News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Elmer Phud

08/04/10 10:13 AM

#93367 RE: tecate #93365

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:

* conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and
* retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.

In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:

* modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;
* offer to extend Via’s x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
* maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel’s CPUs to continue to innovate; and
* disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.
icon url

fastpathguru

08/04/10 10:25 AM

#93373 RE: tecate #93365

www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/08/intel.shtm

WOW!!! eeek!!! amazing.. smile



There are links to the order itself and an analysis of it. I'd read and rely on those before drawing any conclusions. Please.

Already something sticks out to me in the analysis doc:

That is, the Proposed Consent Order does not operate as a safe harbor for Intel. The Commission can not only challenge (and seek civil fines for) Order violations, but also has authority to challenge any practice not prohibited by the Proposed Consent Order (including, but not limited to, any pricing practice or design change that harms competition) in a potential future legal challenge.