Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

AMD Ads Kick Off Intel Antitrust Fight

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 29, 2005, 12:38 PM

Just one day after filing suit against Intel for anti-competitive practices, AMD went on a full-court advertising press to urge consumers to take action as well. The full-page ad ran Wednesday in several papers including the New York Times and the Capitol Hill Roll Call.

In the ad, AMD explained its reasons for filing the suit and how Intel's alleged monopolistic practices harm consumers. AMD also claims in the ad that Intel is using its market power to force computer makers to use only Intel processors and threatening retaliation to prevent companies from using AMD.

"For most competitive situations, this is just business. But from a monopolist, this is illegal," the ad argues.

The company asks consumers in the ad to read its complaint to find out more about Intel's practices. "Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers - everyday."

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, while another was mandated with an Intel-imposed maximum of 10 percent non-Intel purchases.

In order to make its case, AMD plans to seek subpoenas to obtain private e-mails between its customers and Intel. AMD is also expected to ask customers to testify on its behalf.

Add a Comment (63 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ViktorCode

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 3:37 PM

With this ad AMD is trying increase its market share. Intel, as the ad suggests, took a hold of a larger market share by using anti-competitive practices. Personaly I believe that Intel keeps its hold on market thanks to its broad support for motherboard manufacturers, OEMs and retail sailers. Do you really believe that Intel just pointed gun to the head of every OEM out there, and that's why they still holding that much of market despite of obvious success of AMD processors? I don't.

Score: 0

By choonhooi

edited Jul 6, 2005 - 1:11 AM

Lets get back to basic for awhile. Forget abt the price, forget any the technical stuff for a moment. Lets say you go into a computer mall, Circuit City or Bestbuy, for instance, most of their PCs on display are intel-based. I am talking abt 9 out of 10 units there are Intel-based. Some shops even tell you that they dont carry AMD-based machine. So, during that time, wouldnt you ask yourself a question? "Why there is so few AMD-based machines on display compared to Intel-based?" "Wht not AMD machine?" Why cant the shop out out 50% of the AMD-based machines on display and 50% of the Intel-based? Natually, you would think Intel must be doing something to prevent those AMD-based PC out. So, I believe what AMD claims in this lawsuit, is true, at least most of them, and I totally support AMD on this case.

I am always an underdog supported. I like Linux, and I like AMD. I personally feel Intel is way too arrogant.

Score: 0

By buzzy1400

edited Jul 1, 2005 - 11:27 AM

Sounds like Billgatesitis is spreading at Intel. Last time I checked, this is predetory behavior-a Microsoft favorite- is full of anti-trust violations and the SEC does not take it lightly. Intel hopes to stamp out any pesky competetion from AMD. They are the only people forcing Intel to innovate and treat customers to a fair market in the CPU world.

While I don't use their CPUs, I hope AMD wins this one. Intel will treat their customers far better.

Score: 0

By northtown

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 10:36 PM

I have built Many Many systems both AMD and intel and actually owne both... I prefere AMD.... they are very reliable and more nimble.... Intel sounds like they learned a thing or two from apple computer (scumbags).

Score: 0

By SatanikaJones

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 5:29 PM

well, it seems today that any loser can get his day in court. If all these people or corporations have such great products-why aren't they selling?, why aren't they the best?

Score: 0

By dahri

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 9:26 PM

Satanika, if you just read the complete complaint then you'll know the reason why...

Score: 0

By Billybo

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 6:21 PM

I seems that any loser these days can post on forums. Let me ask you, where is Intel's 64 bit processor which they had to reverse engineered to make from the AMD 64. I am glad AMD is finally telling INTEL to **** off.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 10:58 AM

What is the legality of this? I was thinking about it and wondered if it's actually libel for AMD to put ads out claiming "Intel did this, and Intel did that" without having brought it to court yet unless there's soime legal disclaimer there stating these are all only unproven allegations. I hate Intel, I like AMD, I'd hate to see AMD take one to the chin for something that stupid.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 11:48 AM

The complaint was already given to the court prior to them announcing it, I can say that, but I'm still unsure of the legality...

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 2:05 PM

Should be legal, IF they can prove it in a court of law. If not, then after they win/lose, they'll have a slander lawsuit to deal with.

Score: 0

By Protector

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 4:04 PM

Libel/Slander/Defamation is a personal action so companies themselves don't get sued, only individuals [although concessions may be made if investigators find a lot of people involved in the Libel/Slander/Defamation action.

