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:
  • “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.”
Intel has so far failed to convince any antitrust enforcement agency that its business practices are lawful and pro-consumer.
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
Add your own comment

104 Comments on AMD Comments on EC Ruling that Intel Violated EU Law, Harmed Consumers

#1
Assimilator
Shadin
Am I the only one that thinks Hector was AMD's ruin? He came into the company while it was making plenty of money during the A64 days (despite Intel's illegal OEM dealings), and then sat there and collected a paycheck. Core 2 came out and AMD had nothing, nada, to compete. The transition from 939 to AM2 was pathetic. This was the man who ruined Motorola's CPU business, and then they put him in charge of AMD.

Like I've said in other threads, Intel engaged in illegal business practices to prevent OEM manufacturers from offering AMD based solutions, and therefore they deserve the fine. However, AMD also deserves to be on the bottom right now for making a poor choice in leadership that resulted in a serious lag in R&D that they still haven't managed to overcome. Netburst/P4 was crap and AMD was superior, there's no denying. But while A64's were flying off the shelf from the enthusiast market, AMD sat around feeling good about itself while Intel was developing Core 2.
100% agreed. AMD were hopelessly, foolishly naive to believe that K8 was going to dominate forever and Intel was going to do nothing. At the time when they should have been extending their lead in the CPU market by innovating further, they were sitting on their hands and watching the money roll in. Then Core 2 arrived and the lead that AMD had was erased overnight... unless Intel gets complacent again, or Bulldozer/Fusion is as good as it's claimed, I honestly don't see AMD ever dominating in the CPU market again.

Intel is far from blameless, but AMD's constant search for a scapegoat to explain their problems - as opposed to facing up to, and admitting, that their problems are their own - is really starting to get tiring.

BTW, snakeoil and fullinfusion? Nice trolling, pity your "arguments" have very little of substance in them. Oh, and just in case you didn't realise, AMD fanboi-ism is not substance, mkay.
Posted on Reply
#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Assimilator said:
BTW, snakeoil and fullinfusion? Nice trolling, pity your "arguments" have very little of substance in them. Oh, and just in case you didn't realise, AMD fanboi-ism is not substance, mkay.
try not to call out people like that i don't want to see someone banned for a stupid comment
Posted on Reply
#3
sLowEnd
cdawall said:



oh and hypertransport isn't exactly new either its from 2001
I don't think Athlon XP's had hypertransport

Athlon 64 (K8) came out in 2003

Hypertransport has gotten faster since then though. It's Hypertransport 3.0 now, and runs at a much higher speed than 1.0
Posted on Reply
#4
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
sLowEnd said:
I don't think Athlon XP's had hypertransport

Athlon 64 (K8) came out in 2003

Hypertransport has gotten faster since then though. It's Hypertransport 3.0 now, and runs at a much higher speed than 1.0
athlon XP still used a FSB however the technology behind HT was implemented in transmeta chips in 2001


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertransport
Posted on Reply