Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NYT]FTC Investigates Intel over Antitrust issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NYT]FTC Investigates Intel over Antitrust issues - Page 2

post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
I'm willing to bet that you aren't a lawyer, didn't follow those international cases at all and are talking out of your a$$ just for the sake of talking.
Hmm, must have felt odd typing that, I'm sure it doubles as a perfect description of yourself...

However I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are,

A) a lawyer.
B) competent enough to see both sides of any given argument.

Quote:
Who cares who backs the ability to investigate. It's what the Investigation turns up that matters.
Ever heard of conflict in interests? Methinks, not...

Quote:
Anyone that don't accept the reality Intel got caught...
Why even bother wasting the fonts on this!

Hmmm, Japan, Korea and the EU must all be STUPID and dreaming up all the same fallacies! Who would of thought it!
I'm not doubting the possibility of anything... However we have due process and burden of proof here in US. I'd like to see some proof is all.

Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Duke View Post
Anyone that don't accept the reality Intel got caught...
Why even bother wasting the fonts on this!

Hmmm, Japan, Korea and the EU must all be STUPID and dreaming up all the same fallacies! Who would of thought it!


Good point!
LOL, yeah having this conversation around here makes me feel like all those other countries have some completely different court system that doesn't require facts or evidence.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by TestECull View Post
If Intel does get busted, all it's going to do is force Intel to dominate AMD legally this time. Nehalem's gonna rape K10 whether Intel sells it legally or not...
Who knows, if AMD was actually able to sell chips back when it was dominating Intel, maybe the Phenoms wouldn't have been delayed a year and a half with $500 mil of extra income to use. Maybe the phenoms wouldnt have had that bug.

I'd imagine that they would be on even ground at this point if Intel wasn't using it's leverage. It's pretty safe to say that with the money that AMD lost, they'd be pretty much even at this point.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
Hmm, must have felt odd typing that, I'm sure it doubles as a perfect description of yourself...

However I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are,

A) a lawyer.
B) competent enough to see both sides of any given argument.

Ever heard of conflict in interests? Methinks, not...



I'm not doubting the possibility of anything... However we have due process and burden of proof here in US. I'd like to see some proof is all.

Unlike you, I'm not challenging the validity of court rulings JUST because they're not in the mighty/pure/righteous USA. Challenging court rulings would entail you having some logic behind it. You didn't. Don't hate cause you got called out on it.

Btw i do read the docs that are available.

A conflict of interest would be like Intel investigating itself. A senator who *might* have something to gain for his state asking for an investigation *might* be a conflict of interests if he was abusing his power. Asking for an investigation isn't an abuse as 2 other countries found Intel guilty and 1 other is investigating at this point.

You just seem to like to have farfetched specuation. I'm just sticking more to logic at this point.

The court documents have been semi-released but all of the actual evidence has been blacked out under court order.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 37
this might slow Intel down , but its not gonna help AMD much... if amd cant get it right in 45nm , they are done for
Socrates
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 920 @ 3.6 Biostar TA790GX-128 XFX HD6850  8GB Kingston 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ RevoDrive 120GB (PCI-E) (2) DVD RW/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 3x Acer 21.5" (1920x1080) 
PowerCaseMouse
OCZ StealthXStream 600W Xigmatek Utguard Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
Socrates
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 920 @ 3.6 Biostar TA790GX-128 XFX HD6850  8GB Kingston 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ RevoDrive 120GB (PCI-E) (2) DVD RW/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 3x Acer 21.5" (1920x1080) 
PowerCaseMouse
OCZ StealthXStream 600W Xigmatek Utguard Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 37
What I find interesting and the only abuse of power is South Korea comes out and says Intel gave rebates for not using AMD chips. There have been rumors in the States for years of Intel threatening to short supply pc makers if they used AMD chips. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg and we will start to see more companies stepping up and speaking. After the Pentium 4 though its a mute point AMD just can't compete yet and thats legal.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 @ 4.35 /1.38v Asus P5E3 Pro HD3870 Geil Eco DDR3-1600 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 X233H G15 FSP 550w 
CaseMouse
Bareback (Cases restrict air flow) Logitech G7 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 @ 4.35 /1.38v Asus P5E3 Pro HD3870 Geil Eco DDR3-1600 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 X233H G15 FSP 550w 
CaseMouse
Bareback (Cases restrict air flow) Logitech G7 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Unlike you, I'm not challenging the validity of court rulings JUST because they're not in the mighty/pure/righteous USA. Challenging court rulings would entail you having some logic behind it. You didn't. Don't hate cause you got called out on it.
Ermm, my assertion still stands...

A) You do realize laws vary between countries? Excuse me for not blindly following what others set before me... An example of varying laws -> In Japan the age of consent can be 13 according to the national criminal law code(it actually varies between municipalities and prefectures).
B) "Mighty/pure/righteous USA?" Ad hominem...
C) "Challenging court rulings would entail you having some logic behind it." Supporting court rulings would entail you have a great knowledge of the case and laws involved...

Quote:
Btw i do read the docs that are available.
Which ones?