What that means is that the only people who get sued are the people who get found out that they published, or caused to be published, the defamatory words.

In a nutshell, a company is pretty immune to suits concerning words, but the people who speak them tend to find themselves in hot water. [ie: fired, then civil suit by company claiming defamation]

Slander = spoken defamation
Libel = written defamation
defamation = spoken or written words that falsely reflect on a living person's reputation

Companies can sue for defamation in Australia, but I'm not too sure right now about the US. I think they can sue for harm to the corporate image. I guess I could do some homework on that.

Score: 0

By tewa

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 8:26 AM

I used both Intel and AMD. The main reason for me to choose Intel for my current system is AMD was too hot. If AMD can manage to bring the heat down (sounds like they do now) I'll use it in my next upgrade.

Score: 0

By Marticus

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 3:21 PM

Acutally they already have, the new 64bit core CPU's run very cool, about I run around 45C on a full load and 35-38C under idle. I am currently running a 64XP 3200+, which I am very happy with.

But I do agree, I used to have an old 1.4 Thunderbird CPU from AMD which ran insanly hot, even at idle.

Give AMD a chance with their new 64 bit CPUs, very fast, highly competetive with Intel speeds, and for the most part cheaper.

Score: 0

By diluxp

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 8:08 AM

everyone is smart in this field and if AMD want market share it must show the performance along with competative price and if customer demands it nobody is going to stop it from market share as customer is always a king for any business to survive

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 1:08 AM

I just wanted to point out that the article at:

http://www.amd.com/us-en...ntel_Full_Complaint.pdf

Is extremely insightful as to AMD's complaint. Anyone posting here should REALLY consider reading this first.

Score: 0

By ehn

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 6:21 PM

Reads like a crime novel.

Score: 0

By Kramy

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:31 PM

samneil0987123, Read this: http://www.amd.com/us-en...ntel_Full_Complaint.pdf

There's some very good stuff in there. If anyone has the time to read it, DO SO. It makes you realize how evil Intel has been - it almost makes Microsoft look like angels. Microsoft doesn't try to kill off the competition though illegal means("Read: illegal"), while Intel does it through strictly illegal operations. Intel is 1000x worse with some of that stuff... I would dread the day we depend on them for everything, and they can charge any amount they want for their processors and chipsets.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 9:39 PM

"Microsoft doesn't try to kill off the competition though illegal means"

Oh really? HAHAHA Where do you think Intel got it's tips from? ;-)

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 10:57 PM

Hey, as soon as there's a law prohibiting it, MS stops and forks out the cash with a "sorry". :P

What more can you ask for? ;)

Score: 0

By CliffH

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 12:40 AM

No, as soon as MS is found guilty, they either:
1) Keep on going if the fine is small enough
or
2) Finds another angle

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 4:20 AM

Ok, whatever - the point is they're not as bad as Intel, and it seems like every day they're dishing out hundreds of millions because someone got angry with their tactics.

Hmm...actually, one of those old commercials just popped into my head... "Int'L, a devision of Microsoft"

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:19 PM

I have both Intel and AMD computers. They both work equally well with the exception that the Intel based computer has way too many proprietory drivers and hardware. This coupled to the fact that the AMD computer was far less expensive makes me lean toward AMD for future purchases. As far as Dell, I've had three over the years and they are way to touchy when I try to set it up my way. I probably would not buy another Dell.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:24 PM

been using Dells in our shop for 4+ years without problem. A few bad monitors, but thats it. Not a single box out of literally 100s of them have gone bad.

*scratch that, I was just reminded that we did lose one due to the IDE controller no longer responding, but that does not pretain to the CPU debate*

Score: 0

By doubleshot

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 10:55 PM

I worked as an intern at a company that was doing hardware upgrades, out of 100 desktop machines from dell, 10 of them were bad, that's a 10% return rate, which is horrible.

Oh, and these were brand spanking new machines...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 12:01 PM

It's luck of the draw--didn't Dell replace them for you? If not give me the badge # of the tech who refused service and I can complain for you :) No, really, were they Opti's? Dimensions?

Score: 0

By Kramy

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:39 PM

In my personal experience, which is small, AMD's don't die. Our family has had 8 AMD processors since whenever the AMD-K6 came out, and they still ALL run - overclocked even!

