AMD vs Intel

[Archmonarch]

According to an AMD Press Release, AMD has filed an antitrust suit against Intel, claiming they monopolize the x86 processor market by coercing businesses (ranging from large conglomerates to local retailers) away from AMD products through 7 forms of illegal persuasion.

 

Personally, I see this as a good thing. Competition between businesses almost always signals further innovation and lower prices for the consumer in attempts to garner more business.

 

Anyone care to share their view of events?

[Reveilled]

Well, to be honest I don't see offering large payments for exclusivity deals as something that should be illegal. The other things on the list, such as withholding delivery of a product which a customer had paid for, or designing their products to inhibit the use of another company's, if true, seem to me to be a serious ethical breach, which Intel should be held to account for.

 

And coming from a commited lassez-faire capitalist such as myself, that says quite a bit. We're not exactly famous for our positive view of antitrust laws, if you know what I mean.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I thought Capitalism was all about fair competition for the benefit of the consumers? And how can we keep the companies from imoral and unethical behaviour without antitrust laws?

 

 

 

If we let corporations run rampant, we'll have Micro-Mart ruling the world in 50 years.

[Reveilled]

I thought Capitalism was all about fair competition for the benefit of the consumers? And how can we keep the companies from imoral and unethical behaviour without antitrust laws?

 

 

 

If we let corporations run rampant, we'll have Micro-Mart ruling the world in 50 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is about fair competition for the benefit of consumers, I agree. Where we likely differ on this issue is the correct way to ensure that happens. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the state to ensure consumers get a fair deal, as long as no one has had their rights violated or a contract breached. I believe that is up to the consumers themselves to ensure this through such things as boycotts, protests, pressure on other businesses that do business with the target company, and so on. Others feel the best way to ensure this is to force business owners to act in a particular way through law. To be honest, I imagine that it probably is, but I personally would consider that sort of legislation to be as unethical, if not moreso, than the practice it is intended to stop. Many would disagree, of course. I doubt I'll ever change their minds.

 

In this case, though, AMD are accusing Intel of breaching contracts (withholding deliveries), and sabotage (which is what deliberately manufacturing products that slow down AMD's products amounts to). Those are things which I consider unethical to the point that they should be illegal, and since I think that I have an extremely high tolerance for keeping legal things which I consider wrong, I believe that speaks volumes about just how bad what Intel is accused of doing is.

[taks]

I thought Capitalism was all about fair competition for the benefit of the consumers? And how can we keep the companies from imoral and unethical behaviour without antitrust laws?

by enforcing other laws that are already on the books. explain how a company can actually be either moral or immoral? these are concepts reserved for human beings.

 

if a company witholds a product that somebody paid for, that is theft, and is illegal. this is unfair trade at best, and thus the rightful domain of the government to adjudicate.

 

If we let corporations run rampant, we'll have Micro-Mart ruling the world in 50 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or maybe we should just get the government out of business, at which point capitalism will have a chance.

 

your comments are quite often the result of a gross misunderstanding of capitalism.

 

taks

[Reveilled]

I thought Capitalism was all about fair competition for the benefit of the consumers? And how can we keep the companies from imoral and unethical behaviour without antitrust laws?

by enforcing other laws that are already on the books. explain how a company can actually be either moral or immoral? these are concepts reserved for human beings.

 

if a company witholds a product that somebody paid for, that is theft, and is illegal. this is unfair trade at best, and thus the rightful domain of the government to adjudicate.

 

If we let corporations run rampant, we'll have Micro-Mart ruling the world in 50 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or maybe we should just get the government out of business, at which point capitalism will have a chance.

 

your comments are quite often the result of a gross misunderstanding of capitalism.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh good. Now I can go to bed safe in the knowlege that your far less diplomatic and far more argumentative post will prevent anyone from arguing with me while I am asleep. Thankyou, good night, and have a nice thread, taks. I hope you win.

[taks]

ok, here's the list....

 

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;

in other words, intel offered discounts to buy intel products? AMD is whining here for an unfair advantage on their behalf. perhaps they should consider the same?

 

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

[213374U]

Oh my God! Another thread derailed into a discussion on capitalism!

 

Noooooooooooooo!

[taks]

Oh good.  Now I can go to bed safe in the knowlege that your far less diplomatic and far more argumentative post will prevent anyone from arguing with me while I am asleep.  Thankyou, good night, and have a nice thread, taks.  I hope you win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i suppose i drew their fire...

