[QUOTE=Evilan;19006965]You know for a fact that they're going to ask for damages. Just because they aren't telling the tabloids that they are asking for money, doesn't mean that they won't.
So what they need to do is cut their sales down to a level closer to AMD's? That definitely won't happen.
Obama is going completely socialist and is aiming at hurting the big companies in America. It's too bad Intel has to be his first big target(#60-70 on Fortune 500).[/QUOTE]
Intel broke the anti-trust laws, they got sued in the EU too.
Intel is in a oligopoly not a monopoly, very close to however.
I still want to know what exactly Intel did, I hate vauge articles like this one.
What exactly did they do to their chips to make it [i]"difficult for a competitor, Nvidia, to provide consumers with superior graphics abilities for computer games and video"[/i].
And for those of you confused about how Nvidia is a competitor to Intel (like I was), Intel also provides integrated graphics which are built into the chipsets, Nvidia takes a strong second place in this market as it also provides integrated graphics.
[QUOTE=compwhiziitothemax;19002103]Obama what the fuck are you doing.
[editline]10:06PM[/editline]
This pissed me off the most. It's almost obvious that will over time kill off MySQL for their own product.[/QUOTE]
MySQL is all GPL'd, anybody can just fork it and start it back up again.
I'm a Postgre fanboy though. :smug:
[editline]09:33AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cathbadh;19006595]
They are gonna be kicking themselves in 5 years anyways for sticking with the slow and expensive x86 architectures while ARM comes in from behind and makes a killing making superior and cheaper Cortex processors for the mobile market.[/QUOTE]
As long as Microsoft sticks to only supporting x86, I don't think ARM will get very far unfortunately. :saddowns:
Unless an OS that supports ARM like Linux suddenly overtakes Windows.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19009765]As long as Microsoft sticks to only supporting x86, I don't think ARM will get very far unfortunately. :saddowns:
Unless an OS that supports ARM like Linux suddenly overtakes Windows.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully, Microsoft will get wise and realize there's money to be made on the small scale (ARM CPU architectures).
And hopefully ARM will realize there's money to be made on the Net-top and Netbook side of things.
(ARM and Microsoft would have to talk amongst themselves for this to ever happen)
I feel that Intel gets sued all the time. It's kind of sad, they loose a lot of money that goes to nothing instead of researching and making better processors.
[QUOTE=Blackwater;19009924]I feel that Intel gets sued all the time. It's kind of sad, they loose a lot of money that goes to nothing instead of researching and making better processors.[/QUOTE]
Well they are a shit company to work for. I hated it there, they are slave drivers. Fortunately, it's easy to steal processors on the packaging line. We just say "missing chip." and down the line someone brings one to us. Serves Intel right.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19009987]Well they are a shit company to work for. I hated it there, they are slave drivers. Fortunately, it's easy to steal processors on the packaging line. We just say "missing chip." and down the line someone brings one to us. Serves Intel right.[/QUOTE]
I've never had a single intel processor before, only AMD and I've been happy with it. Price wise I thought AMD was better than intel, but I could be wrong :/
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;19009987]Well they are a shit company to work for. I hated it there, they are slave drivers. Fortunately, it's easy to steal processors on the packaging line. We just say "missing chip." and down the line someone brings one to us. Serves Intel right.[/QUOTE]
That's why Intel has been high up on the best places to work for over 10 years? If you actually did work for Intel, you're probably just pissed you got layed off for budget cuts, rather than being "abused."
[QUOTE=Evilan;19011150]That's why Intel has been high up on the best places to work for over 10 years? If you actually did work for Intel, you're probably just pissed you got layed off for budget cuts, rather than being "abused."[/QUOTE]
That's not saying much. All jobs suck; even the top 10 best jobs suck.
Nobody actually [b]likes[/b] going to work every morning.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19011207]That's not saying much. All jobs suck; even the top 10 best jobs suck.
Nobody actually [b]likes[/b] going to work every morning.[/QUOTE]
Obviously no one does. But the ranking includes benefits, hours, and wages(the main stipulations for working).
Presidents aren't meant to sue people. They're meant to have them killed and then cover it up. :ohdear:
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19011207]That's not saying much. All jobs suck; even the top 10 best jobs suck.
Nobody actually [b]likes[/b] going to work every morning.[/QUOTE]
That's bullshit. If I ever get to a point in my life where I get up in the morning and feel bad about going to work, it's time for me to find a new job.
[QUOTE=gparent;19002474]You could read the damn quoted text and find out.[/QUOTE]
I read it. Nowhere did I see any specifics.
There best sueing microsoft for a shitty OS not the fucking parts manufacturers
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling." - Greeman))[/highlight]
Considering AMD is their main competitor, and considering ATI is owned by AMD, how in the world are Nvidia a competitor for Intel? Don't they just make those awful integrated video cards?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19009765]MySQL is all GPL'd, anybody can just fork it and start it back up again.
I'm a Postgre fanboy though. :smug:[/QUOTE]
It's not that simple. Read this [url]http://monty-says.blogspot.com/[/url]
People in here seem to be igorent of the situation.
AMD and Intel have been involved in two lawsuits...one in Asia, one in Europe. AMD won both anti trust cases.
Intel were bribing companies such as dell and hp to not offer AMD systems, cutting them out of the market. In both Asia and Europe they were found guilty and told to pay AMD damages. The only reason there is not an American court case is that Intel settled that case out of court.
