AMD lança Megaprocesso Antitrust contra Intel

JuSt_Me_AnD_yOu

What is folding?
AMD sues Intel, the monopolist

AMD has just filed an antitrust complaint against Intel, alleging all sorts of unsavoury practices, and judging that from the fact that it was filed in court rather than in a blog, I would guess AMD thinks it is illegal.

AMD has gone as far as to set up a web site about the complaint. I guess this means it is going to be a pretty public fight.

No punches are pulled. Pay close attention to the bullet points, some are really juicy. If you really want dry, read the complaint itself, it is 48 pages of legalese, guaranteed to put one to sleep. There will also be a press/analyst conference Tuesday morning, and more details are bound to emerge.

AMD said Intel engages in worldwide coercion of customers to stop them dealing with AMD.

The 48-page complaint says 38 companies have been victims of coercion by Intel – including names such as Sony, NEC, Compaq, Toshiba and Dell.

AMD chief, Hector Ruiz, said, "customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation – and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market." People from "Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel’s monopoly abuses," he complained.

AMD says Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD. It says Sony was paid "millions for exclusivity" and as a result AMD’s share of Sony’s business went from 23 percent in 2002 to 8% in 2003, down to 0% today.

It claimed Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC;s purchases from AMD. And it further complains that, when AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, "Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal".

It says that in 2000, then Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said that because of the volume of business given to AMD, "Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Capellas, says AMD, told the company "he had a gun to his head," and had to stop buying AMD.

Papers were filed with federal district court for the district of Delaware, under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code, AMD said in a statement.

No matter what the outcome, this one is most assuredly going to provide as good a show as the Microsoft DOJ trial. Fights like this always get nasty quickly, and that means airing of all the industry dirty laundry. What you see today is the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned, it is going to be a fun ride. µ

Fonte: TheInquirer
 
HiGhVoIcE disse:
há muito tempo atrás, num continente distante... :004:

Reverse engeneering é diferente de roubar...se a Intel quiser pode fazer hoje o mesmo em relação aos AMD A64, era injusto o mercado X86 estar sobre o dominio de uma unica marca de CPUs.

Em relação à noticia só tenho a dizer até que enfim, espero que isto vá para a frente e que a Intel seja punida seriamente como já o foi no Japão. ;)
 
HiGhVoIcE disse:
há muito tempo atrás, num continente distante... :004:

...........a Amd fez "reverse engineering" do 8080 até que a Ibm quiz dois fornecedores de cpu x86 e a Intel licenciou a Amd.
Os creditos vão para a Intel, mas não me parece que a Amd tenha roubado nada. No minimo, a palavra "roubar" é muito forte.

Edit: Mais pormenores sobre a queixa

AMD said Intel’s illegal and unfair actions include the following:

* Intel has forced major customers into exclusive or near-exclusive deals;
* Intel has conditioned rebates, allowances and market development funding on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
* Intel has established a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the practical and intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
* Intel has threatened retaliation against customers introduc ing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments;
* Intel has established and enforced quotas among key retailers effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Intel-powered computers, thereby artificially limiting consumer choice;
* It has forced PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches and promotions;
* Intel has abused its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products which have as their central purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050628010541.html
 
Última edição:
pah, o uso das instruções amd64 era forçoso, não fazia qualquer sentido os CPU's intel não incluírem as instruções presentes nos cpu's de 64bits presentes no mercado, so iria estragar a progressão do mercado de 64bits, assim como a de certa forma aconteceu com o mercado dos dvd's até aparecerem as drives multi-formato. parabéns à amd por ter invertido o papel, pois aquando dos cpu's 32bits foi sempre, ou na esmagadora maioria das vezes, a amd a incluir instruções da intel, como o mmx, sse, entre outras que foram renomeadas, como o 3dnow, e isso.

quanto ao processo, a ser confirmada a acusação, acho que realmente tem razão de ser, e talvez seja um dos motivos pela qual a intel detém a esmagadora maioria do mercado dos cpu's para pc's, é raro, ver um computador (desktop) de marca com cpu amd... o que acaba por ser mau para o consumidor, porque o sistema amd, é melhor actualmente (e não foi so agora com os 64 bits, ja o athlon thunderbird era melhor que o p3 e p4 socket 423) assim como acaba por sair mais barato.
 
Última edição:
olha que no mercado dos computadores pessoais, pelo menos a nivel do pessoal techzoniano, a tendência é inversa....


Hoje em dia ha mais ppl com AMD do que com Intel :D
 
spastikman claro, mas achas que o pessoal que anda aqui no forum é representativo da maioria? não, aqui esta tudo devidamente informado, ainda assim ha pessoal que compra p4, mas sabe ao que vai, e sabe para que precisa dele, porque o p4 não é pior em tudo, comparativamente a um athlon 64.

COLD_WAR, isso é verdade, mas acho que a intel também reviu o MMX, apesar de não lhe ter mudado o nome...
ainda assim, num utilitario da amd ele da-me a informação de que o cpu tem MMX e 3DNow! ...

mas isto esta-se a desviar um bocado do assunto da thread...
 
"
A major lawsuit started to as AMD is starting a battle with intel.