Quote:
A conflict of interest would be like Intel investigating itself. A senator who *might* have something to gain for his state asking for an investigation *might* be a conflict of interests if he was abusing his power. Asking for an investigation isn't an abuse as 2 other countries found Intel guilty and 1 other is investigating at this point.
A Senator supporting an investigation he likely knows little about so that he can gain political favor does border on "conflict of interest"... That doesn't mean his support for the investigation is invalidated, it just means he may have ulterior motives too...

Quote:
The court documents have been semi-released but all of the actual evidence has been blacked out under court order.
Which documents, the ones in the US or abroad? I keep looking for the court proceedings from Japan and Korea but have found little.
Quote:
You just seem to like to have farfetched specuation. I'm just sticking more to logic at this point.
Man of logic, eh?

I'll say this, I'm a contrarian and given that I'm the only one not getting ready to tar and feather Intel without some supporting evidence I believe I add healthy opposition to what would otherwise be a lopsided thread...
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
Ermm, my assertion still stands...

A) You do realize laws vary between countries? Excuse me for not blindly following what others set before me... An example of varying laws -> In Japan the age of consent can be 13 according to the national criminal law code(it actually varies between municipalities and prefectures).
Now you're just deviating from the point. Do you even know if the laws really are all that differen? If you don't maybe you should just NOT POST. You quote a law that is nothing even remotely close to an anti-trust case as an example. Horrible example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
B) "Mighty/pure/righteous USA?" Ad hominem...
Wow, this is an easy debate. I can't Ad Hominem because you never had any real substance to your point besides the fact that you somehow believe that only the US courts have this thing called 'burden of proof' or 'facts' or 'evidence' and that only the US courts can determine if Intel really did break laws. You conveniently dismissed other countries rulings without a real reason why. If anything, it's not Ad Hominem, I'm summarizing what you're saying. Here is exactly what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm
"Found guilty in other countries" doesn't really mean much, as accusations and conjecture alone warrant a guilty verdict... If there had ever been any solid proof to back the claims that OEMs procured massive "rebates for exclusivity" they would have been leaked to the WWW
Not exactly much different than what i summarized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
C) "Challenging court rulings would entail you having some logic behind it." Supporting court rulings would entail you have a great knowledge of the case and laws involved...
Really?! Are we 5 now?! You're the one challenging the court rulings so how about you tell us why, specifically, then I would offer a support of it, specifically. Are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
A Senator supporting an investigation he likely knows little about so that he can gain political favor does border on "conflict of interest"... That doesn't mean his support for the investigation is invalidated, it just means he may have ulterior motives too...
Again, since HE isn't investigating or involved in any part of the investigation, it's not much of a conflict of interest. Its pretty damn low. With your logic, i could say that the former FTC chief was all in Intel's pocket because he personally blocked an investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
Which documents, the ones in the US or abroad? I keep looking for the court proceedings from Japan and Korea but have found little.
Man of logic, eh?
The EU stuff mostly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
I'll say this, I'm a contrarian and given that I'm the only one not getting ready to tar and feather Intel without some supporting evidence I believe I add healthy opposition to what would otherwise be a lopsided thread...
You haven't added anything. You've just been talking out of your .... making up stuff.

As a matter of fact, you should have just posted this sentence TO BEGIN WITH and left it at that, instead of coming up with your $5.99 paperback trash-novel of how it's one senators ambition to ruin a company to get another in his pocket, so he can eventually rule the world ( or at least NY ).
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 6/6/08 at 6:02pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somenoob View Post
I still don't understand why the OEMs don't get a nice hard slap on the wrist too. They knew what Intel was doing was illegal.
Probably because they knew that the FTC might not even step in and even if they did, eventually Intel would probably get them back through delays, late shipments, faulty chips, etc.

How do you think AMD got their hands on the info in the first place? More than likely it was leaked to AMD through the OEMs.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Duke View Post
Previously the US said there wasn't enough proof to warrant in investigation... even though several countries already found them guilty.

What happened, Intel didn't bribe enough people J/K
Apparently, only the FTC chairman was blocking it. he's gone now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT article
The investigation into accusations that Intel’s pricing policies have been designed to maintain a near-monopoly on the microprocessor market was authorized by William E. Kovacic, the new chairman of the trade commission, and has the support of the agency’s other commissioners.



It reversed a decision by his predecessor, Deborah P. Majoras, who had been blocking the formal inquiry for many months, frustrating other senior commission officials and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
There you go, MasterKromm, other commission officials wanted it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT article
Ms. Majoras is a former senior official in the antitrust division at the Justice Department who was an architect of the Bush administration’s antitrust settlement with Microsoft in 2001. She stepped down two months ago to become the general counsel at Procter & Gamble.
As i was saying earlier, it's far more likely that The old chairman had reasons for delaying the probe. Maybe her future job at Proctor & Gamble, which invests in Intel, had something to do with it? Now THAT would be a conflict of interests. Intel stocks were down 2.7% because of this...wonder if maybe some of the money was siphoned off slowly to minimize the hurt.

P&G also does a lot of business with Intel

http://www.intel.com/products/servic...ter_gamble.pdf

See that right there? That's an example of providing evidence with your speculation. Something you have yet to do Kromm.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 6/6/08 at 6:38pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NYT]FTC Investigates Intel over Antitrust issues