Replies to post #86390 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[chipguy]

LOL, the EU's complaint against Intel was ghost written by AMD.

It looks like the FTC's complaint against Intel was ghost written
mainly by Nvidia.

The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.

WTF? Hard to take anything here seriously after this howler.

[Windsock]

FTC Press Release

The Complaint will proceed as an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm

FTC Challenges Intel's Dominance of Worldwide Microprocessor Markets
FTC Charges Anticompetitive Tactics Have Stifled Innovation and Harmed Consumers

The Federal Trade Commission today sued Intel Corp., the world’s leading computer chip maker, charging that the company has illegally used its dominant market position for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly.

<snip>

To remedy the anticompetitive damage alleged in the complaint, the FTC is seeking an order which includes provisions that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chips. The FTC also may seek an order prohibiting Intel from unreasonably excluding or inhibiting the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs, and prohibiting Intel from making or distributing products that impair the performance–or apparent performance–of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.

<snip>

According to the FTC’s complaint, Intel’s anticompetitive tactics violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition, and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Critically, unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant. The complaint also alleges that Intel engaged in illegal monopolization, attempted monopolization and monopoly maintenance, also in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

<snip>

Under the recently implemented rule expediting the Part 3 administrative hearing process, this matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard before an Administrative Law Judge on September 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.

[tecate]

Intel sent the Nvidia case to arbitration so I dunno what that is all about.

[Andy Grave]

Well....I suppose the heart of the suit revolves around the following issues. Most, if not all of this sounds illegal to me. You have to ask how much these games improved Intel's bottom line??
Otellini needs to TOTALLY repudiate the old Grove dirty tricks form of competition and move Intel on.

Among the key excerpts from the complaint:

For discrete GPUs, Intel has created several interoperability problems, including reductions of speed and encryption, that have had the effect of degrading the industry standard interconnection with Intel’s CPUs. Some of this conduct appears to have been specifically targeted at crippling GP GPU computing functionality.

And.

Intel sells its Atom CPU bundled with a graphics chipset. Some OEMs purchased the bundle from Intel, discarded Intel’s inferior graphics chipset and chose instead to use Intel’s Atom CPU with the Nvidia graphics chipset. To combat this competition, Intel charged those OEMs significantly higher prices because they used a non-Intel graphics chipset or GPU. Intel would offer the bundled pricing only to OEMs that would then use the Intel chipset in the end-product and not use a competitive product.

And.

Intel’s efforts to deny interoperability between competitors’ (e.g., Nvidia, AMD, and Via) GPUs and Intel’s newest CPUs reflect a significant departure from Intel’s previous course of dealing. Intel allowed, and indeed encouraged, other companies including Nvidia to develop products that interoperated in a nondiscriminatory manner with Intel’s CPUs (and its chipsets and related connections) for the last ten years. The interoperability of these complementary products, along with the innovation and intellectual property contributions made by these companies to Intel in exchange for such interoperability, made Intel’s CPUs more attractive to OEMs and customers. Indeed, Intel used other companies’ technologies to enhance Intel’s graphics capabilities and its monopoly power in CPUs.

Intel’s conduct and representations created a duty to deal and cooperate with its competitors, such as Nvidia, AMD, and Via, to enhance competition and innovation for the benefit of consumers. These companies’ reliance on Intel’s original representations was reasonable.

Once Nvidia and other companies committed to working with Intel, and in some cases granted significant intellectual property to Intel, and were thus locked into Intel’s strategy, Intel changed its position with these companies and used its power to harm competition.