Originally Posted by sherlock
and Intel won that battle hands down in term of sales, AMD's pathetic legal team couldn't even get 1/10th of Intel's profit from Court.
Intel got taken to the cleaners in a number of nations due to their practices of that time... They only did well in the USA because of the vagueries of US anti-trust laws... You see in the USA, in order for you to have a valid case you need a superior product being excluded from the market place. This is exactly what happened back when it was the p4 vs the athlon 64... intel basically was giving away millions of their chips in exchange for OEM pc makers to not use AMD chips. Because of that situation intel was able to keep AMD's superior product out of the hands of consumers; a clear violation of us anti-trust laws. HOWEVER intel stalled the case in court for almost 7 years... in that time they regained the tech edge, and by the time the case went to trial AMD no longer had a superior product... which basically invalidated their whole case; leaving AMD in a weak position. In the end they accepted a deal to drop the case out of court... basically, intel didn't want more bad press (they had lost some pretty ugly cases in other countries) and AMD didn't want to go home empty handed.
It's not a matter of a bad legal team... it's a matter of US anti-trust law being sorta convoluted. Because the lawmakers didn't anticipate a market that could change in 18 months like the pc market the anti-trust laws don't really work in this case. Yes, AMD had a better chip. Yes intel used it's market position and brand name to keep their superior product out of the market. Because of this, AMD never really penetrated the home pc market, and Intel was able to leverage their superior income to overcome their tech disadvantage. AMD meanwhile overextended itself building foundries in expectation of a growing market share that never happened, and has been unable to spend the capital necessary to compete with intel's chips... and of course because of US anti-trust law design, by the time the trial came around AMD had lost it's case, as they no longer had a superior product to offer.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't really a blanket defense of AMD, but to act like being the victim of illegal business practices was AMD's own fault is silly.
Now back to the topic at hand. Unless intel tells OEMs that they'll get 1 million chips free as long as 90% of thier mobile devices have intel inside (which is almost exactly what they did to AMD over a decade ago) then there is nothing illegal about giving away chips to OEMs. The act of giving the chips out for free isn't illegal. It's if they add an anti-competitive condition to those chips... such as only using intel processors in their tablets, that would make this an issue.