Yet we've had 4 intel processors, and 3 of those are dead, including a PII and PIII.(And a Pentium took out the mobo, memory, and melted some IDE cables, and another PII turned a harddrive into a pile of charcoal somehow - but still runs sorta) After that we stopped buying them and switched to AMD totally, which has yet to cause any problems whatsoever.

Edit: Oh, and we also had a via processor. That thing overclocked horribly. Even a 3mhz increase, and it started spitting out errors.

Still runs though, and it never killed a harddrive either.

Score: 0

By samneil0987123

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 4:00 PM

AMDs claim of monopoly is just an Inferiority Complex syndrome.

I don't care about chip manufacturers as long as they don't make faulty products (IBM has a reputation with that), and I'm not fanatical about Intel, AMD or any of them. My ultimate system doesn't exist yet due to too many egocentric manufacturers.

Is AMD suing Intel because of the Intel logo on many comercials from PC manufacturers? Are these people stupid or pretending to forget something? When you see those crappy Dell ads with Intel inside, Intel has to pay for that logo (around 40% of the ad itself) to appear on the first place. So, AMD didn't you know that advertising doesn't come cheap?

I think this lawsuit is typical BS and I'm amazed of how shallow AMD can be to get 15 seconds of fame.

Maybe Intel or the Semiconductor Industry should sue AMD for false advertising on Opteron 64. Or I guess that AMD doesn't want to talk about that.

Now, did AMD came out with 64 bit chips long before Intel did? Is that accurate description? Is it 64 bit extension or 64 bit architecture? AMD did released 2x32 bit chips that acted as dual-core and for marketing BS they called it 64 bit. It's only in June 2005 that 64 bit coding (extension) was added on AMD chips, and that's not 100% 64 bit either. In the semiconductor industry AMDs claim of 64 bit was a joke and that's why it didn't get much attention or publicity from the industry. But, a lot of consumers that don't know much about chip design bought the marketing BS AMD released and that helped AMD gain some market share. You could say this was false advertising, and most people don't know about it. AMD has a lot of problems releasing a fully 64 bit architecture chip. At the moment the only manufacturers competent of 64 bit architecture are Fujutsu, Texas Instruments, Intel, IBM and Silicone Graphics.

So AMD, you are not that clean as you think. And neither Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Adobe or Intel for that matter too.

Score: 0

By athome

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 7:23 AM

I think you have a problem with the way in which the rules of Advertising works. How can someone claim that their product is 100% free when it is not(advertising and it is legal). It would have been better for you to just say:

"I LIKE INTEL" and move on. That way you wouldn't have sounded the way you have.

Score: 0

By jshrk

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 5:54 AM

Man have you got all your facts screwed, your living under an intel rock, get out boy

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 9:43 PM

Boy, do you have ALL of your facts wrong.

Read, it's not that hard to learn how.

Free your mind from all the misinformed bias that's currently filling it and then start here.

http://www.amd.com/us-en...1_104_543~69678,00.html

Score: 0

By rbrewer420

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 8:29 AM

Did you really say to "free yourself of bias" and then instruct him to read an AMD page?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 9:43 AM

Yep, I did. There is no bias in gathering all of the information and educating yourself on the whole picture.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 6:24 PM

You just live in a dream world that doesn't exist yet and never will.

I will not reply to any post to my comment here so you will be waisting your time.
As with most of my post this is my opinion, and unless stated as a fact, will be an opinion.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:27 PM

Read the other article on the lawsuit. It has a link the actual suit filing which lists all of the complaints.

You will quickly find that AMD is not "being shallow". In fact, Intel was just recently reamed in Japan by their Courts for abusing their Monopoly, so AMD has a *very* good case here.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 4:43 PM

"When you see those crappy Dell ads with Intel inside, Intel has to pay for that logo (around 40% of the ad itself) to appear on the first place."

But still Intel PAYS DELL to advertise it. Think Intel is that stupid? No! They gain market share in the long run, it's another exclusivity contract deal. It proves the opposite of what you say.

64-bit processors? There is no definition for what is a 64-bit and what is not. Personally I could care less if Itaniums did come out in 1999 as Intel assured us it would, that's not the point. The point is Intel is threatening companies to stop using AMD or lose the discounts on Intel processors. That is monopoly for you. Still this looks too obvious--I think we're missing something here. If all of this is true about intel how have they gotton away with it? Why is ms getting all the 'monopoly' attention if intel has been 400 times worse? We're missing something...or perhaps intel is even worse than the pdf states and is bribing people into not filing lawsuits. We'll see...

