Intel's agreement with the FTC
in [Chips]
|
From: Yousuf Khan on 4 Aug 2010 11:10 http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/ftc/FTC_Final_Executed_Agreement.pdf *** 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.
From: Robert Myers on 5 Aug 2010 00:12 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). Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a joke. Robert.
From: Robert Myers on 5 Aug 2010 00:15 On Aug 5, 12:12 am, Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> 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). > > Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a > joke. > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html "We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory for consumers," Joshua Wright, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University Law School in Arlington, Va., wrote in a blog post after Wednesday's decision. U.S. government agency settlements are not always that "meaningful, from a consumer welfare perspective," according to Wright, who also served as a scholar in residence at the FTC. Robert.
From: Intel Guy on 5 Aug 2010 10:13 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?
From: Intel Guy on 5 Aug 2010 10:20
Robert Myers wrote: > You left out the part where the federal government is dictating > details of technology (PCI-X for six years). > > Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? > What a joke. 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. 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. |