FTC Sues Intel over "anti-competitive" practices

**Alundil** · 12-17-09, 01:49 PM

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-104...ml?tag=nl.e703

**Potemkine** · 12-17-09, 02:00 PM

huh, interesting. Its either Intel or AMD type processors. Not much of a choice by sheer virtue of the barriers to entry.

**rock_lobster** · 12-17-09, 02:17 PM

You're beating us too badly....stop it so we can have some of your market share.

**Consultant** · 12-17-09, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

You're beating us too badly....stop it so we can have some of your market share.

not exactly...

"Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission's action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer."

That's pretty F'ed up - and illegal - and contrary to capitalism!

**QuickLightning** · 12-17-09, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

You're beating us too badly....stop it so we can have some of your market share.

not exactly...

"Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission's action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer."

That's pretty F'ed up - and illegal - and contrary to capitalism!

...Man, Consultant... I always pictured you as the type to do your research first.

Intel has competed fairly and lawfully. Its actions have benefitted consumers. The highly competitive microprocessor industry, of which Intel is a key part, has kept innovation robust and prices declining at a faster rate than any other industry. The FTC's case is misguided. It is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated. In addition, it is explicitly not based on existing law but is instead intended to make new rules for regulating business conduct. These new rules would harm consumers by reducing innovation and raising prices.

**Alundil** · 12-17-09, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by QuickLightning

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

You're beating us too badly....stop it so we can have some of your market share.

not exactly...

"Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission's action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer."

That's pretty F'ed up - and illegal - and contrary to capitalism!

...Man, Consultant... I always pictured you as the type to do your research first.

Intel has competed fairly and lawfully. Its actions have benefitted consumers. The highly competitive microprocessor industry, of which Intel is a key part, has kept innovation robust and prices declining at a faster rate than any other industry. The FTC's case is misguided. It is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated. In addition, it is explicitly not based on existing law but is instead intended to make new rules for regulating business conduct. These new rules would harm consumers by reducing innovation and raising prices.

So says intel. It'll be interesting to see how the multiple investigations shake out on this. I find it interesting that when M$ gets raked over the coals (arguably for being the biggest kid on the block) that the biggest kid on the next block is automatically defended? Google will likely wind up in the same kind of mess a few years down the road. It happens to every large "industry-leading" company. They have the $$, they want to keep the $$, while making more $$, and they are the target for everyone else who wants the $$ from the same industry. Not sure why that is such a tough concept for some (not saying it is tough for you quick). But that is the nature of business. Especially large business. Those with $$ want more/keep what they have and will do lots of "things" to ensure that. Those who want the $$ will also do lots of "things" to get it.

** "things" could be legal/illegal

**Consultant** · 12-17-09, 03:59 PM

Forgive me if I don't trust the good word of an $1800/hour corporate lawyer or his cleverly worded news blurb.

**QuickLightning** · 12-17-09, 04:17 PM

From the FTC website.

According to the FTC complaint, Intel’s anticompetitive tactics were designed to put the brakes on superior competitive products that threatened its monopoly in the CPU microchip market. Over the last decade, this strategy has succeeded in maintaining the Intel monopoly at the expense of consumers, who have been denied access to potentially superior, non-Intel CPU chips and lower prices, the complaint states.

Show me one product AMD has created that Intel has kept consumers from using... Don't even talk about MIDs, atom or SSDs as our control over the market is really only concerned with desktop CPUs.

Intel also used this practice, known as exclusive or restrictive dealing, to prevent computer makers from marketing any machines with non-Intel computer chips.

As far as preventing computer manufacturers from using AMD products, Dell (one of Intel's prime customers) switched from an Intel only production line to a both AMD and Intel production in 2005 (Hint, that's this decade). The other two in question (IBM and HP) have had deals with AMD for some time.

IBM has a research deal with AMD, so I hardly think our influence is stopping that partnership.

HP also continues to sell AMD products.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9236234,00.htm

In addition, allegedly, Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as a compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors’ CPU chips. Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors’ CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were due largely or entirely to Intel’s compiler design.

Proprietary software... Want to compete? Code your own or sue Apple for likewise practices.

Prove me wrong, Consultant. You're a legal guy and I'm just an engineer. I'll go back to (apparently) doing nothing while our inferrior products somehow are wildly successful.

**Alundil** · 12-17-09, 04:34 PM

Quick - I do not think that Intel's products are inferior, far from it. I also think that you'll find that most people agree that they are not inferior products. That is not the claim as far as I can tell.

However, claim and counter-claim is exactly how court cases go. Someone brings a claim (AMD, FTC, TI, whoever) and Intel counter-claim. Then there are proceedings/investigations to prove/disprove those things.

Whether or not the claims are true has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the value of Intel's products. It only has to do with Intel's practices in the market. It is not a "knock" against the engineers (you).

I work for a very large hospital. They/we heal thousands of people per year and hundreds of thousands since the hospital opened. Does that mean that people running things have not made mistakes? Of course not, those two things are not directly related.

So, the claim that marketing might have pulled some underhanded tactics has nothing to do with the engineering acumen or overall quality of the products sold. They are separate issues in this instance.

I see nothing wrong with the questions being "asked and answered." If the claims turn out to be false, there will be a reckoning. If they turn out to be true, likewise. I'd imagine that reality lies somewhere in the middle of the claims and counter-claims. Reality generally does.

**Red_Lizard2** · 12-17-09, 04:44 PM

http://www.bloombergutv.com/industry...practices.html

Intel used “threats and rewards” aimed at computer manufacturers including Round Rock, Texas-based Dell Inc., Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard Co. and Armonk, New York- based International Business Machines Corp., according to the FTC statement. Intel coerced the companies not to buy rival central processing unit chips, according to the statement.

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

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.

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.

Two others to read:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/0...rstatement.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/0...lstatement.pdf