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:14 PM

AS for how they've gotten away with it, I do not know. But they HAVE been doing it.

They did it to Micron back in the Athlon days. We were told by Intel that if we used the Athlon (or any AMD CPU) we'd lose the Intel rebates (read:kickbacks). We could not afford to do that as it would have made us completely unable to compete in the market for Intel Desktops.

It would have had to have been an all-or-nothing commitment to AMD, and that too would have ruined us.

They basically gave us the ultimatum, use Intel, or go bankrupt.

I hope they get fined to the frigging gills.

Score: 0

By TheRecklessWanderer

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 3:49 PM

I need reliability, so I use Intel.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 4:03 PM

matter of opinion. In fact recent tests indicate amd is actually MORE reliable than intel, depends on who you read and whatever. Can say this--FACT: current-shipping AMD processors run cooler than currently-shipping Intel processor counterparts. Laws of thermodynamics come into play here--heat breaks things down. It's not nearly that simple of course, but that's just my 2 cents (and personal experience).

Back with the K6-2 vs. Pentium 2 I believe Intel was far in the lead with reliability, even arguably with Athlon T-bird vs. P-III but Prescott vs. Athlon XP, 64 bit or no, I can't stand the failure rate of those lava chips.

Score: 0

By TheRecklessWanderer

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:04 PM

My reliability statement is based on the fact that my company sends out 100-150 PCs a month all over North America. I think in the last 3 years we have had 2 CPUs come back.

That's what I call reliability.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 9:45 PM

So, you've sent out 100-150 PCs a month all over North America using AMD and have proof that they have not been reliable?

I smell FUD.

Score: 0

By TheRecklessWanderer

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 10:39 AM

I think that is a pretty good sample.

No, we sell only intel CPUs. Don't forget, it's not just the CPUs but the motherboards as well.

If something works for you, why would you change?

As to the FUD, I can only assume it's coming from you.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 2:02 PM

His point is that its like saying "I have 10 apples, and none of them have worms in them. Oranges have worms in them."

You need to COMPARE two experiences - that or just make a general comment like I did above(my experiences with Intel processors). Your first comment had no basis in many people's own experiences, so they responded and questioned it.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:20 PM

Yes, and you're comparing that to an unknown (to you). You have no idea, based on YOUR experiences, how the Intels compare to the AMD chips in reliability.

So you cannot justifiably make that claim and hope to stand by it.

Score: 0

By TheRecklessWanderer

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 10:42 AM

Once again, I can completely make the claim that we don't have many CPU failures and that is reliable.

Why would I switch to a product that might do as well, but in all reality probably won't.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 11:05 AM

lmao.. You were not just claiming intel was reliable. You were comparing intel's reliability to AMDs and you simply cannot do that based on your experience.

"I need reliability, so I use Intel" (As if AMD can't hold a candle to Intel's alleged reliability). You don't have anything with which to justify such an assumption.

No, I see no reason for you to switch. If Intels work for ya, and you've got the money to spend, go for it.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:15 PM

And I setup orders to replace failed P4 processors for our companies computers practically every day, so again we're talking opinion. For the first year I worked here(about all of 2004)--about 4 truly bad cpu's. This year alone over 100. The company uses strictly intel. To clarify I work at a callcenter for a company that supports--cant say who but well, dude your gettin' one.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:22 PM

Interesting. We use the Dude's systems here and have yet to have one go bad. The only issue we've had in 4+ years is with the CRT and LCD monitors going bad.

Dude's been rock-solid here. I just *wish* they had the oportunity to be rock solid with AMD systems. Them placing AMDs in their boxes would do an amazing amount of good for AMD's PR.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 9:49 PM

I will never buy another of the Dude's systems. Desktop, laptop, or server they all run like the dude smoked reefer while he built them. I had a laptop serviced a few mos back, it came back to me with a nasty artifact between the LCD and the backlight. They wouldn't fix it. Now I have a server that they sure don't want to help fix. No thanks, they can keep their junk. Those are just two small examples of the many I've delt with. HP, IBM, Sun, and every other company I have delt with has provided stellar service in comparison.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 11:56 AM

sorry that happened to you--it certainly wasn't me who refused to service your laptop (not handling server calls yet)...any company you call will have bad apples, but overall I prefer dudes over the other major vendors. Yes strictly intel but we will replace the processor if need be and system is under warrenty...

