos and email sit around for people to find!
  • Looks like ABC got the slashdot effect. Only the header seems to download. Must be on M$ webserver.
  • How do you check what kind of web server a site is using?

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin

Working...