 

i'll admit, i'm rarely diplomatic regarding the capitalism/socialism debate. there is no need to be. the evidence beats everybody over the head time and time again (ad nauseum) and they just.don't.get.it. it is tiring at best.

 

you and i do normally agree on said things, btw...

 

taks

[Darth Flatus]

Thank Me! You've used a different NOOOO clip!

[Reveilled]

Oh good.  Now I can go to bed safe in the knowlege that your far less diplomatic and far more argumentative post will prevent anyone from arguing with me while I am asleep.  Thankyou, good night, and have a nice thread, taks.  I hope you win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i suppose i drew their fire...

 

i'll admit, i'm rarely diplomatic regarding the capitalism/socialism debate. there is no need to be. the evidence beats everybody over the head time and time again (ad nauseum) and they just.don't.get.it. it is tiring at best.

 

you and i do normally agree on said things, btw...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't remember offhand whether we tend to agree on social matters, but yes, we're both firmly on the "right wing" when it comes to economics.

 

I would say though that I have become remarkably more accepting of other systems of government recently. I'll never change the political slant in the UK, and I suppose that if my fellow countrymen are happy with their largely left-wing political system, then by all rights they're entitled to it. I, on the other hand, am leaving for the US (and more specifically, to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project), where at least some people agree with me.

 

After all, just as no one's actually forcing someone to buy a near-monopoly's products, it's not like I'm being forced to stay in a political system I disagree with. I don't like it, so I'll leave. After that, it's not my problem anymore.

 

And with that, I shall bid you all goodnight.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Oh my God! Another thread derailed into a discussion on capitalism!

 

 

 

Ill write a short, non-argumentative inlay tomorrow becasue otherwise this will derail into one of those Taks vs. Kaftan arguments where we'll trade 2000word replies and I dont have time for that.

 

 

 

but I cant help myself; I must say that if corporations have the same legal rights as individuals(they do) then they should be subject to the same measurement of moral and ethics as men, in proportion to their power. Allowing tremendous power without conscience and responsability is just inviting disaster.

[213374U]

it's not like I'm being forced to stay in a political system I disagree with.  I don't like it, so I'll leave.  After that, it's not my problem anymore.

I find that both sad and disturbing.

[Darth Flatus]

If you argue for complete non intervention then i assume you trust corporations to act fairly and responsibly with consumers and competition when given a free reign. Realistically this won't happen.

[Child of Flame]

TAKS WINS!

 

FINISH HIM!

[Enoch]

This isn't really a capitalism-socialism debate.

 

Taks aside, American libertarians mostly like the idea of anti-trust law. They trust classical economics (to a fault), and neoclassical economics acknowledges that market power (monopoly, oligopoly, collusion, etc.) is a legitimate failure that certain free markets tend towards. They have issues with the specific language and the history of enforcement of American anti-trust law (rightfully so), but they acknowledge that the state can legitimately intervene to protect the free market from unfair competition.

 

The problem with suits like this is that, unless there is direct evidence of collusion or the like, it is really hard to prove in court. The law has also evolved and recognized the influence of economics. I don't know the facts of this case, but it seems to me that this is more of a warning shot fired at Intel to watch itself and maybe dial-back the arm-twisting sales methods a notch.

[Child of Flame]

This isn't really a capitalism-socialism debate. 

 

Taks aside, American libertarians mostly like the idea of anti-trust law.  They trust classical economics (to a fault), and neoclassical economics acknowledges that market power (monopoly, oligopoly, collusion, etc.) is a legitimate failure that certain free markets tend towards.  They have issues with the specific language and the history of enforcement of American anti-trust law (rightfully so), but they acknowledge that the state can legitimately intervene to protect the free market from unfair competition. 

 

The problem with suits like this is that, unless there is direct evidence of collusion or the like, it is really hard to prove in court.  The law has also evolved and recognized the influence of economics.  I don't know the facts of this case, but it seems to me that this is more of a warning shot fired at Intel to watch itself and maybe dial-back the arm-twisting sales methods a notch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So says one of the oldest men evar. Feh.