The FTC have since found out that Intel programmed their compiler so that it reduces the power of competitor chips, without telling anyone. So secretly the reason why AMD haven't been carrying the same punch is that they were (according to the FTC) being slowed down by Intel's firmware.
Also the FTC want them to learn something and have a court case in America no matter what the AMD situation is, thus the legal challenge.
Essentially Intel have been using illegal methods to gain market share...and as you can imaging people arn't very happy.
[QUOTE=gparent;19005055]they make more money, means they can pump it on research, means they can come out with better processors.
[/QUOTE]
I hardly see how that's a bad thing.
[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;19015545]People in here seem to be igorent of the situation.
AMD and Intel have been involved in two lawsuits...one in Asia, one in Europe. AMD won both anti trust cases.
Intel were bribing companies such as dell and hp to not offer AMD systems, cutting them out of the market. In both Asia and Europe they were found guilty and told to pay AMD damages. The only reason there is not an American court case is that Intel settled that case out of court.
The FTC have since found out that Intel programmed their compiler so that it reduces the power of competitor chips, without telling anyone. So secretly the reason why AMD haven't been carrying the same punch is that they were (according to the FTC) being slowed down by Intel's firmware.
Also the FTC want them to learn something and have a court case in America no matter what the AMD situation is, thus the legal challenge.
Essentially Intel have been using illegal methods to gain market share...and as you can imaging people arn't very happy.[/QUOTE]
I can corroberate this. Intel did nasty things to much of their technology that basically turned off a great deal of their features when used with AMD hardware. It was internally claimed that this was because features of AMD's chips weren't exactly the same as features of Intel's, and they didn't feel like supporting both, but I've seen the developer documents. With the exception of things like cache cohesiveness, the CPUs are very much the same. Internally (and abstracted away by the programmer interface) are the only real differences.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;19012472]I read it. Nowhere did I see any specifics.[/QUOTE]
Read it again. For real this time. And don't skip the bribing part.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19015638]I hardly see how that's a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Because you cut the rest of the paragraph away.
Intel specializing in drug deals and pumping that money into research wouldn't seem like a bad thing either if you cut out the drug deal part.
[QUOTE=gparent;19015945]Intel specializing in drug deals and pumping that money into research.[/QUOTE]
I still don't see how that's a bad thing.
I cut the rest of the paragraph out because it was almost completely irrelevant. I don't care what they do behind closed doors, they could be running an underground dog fighting ring for all I care, if ostensibly all they're doing is pumping money into research that benefits me and my computing experience, I'm all for it.
[QUOTE=gparent;19015945]Read it again. For real this time. And don't skip the bribing part.[/QUOTE]
"rigged it's microprocessors"
That's the only thing I see regarding anything they did wrong, and I asked what they did with these microprocessors. The only time I see the word bribe or a reference to bribery is in someone [I]elses [/I]post, and I've read the article 3 times now.
[QUOTE=Leat;19003382] No offense guys, just an AMD Fanboy.[/QUOTE]
Why be a fanboy when you can buy whatever it is your budget allows for?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19016465]I still don't see how that's a bad thing.
I cut the rest of the paragraph out because it was almost completely irrelevant. I don't care what they do behind closed doors, they could be running an underground dog fighting ring for all I care, if ostensibly all they're doing is pumping money into research that benefits me and my computing experience, I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]
Do you realize that without AMD technology, Intel would not have the I7?
Intel use AMD patents for multi-core technology, integrated memory controllers and 64 bit technology.
[quote]
The FTC said that its decision to sue Intel comes after a long string of allegations that the company forced and coerced computer manufacturers to use its technologies instead of those made by rival companies.[/quote]
[quote]
"Intel secretly redesigned key software, known as the compiler, in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors' CPU chips," the commission said. "Intel told its customers and the public that software performed better on Intel CPUs than on competitors' CPUs, but the company deceived them by failing to disclose that these differences were largely or entirely due to Intel's compiler design."[/quote]
[quote]
It also follows the news last month that Intel had agreed a $1.25bn settlement with AMD, its major competitor, to bring to an end a series of complaints about its business conduct.[/quote]
Because companies with nothing to hide don't pay off their competitors to drop court cases...
Source: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/16/intel-ftc[/url]
[QUOTE=compwhiziitothemax;19015413]It's not that simple. Read this [url]http://monty-says.blogspot.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
I skimmed the article, but I still don't see the problem. If the code is GPL, nobody can stop you from selling it.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;19017429]"rigged it's microprocessors"
That's the only thing I see regarding anything they did wrong, and I asked what they did with these microprocessors. The only time I see the word bribe or a reference to bribery is in someone [I]elses [/I]post, and I've read the article 3 times now.[/QUOTE]
Damn I feel sorry for you.
[quote]But the FTC on Wednesday alleged that Intel had used bullying tactics and payments to get computer makers such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard to use Intel chips instead of those made by AMD.[/quote]
That fucking dumbass should be fucking shot!
[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;19019155]Do you realize that without AMD technology, Intel would not have the I7?
Intel use AMD patents for multi-core technology, integrated memory controllers and 64 bit technology[/QUOTE]
I never even mentioned AMD.
GO Obama!!!
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;19016465]I still don't see how that's a bad thing.
I cut the rest of the paragraph out because it was almost completely irrelevant. I don't care what they do behind closed doors, they could be running an underground dog fighting ring for all I care, if ostensibly all they're doing is pumping money into research that benefits me and my computing experience, I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]
If intel had proper competition they would make better processors, or AMD would make better processors. Etc etc...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