Also hate to burst some guys bubbles but HP, Compaq, Dell, Sony--95% of the hardware is hardware that they all use. Reliability, for the most part, is luck of the draw. That's why it is the level of support that is important. Two more cents for you (if I keep posting in here you guys will be getting a dollar in no time :)

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:31 PM

I'll admit some issues are not intel's fault at all--and most cpu failures are with the top-notch cpu choice (eg, Optiplex GX270 2.4ghz is fine while I've replaced dozens of 3.4Ghz cpu's in GX270's.) I'll shut up before getting in trouble.

Score: 0

By VikingBlade

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 3:13 PM

I don't think AMD really cares if they win or not. Them being heard is probably all they want.

Score: 0

By Kramy

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 5:19 PM

I think winning might be part of their goals, since this is going to be costly if they don't.(even with increased consumer awareness)

I've always stated Intel is evil, but until now that I've actually read that PDF, I've never had anything to convince people with.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 1:55 PM

Weeeeeeeeeee

Score: 0

By athome

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 12:47 PM

It sounds like this is going to be one dirty and loud lawsuit.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 12:45 PM

AMD makes better processors anyway. Intel needs to be smacked nice and hard for once. Intel charges too much money for their stuff and it's not anywhere as close to an AMD in performance.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:29 PM

Price/Performance has *nothing* to do with this lawsuit. Why are we discussing it here?

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jun 29, 2005 - 12:53 PM

Yes, but now that AMD has it head above ground, they are going to start charging for the performance. Not only is this about market share and fair practice, it will be about increasing profits. I see AMD prices going up. They are going to use this lawsuit as a ad for selling their products.

Ever since the introduction of the FX chip, their prices have begun to reflect this thinking.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 5:16 PM

>> Ever since the introduction of the FX chip, their prices have begun to reflect this thinking.

What Squire72 says below is correct, but I have to add my input anyway. I don't think there's any problem with that. If they're being squeezed from all directions, and the only thing keeping them alive is gamers, can you blame them for charging a bit more for an extremely superior product?

I mean, if it saves them from collapsing? :)

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 9:13 AM

Don't misunderstand me, I am an AMD fan. But just because you have a better chip doesn't mean you have to sell if for more. AMD is where they are today, because of their priceing and better products. In spite of all the wrongs of Intel, they still are kicking butt. I just don't think they have to charge $1000 for a chip.

I was not making a direct comparison to Intel's pricing method, but making the point that their prices have begun to increase overall with the introduction of the FX chip. Though still cheaper than Intel, it has dramatically changed from past pricing methodology. If gamers were their only true customers, I don't think they will keep their market shares. It has been the "performance/bargain" alternative to Intel that has gotten them where they are today. Their innovative thinking and designs are truly worthy of their place in the market, raising their prices accordingly to Intel is not the right move to make...IMO

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 1:13 PM

I think we all agree--the best thing would be if market share was 50/50 so they'd have to be toe-to-toe with competition, but AMD is not going to raise prices outrageously (yet)--they are far far behind Intel in global market share.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 1:01 PM

Honestly, their prices for their base line of chips haven't changed much.

For chips that are comparable to Intel (3000+ to 3Ghz), they still come in at a lower price point. The only place AMD is taking a steep price point is on premium processors that run circles around anything Intel does (the FX chips for example)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 6:21 PM

Not just the FX chips. From what I hear, Intel has nothing that is even comparable to the X2 chips. Please correct me if that isn't entirely true.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jun 29, 2005 - 12:59 PM

yup

agreed.

Score: 0

Nov 21 - 6:51 PM ET Coalition urges better laws for e-mail and cell phone privacy

Nov 21 - 6:42 PM ET How is Internet advertising faring in this bad economy?

Nov 21 - 6:15 PM ET From out of the Amazon Cloud, an AWS winner emerges

Nov 21 - 5:20 PM ET Mufin music finder enters public beta, adds widgets

Nov 21 - 5:01 PM ET Google launches its SearchWiki semantics plug-in

Nov 21 - 4:57 PM ET Asus previews a slimmer, less costly Eee PC

Nov 21 - 4:32 PM ET New Adobe Media Player ushers in AIR 1.5

Nov 21 - 2:11 PM ET AT&T to add Pantech's low-cost C630 phone to 3G lineup

Nov 21 - 1:11 PM ET iPhone gets firmware 2.2 update

Nov 21 - 11:51 AM ET The Dell surprise: Higher earnings on lower revenue