Intel's agreement with the FTC
in [Chips]
|
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 6 Aug 2010 10:36 Robert Myers wrote: > 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? As any other government agencies. Government has monopoly by its very nature. > 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? And what's written in qyour history books about miracles of many (competing) goverments over the same territory? Or if you didn't notice neither EC nor FTC run business. \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Sebastian Kaliszewski on 6 Aug 2010 10:47 Robert Myers wrote: > 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. > Oh. If you didn't notice it's a settelemnt. IOW Intel agreed to that conditions. Intel still had a choice to go to court -- if everything was all right as you portray they should fear not. Or, maybe the chance of unfavourable judgement was real, as not everything was all right? \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
From: Jim on 6 Aug 2010 13:52 "Intel Guy" <Intel(a)Guy.com> wrote in message news:4C5AC8A4.9E557A81(a)Guy.com... > Intel should be forced to support PCIe for 12 years - not 6. Windows requires a PCI bus so that alone will keep from going anywhere.
From: Robert Myers on 6 Aug 2010 14:21 On Aug 6, 1:45 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > They'll be real alright, but probably in another decade or so. Intel is > showing off science projects hoping people will wait for them to become > real products and ignore actual current solutions. Remember the wireless > laptop recharging system that Intel showed off in an IDF a couple of > years back? That's otherwise known as a Tesla coil, and looks like it's > something that came out of a steampunk design from the 19th century. > Intel is just entertaining people, not really providing real solutions > to anything. > If there are actual "solutions," they are of limited usefulness. The ability of processors to crunch data has begun to stress the ability of wires even theoretically to deliver data to them fast enough. GPU's used for computation will make the situation even worse, as will the planned addition of vector processors to x86. The world you imagine for computers is a disappearing mirage. The concentration of capital required to advance the technology means that there will be fewer players, and, aside from token competition, essentially only one player, at least for now. From my perspective, there is really only one problem left: how to get the data there fast enough. What's left of processor design is how to find ways to tolerate (hide) even more latency than processors now can. The rest of the problem is all about interconnect, and the solution isn't going to come in the form of electrons. If AMD (or IBM/AMD) has the resources to move us forward on those issues, then I'm interested. If not, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's only an internecine struggle that wastes resources to no one's benefit. I really couldn't care less about how cheaply you can buy processors for your next home-brew experiment, and I don't think the government should, either. At the somewhat less-than-cutting-edge, the story is probably quite different. Most people can't use the muscle that is available at affordable prices now, and there will be lots of players who can produce "good enough" processors that don't rely on licenses from Intel. Were I Intel, I'd be *much* more worried about ARM than about AMD. That doesn't even account for the fact that China has both the capital and the engineering expertise to do more or less whatever it wants, independent of both Intel *and* ARM. Aside from optical interconnects, this entire thread has been about yesterday's news. Robert.
From: Robert Myers on 6 Aug 2010 18:38
On Aug 6, 6:11 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > What this is supposed to be a form of derision from you? News is always > about yesterday's news. > > Even optical interconnects are yesterday's news. Why not just wait for > quantum interconnects? But you were just telling me that optical interconnects wouldn't happen for ten years. How could that be yesterday's news? Let's put it this way. AMD and nVidia have just built the Maginot Line of computer technology, and you are offering tours. Robert. |