Intel's agreement with the FTC
in [Chips]
|
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 5 Aug 2010 10:49 Robert Myers wrote: > On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/ftc/FTC_Final_Executed_Agre... >> >> *** >> So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: >> >> (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. >> (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets >> sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. >> (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. >> (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the >> CPU alone. >> (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. >> (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. >> (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a >> competitor. >> (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only >> so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I >> think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such >> agreements at a time. >> (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). >> (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the >> presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. >> (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. >> (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for >> its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this >> anymore. >> (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this >> compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's >> misrepresentations. >> (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are >> optimized for Intel processors only. > > You left out the part where the federal government is dictating > details of technology (PCI-X for six years). > So what? > Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a > joke. > Yes of course, monopolistic practices are good for customes -- according to Robert Myers rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Robert Myers on 5 Aug 2010 13:15 On Aug 5, 10:13 am, Intel Guy <In...(a)Guy.com> wrote: > Robert Myers full-quoted: > > >http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html > > > "We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory > > for consumers," > > Would doing nothing and allowing Intel to continue to strong-arm > customers have been better for consumers? I should have quoted the rest: <quote> Wright sees other potential problems. "This settlement has the FTC getting itself involved in Intel's business arrangements, competitive strategy, and even product design at a remarkably deep level," he said, expressing concern about government micromanagement of Intel business practices. </quote> It's a very bad precedent and, yes, it would have been better to have done nothing, if the something included having bureaucrats and lawyers micromanage a business, especially a high-technology business. Robert.
From: Robert Myers on 5 Aug 2010 13:18 On Aug 5, 10:49 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski <s.bez_sp...(a)remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote: > Robert Myers wrote: > > On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >>http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/ftc/FTC_Final_Executed_Agre.... > > >> *** > >> So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: > > >> (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. > >> (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets > >> sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. > >> (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. > >> (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the > >> CPU alone. > >> (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. > >> (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. > >> (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a > >> competitor. > >> (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only > >> so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I > >> think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such > >> agreements at a time. > >> (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). > >> (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the > >> presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. > >> (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. > >> (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for > >> its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this > >> anymore. > >> (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this > >> compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's > >> misrepresentations. > >> (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are > >> optimized for Intel processors only. > > > You left out the part where the federal government is dictating > > details of technology (PCI-X for six years). > > So what? > > > Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a > > joke. > > Yes of course, monopolistic practices are good for customes -- according > to Robert Myers > And you don't think the FTC and the European Commission are monopolies? Really, Sebastian, what's written in your history books about the miracles of government-planned businesses and all the munificent benefits they bestow through the intrusive exercise of power? Robert.
From: Rick Jones on 5 Aug 2010 14:25 In comp.sys.intel Intel Guy <Intel(a)guy.com> wrote: > The joke is that PCIe was foisted on consumers as a replacement for > AGP primarily to drive redundant video card and motherboard sales > when the reality was that there was a negligible real-world > performance increase with the new bus. And how about today with PCIe Gen2? I'm not a HW guy, but how much headroom remained in AGP, or PCI-X for that matter? > Do you really want to keep seeing needless forced-obsolescence for > your investment in computing hardware? > Intel should be forced to support PCIe for 12 years - not 6. Would you like ISA bus support with that? Given that PCIe Gen1 seems to date to 2004 and it is now 2010, if Intel supports PCIe for another 6 years, it will indeed have supported it for 12 years. IIRC Infiniband is already at 40 Gbit/s, which probably makes for "fun" with a dual-port HCA even in a x8 PCIe Gen2 slot. Dual-port 40 Gbit Ethernet will be equally fun, and haven't the IEEE done the spec for 100Gbit now (or am I getting ahead of them?) rick jones * not clear if first product shipped then or if that was just the spec - I'm going from a Wikipedia article - btw, wikipedia asserted that AGP was from 1997 -- the road to hell is paved with business decisions... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: Yousuf Khan on 5 Aug 2010 17:43
On 8/5/2010 12:12 AM, Robert Myers wrote: > You left out the part where the federal government is dictating > details of technology (PCI-X for six years). As I said, those were my initial quick reads. But the PCIe issue is something they did for Nvidia, to give it plenty of time to adjust. Also it falls into the general idea of Intel now having to provide product roadmaps to its competitors. This is generally good because Intel has very recently been playing games with the USB 3.0 specs, first delaying giving them the specs, and then when it finally gave them the specs, it decided that it might want to replace it entirely with some kind of optical link instead. Does nothing but provide instability in the PC standards. > Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a > joke. Probably really good news for everybody listed above, including you Robert. Yousuf Khan |