[EnderAndrew]

The problem with suits like this is that, unless there is direct evidence of collusion or the like, it is really hard to prove in court.  The law has also evolved and recognized the influence of economics.  I don't know the facts of this case, but it seems to me that this is more of a warning shot fired at Intel to watch itself and maybe dial-back the arm-twisting sales methods a notch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why the brunt of this case will depend on companies either standing up and backing these claims, or not.

 

It's also possible that companies like Best Buy are forced to agree to Intel's terms, if Intel says the Circuit City has already agreed to them.

 

I'm all for natural competition, but I believe that AMD makes better products overall, for a cheaper price more often than not, but only self-builders really get AMD products.

 

Intel keeps most computer manufacturers from touching AMD, and thusly Intel keeps a superior product out of the consumers hands not through fair competition, but coersion.

 

That is illegal, and I hope the various corps named have the balls to stand up and testify on AMD's behalf.

[Reveilled]

it's not like I'm being forced to stay in a political system I disagree with.  I don't like it, so I'll leave.  After that, it's not my problem anymore.

I find that both sad and disturbing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why? I find it somewhat dishearening that there aren't enough people in the UK who feel as I do to start a political party, no matter how small, but I've come to accept that I can't change things to the way I'd like them all by myself, and then my only choices are to stay and live in a political system I not only disagree with, but hate with all my heart, or to leave it behind and go somewhere where my beliefs are if not accepted by the majority, at least accepted by somebody. So, I'm moving to NH with the Free State Project. Thousands of Libertarians, all with similar feelings about their governments, will move to New Hampshire and we'll finally have a place for ourselves, where we can live as we want to. Of course, we'll still technically have to live under the laws of the USA's federal government, but our police force might be less than perfect at enforcing some of their more draconian and privacy-invading laws.

 

Listen to me! I'm making it sound as if we're as presecuted as the Jews and looking for a homeland. If that's how I'm coming across, I'm not intending to make it sound like we're being oppressed, or anything.

 

If you argue for complete non intervention then i assume you trust corporations to act fairly and responsibly with consumers and competition when given a free reign. Realistically this won't happen.

 

I don't trust them to act fairly and responsibly. Thing is, I trust the government to do that even less. What's more, it's my simple belief that the consumers have more power to change things than they're given credit for. If something is important enough, consumers should be able to do something about it. Citizens have boycotted their governments with armed rebellions in the past many times. Compared to getting a gun and risking your life, a peaceful boycott should be as easy as π. Most people in our county disagree with me. As citizens of a democratic country, that's their right, and if the majority believe that's the way to run a country, then I suppose that's how the country should be run. i'll just go somewhere where the country is run more how I like it.

 

As I've said, though, I feel that some of the allegations AMD are levelling at Intel, particularly the sabotage charge (though it isn't referred to as such), if true would indicate a breach of the fundamental rights of the consumer, and so this may be one of those cases where government intervention is necessary.

[EnderAndrew]

If consumers don't even have the opportunity to purchase a computer with AMD technology, how can they change anything?

 

Intel is keeping AMD off the shelves, and consumers don't have a choice.

 

That is at the heart of anti-trust laws.

[Darth Flatus]

Protests do bugger all other than to show dissatisfaction. The sole supplier has all the power. A separate agency is needed to ensure break up unfair practices.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't think Intel needs to be broken up. I just think suppliers should be able to carry whatever products they want to sell.

[Reveilled]

If consumers don't even have the opportunity to purchase a computer with AMD technology, how can they change anything?

 

Intel is keeping AMD off the shelves, and consumers don't have a choice.

 

That is at the heart of anti-trust laws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally, I had little trouble buying my AMD processor from a shop. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

In any case, as I've already said (and I somehow have the feeling I'll be saying it a hell of a farking lot in this thread, and will be ignored every time), some of the allegations AMD is making do, I believe, warrant government investigation and intervention. But such cases are rare, in my opinion.

[EnderAndrew]

The problem isn't buying a PIB (Processor in a Box). The problem is buying a PC with an AMD processor.

 

HP is the only major manufacturer I know right now that sells PCs with AMDs in them, and Intel punishes them illegally for that. They also coerce retailers from not stocking PCs with AMD processors.

 

Self builders are still in the minority, and sadly self builders make up the majority of AMD's business since you can't get a prebuillt AMD computer hardly anywhere.

[Nartwak]

On the subject of personal consumption, I wouldn't rely on people to restrain themselves in any respect.