Thursday, May 14th 2009
AMD Comments on EC Ruling that Intel Violated EU Law, Harmed Consumers
The European Commission today found Intel guilty of abusing its dominant position in the global x86 microprocessor market, saying that "Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years. Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules cannot be tolerated." The Commission also stated that "there is evidence that Intel had sought to conceal the conditions associated with its payments." The EC decision requires Intel to change its business practices immediately and fines Intel a record EUR 1.06 billion (US $1.45 billion).
"Today's ruling is an important step toward establishing a truly competitive market," said Dirk Meyer, AMD president and CEO. "AMD has consistently been a technology innovation leader and we are looking forward to the move from a world in which Intel ruled, to one which is ruled by customers."
"After an exhaustive investigation, the EU came to one conclusion - Intel broke the law and consumers were hurt," said Tom McCoy, AMD executive vice president for legal affairs. "With this ruling, the industry will benefit from an end to Intel's monopoly-inflated pricing and European consumers will enjoy greater choice, value and innovation."
The EC decision stated specifically that:
In 2008, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) issued a 26 billion won fine (approximately $25.4 million USD) saying that Intel's abuse of its dominant position included coercing and paying customers millions of dollars on the condition that they use only Intel chips, delay launches of AMD products, and/or not develop any new products with AMD chips. The KFTC also found that, "South Korean consumers had to buy PCs at higher prices as domestic PC makers were forced to buy Intel's pricier CPU." In addition to a fine, the KFTC ordered Intel to stop the practice of offering payments to PC makers conditioned upon them not doing business with AMD. Intel is in the process of appealing the ruling.
In 2005, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) ruled that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly laws by illegally forcing full or partial exclusivity with five Japanese PC makers. Intel did not appeal the ruling.
In the United States, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General's office are investigating Intel for abuse of its monopoly position. In 2005, AMD filed private litigation in the US District Court of Delaware, which is scheduled for trial in spring 2010.
Source:
AMD
"Today's ruling is an important step toward establishing a truly competitive market," said Dirk Meyer, AMD president and CEO. "AMD has consistently been a technology innovation leader and we are looking forward to the move from a world in which Intel ruled, to one which is ruled by customers."
"After an exhaustive investigation, the EU came to one conclusion - Intel broke the law and consumers were hurt," said Tom McCoy, AMD executive vice president for legal affairs. "With this ruling, the industry will benefit from an end to Intel's monopoly-inflated pricing and European consumers will enjoy greater choice, value and innovation."
The EC decision stated specifically that:
- "Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel".
- "Intel made payments to major retailer Media Saturn Holding from October 2002 to December 2007 on condition that it exclusively sold Intel-based PCs in all countries in which Media Saturn Holding is active."
- Intel "interfered directly in the relations between computer manufacturers and AMD. Intel awarded computer manufacturers payments - unrelated to any particular purchases from Intel - on condition that these computer manufacturers postponed or cancelled the launch of specific AMD-based products."
In 2008, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) issued a 26 billion won fine (approximately $25.4 million USD) saying that Intel's abuse of its dominant position included coercing and paying customers millions of dollars on the condition that they use only Intel chips, delay launches of AMD products, and/or not develop any new products with AMD chips. The KFTC also found that, "South Korean consumers had to buy PCs at higher prices as domestic PC makers were forced to buy Intel's pricier CPU." In addition to a fine, the KFTC ordered Intel to stop the practice of offering payments to PC makers conditioned upon them not doing business with AMD. Intel is in the process of appealing the ruling.
In 2005, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) ruled that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly laws by illegally forcing full or partial exclusivity with five Japanese PC makers. Intel did not appeal the ruling.
In the United States, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General's office are investigating Intel for abuse of its monopoly position. In 2005, AMD filed private litigation in the US District Court of Delaware, which is scheduled for trial in spring 2010.
104 Comments on AMD Comments on EC Ruling that Intel Violated EU Law, Harmed Consumers
In their latest CPU, Intel uses mostly the same technology. AMD is being more innovative. And AMD should also have a chance in CPU-world. Not just 90% dominated by Intel only. AMD was the one that kicked their asses and quit netburst-technology.
And I'm comparing PhI because snakeoil said that the monolith design is better. If the monolith design is so important, why did Phenom I suck so bad compared to Intel? That was my point, number of DICE aren't important, only the end results.
the amd dragon platform is much better value.
Thats just what they use for testing ...... It really doesn't test what the rest of the world is using...
99.93% of the people cares about value.
And if budget is a concern, AMD may be the right choice, but it still is no match for i7 in power.
At any rate, this all stemmed from the comment that a monolith is better, but my point is that isn't always the case. PhI certainly wasn't better.
Plus the reason Intel has smaller percentage sales is cause they back fill the chips periodically. IE the Q8200 and Q9300 aforementioned.
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-7.html
EDIT: Sorry, cross posted.
I proved it in another thread with ya W!!!!
Im talking real PEOPLE results..... not a net site you read
Start a thread with a video file, a program to use, and have people post results with cpuz screens and the whole shebang.
I guarantee i7 takes the thread.