AMD announced today that it filed an antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation (“Intel”) yesterday in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel – including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents. “Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation – and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market,” said Hector Ruiz, AMD chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer. “Whether through higher prices from monopoly profits, fewer choices in the marketplace or barriers to innovation – people from Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel’s monopoly abuses.”

x86 microprocessors run the Microsoft Windows, Solaris and Linux families of operating systems. Even Apple, a pioneer of the PC and one of the industry’s enduring innovators, announced that it would switch exclusively to x86 processors to run Mac OS software beginning in 2006. Intel’s share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power.

This litigation follows a recent ruling from the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC), which found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices to stop AMD’s increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers. Intel did not contest these charges.

The European Commission has stated that it is pursuing an investigation against Intel for similar possible antitrust violations and is cooperating with the Japanese authorities.

“You don’t have to take our word for it when it comes to Intel’s abuses; the Japanese government condemned Intel for its exclusionary and illegal misconduct,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “We encourage regulators around the world to take a close look at the market failure and consumer harm Intel’s business practices are causing in their nations. Intel maintains illegal monopoly profits at the expense of consumers and computer manufacturers, whose margins are razor thin. Now is the time for consumers and the industry worldwide to break free from the abusive Intel monopoly.”

The 48-page complaint, drafted after an intensive investigation by AMD’s lead outside counsel, Charles P. Diamond of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, details numerous examples of what Diamond describes as “a pervasive, global scheme to coerce Intel customers from freely dealing with AMD to the detriment of customers and consumers worldwide.” According to the complaint, Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly by, among other things:

Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;

According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.

Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD’s share of Sony’s business went from 23 percent in ‘02 to 8% in ‘03, to 0%, where it remains today.

Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;

Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC’s purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC’s business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.

Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;

When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.
Threatening retaliation against customers for introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments such as commercial desktop;

Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying “he had a gun to his head,” he told AMD he had to stop buying.

According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has “beaten them into ‘guacamole’” in retaliation.
Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;

AMD has been entirely shut out from *****, Europe’s largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany’s retail sales.

Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.

Forcing PC makers and tech partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;
Then-Intel CEO Craig Barret threatened Acer's Chairman with "severe consequences" for supporting the AMD Athlon 64 launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.

Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.

Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD’s participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.

Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program’s performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.

To view the full text of the complaint, please visit http://www.amd.com/breakfree.
"

fonte: guru3d.com
 
Já achava que tardava alguém (a Intel) a nivel de hardware fazer o mesmo que a Microsoft fez a nivel de SOs :004:

Se a AMD acha que andam aí umas "certas" manobras obscuras SÓ TEM é que processar a Intel.
 
já tardava ????

sempre fez ....

sempre se soube que a intel tinha estas praticas , podiamos não saber os detalhes todos , mas isto é do conhecimento geral

sempre foi uma das razões que me fazia preferir AMD !

espero que ganhem
 
AMD acusa Intel de práticas anti-concorrenciais em processo judicial

A AMD avançou com um processo judicial contra a Intel por alegado abuso de posição dominante no mercado de microprocessadores com arquitectura x86. A segunda maior fabricante de processadores do mundo garante ter provas de um conjunto de acções anti-concorrenciais e coercivas por parte da Intel junto de pelo menos 38 empresas, onde se incluem grandes fabricantes de PCs e distribuidores.

Na acusação, fundamentada em 48 páginas e ontem apresentada no distrito judicial americano de Delaware, a AMD acusa a Intel de colocar em prática um conjunto de medidas com a clara intenção de bloquear as possibilidades de acção da concorrente.

Aqui incluem-se grandes descontos, fundos alocados a campanhas de marketing que beneficiam parceiros, acordos de exclusividade que inviabilizam qualquer proposta da concorrência e ameaças às empresas que pretendam associar a sua imagem à AMD. Os principais alvos desta estratégia são fabricantes de PCs de larga escala, fabricantes de sistemas, distribuidores grossistas e retalhistas, garantem as acusações.

As acusações são fundamentadas com alguns nomes de peso como a Toshiba e a HP, citadas como exemplos de clientes AMD que desistiram de fazer negócios com a fabricante por pressões da líder de mercado, cita a BusinessWeek.

O documento entregue em tribunal diz mesmo que a HP deixou claro que só continuaria a trabalhar com a AMD (em 2002) caso esta estivesse disposta a pagar 25 milhões de dólares a cada trimestre para compensar a esperada retaliação da Intel.

A companhia queixosa alega que mais importante que as perdas financeiras são os danos para a concorrência no mercado, que resultam das alegadas práticas anti-concorrenciais. Segundo a empresa, estas vêm conduzindo a um aumento do preço dos PCs, menos escolha no mercado e um declínio dos níveis de inovação.

"Em qualquer parte do mundo os clientes merecem liberdade de escolha e beneficiar da inovação e isso está a desaparecer do mercado de PCs", justifica uma declaração do presidente da AMD Hector Ruiz, citada pela Reuters.

De sublinhar que as batalhas legais entre as duas companhias não são uma novidade e desde a década de 80 registaram-se pelo menos cinco processos com alguma dimensão envolvendo as duas empresas e acusações de posição monopolista.


in: http://tek.sapo.pt/4P0/573809.html
 
Back
Topo