I have to agree with OCGW AMD did sue on behalf of intel's threats to other OEM's which is wrong lets stick to facts.

Thx Somba

My analogy is there are 2 grocery stores in your neighborhood, 1 usually has a sale on meat on Thursdays, the other has a sale on fruit on Saturdays

How would you like it if the store owner w/ the "good prices" on fruit to tell you that if he sees you go into the store w/ the "good prices" on meat that you were no longer welcome in his store?

That would be bulls**t wouldn't it?

Some ppl say "that's business", but the anti-trust laws were written to protect the CONSUMER's "right to choose", & to prevent "price fixing" amongst competitors

& to prevent Big Corps. from unfairly eliminating competition, because it leads to stagnation of progress

OCGW

PEACE

<quote>
Sean, Alienware is a very small PC manufacturer, w/ low sales #'s, & a high profit margin
They are not even on Intel's radar
Intel was telling the major players, like Dell, they would hold back there shipment of thousands of cpu's if they started selling AMD based PC's too
</quote>

PALLLEEEZZZEEEE

If Dell didn't make the quota of selling Intel based systems - then YES, by all means,
hold back the shipments, and ship them to another builder that CAN move the
product...

Blah Blah Blah -

AMD is showing thier true colors -
Basically they are trying to sell a COPY of a product in
a market that is dominated by the company that created the original
product in the first place... and now they are crying unfair!!!


Let me put it another way.......


I write a word processor that does pretty much EXACTLY
the same thing that MS Word does.
Market it with LESS marketing material,
sometimes charging more,
sometimes charging less -
and when it comes down to users going to
a store that sells ONLY MS products
and purchasing MS only products -
I file suit against MS for forcing the companies
that sell MS products that will not allow me to sell my
product at thier store?

come on people - you cannot possibly think
that AMD stands a chance in hell of winning this suit??

<edit>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD
</edit>




BTW - AMD REVERSE ENGINEERED the 8080 in 1975

In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of the 8086 and 8088 processors. IBM wanted to use the Intel 8088 in its IBM PC, but IBM's policy at the time was to require at least two sources for its chips. AMD later produced the 80286, or 286, under the same arrangement, but then Intel cancelled the agreement in 1986, and refused to hand over technical details of the i386 part. The growing popularity of the PC clone market meant Intel could produce CPUs on its terms, rather than IBM's.

However, AMD challenged this decision, and subsequently won under arbitration. A long process of legal dispute followed, that only ended in 1991, when the Supreme Court of California finally sided with AMD, and forced Intel to pay over $1 billion in compensation for violation of contract. Subsequent legal disputes centered on whether AMD had legal rights to use derivatives of Intel's microcode. Rulings were made in both directions. In the face of uncertainty, AMD was forced to develop 'clean room' versions of Intel code. In this fashion one engineering team described the function of the code, and a second team without access to the source code itself, had to develop microcode that performed the same functionality.

Jerry Sanders could have closed the company and retired at this point; instead in 1991 AMD released the Am386, its clone of the later Intel 80386 processor. It took less than a year for AMD to sell a million units. AMD's 386DX-40 was very popular with smaller, independent clone manufacturers. AMD followed in 1993 with the Am486. Both sold at a significantly lower price than the Intel versions. The Am486 was used by a number of large OEMs, including Compaq, and proved popular, but again was just a clone of Intel's processor technology. But as product cycles shortened in the PC industry, cloning Intel's products became an ever less viable strategy for AMD, as it meant their technology would always be behind Intel.

On December 30 1994 the Supreme Court of California finally formally denied AMD rights to use the i386's microcode. Afterwards AMD and Intel concluded an agreement the details of which remain largely secret, which gave AMD the right to produce and sell microprocessors containing the microcodes of Intel 286, 386, and 486. The agreement appears to allow for full cross-licensing of patents and some copyrights, allowing each partner to use the other's technological innovations without charge. Whatever the exact details, no significant legal action has resulted between AMD and Intel since (until the 2005 antitrust suits in Japan and the US), and it evidently provided a form of 'clean break.'



Please people - understand - AMD is a RIP OFF
they have NO original products to sell
they have NO original ideas - they are
MUD SUCKERS that only survive with the help of LAWYERS and Judges.

They cannot compete in a free market -
they cannot ramp up manufacturing to keep pace with Intel.

Lets look at it from another angle...

I am starting a white box computer company...
there are two chips on the market right now.
Intel
AMD

Intel can supply me with ALL the chips i need -
AMD offers promises, excuses and failed products -


WHO AM I GOING TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH?

thats right - INTEL

If Intel wants me to do an exclusive in exchange for some advertising dollars
and marketing material - HELL YES I'LL SIGN!

And i'll sell 10 intel boxes to your 1 AMD

"PALLLEEEZZZEEEE

If Dell didn't make the quota of selling Intel based systems - then YES, by all means,
hold back the shipments, and ship them to another builder that CAN move the
product..."

Are you stoned? LOL

OCGW

PEACE

perhaps -

but the post stands.

So you are to telling us that you would have preferred to have a market where Intel, a complete monopoly now given your absurd wishes, is selling us chips that are on the verge of being prohibitively expensive ('cause they could, and they use to), and include such "goodies" as, unique CPU serial number, DRM, and who knows what else to spy and control on our internet/computer experience. I tried to be as impartial as I could over the AMD versus Intel war, and criticize AMD where I think it needs to, but not for a minute did I ever questioned the benefits of competition in the CPU area. You, my friend, need to give your head a really hard shake, and reread what you post. Unless you are Satan, owner of Intel or something.

Your proud on that waste of bandwith?

OCGW

PEACE

LOL!!!

You guys are a riot!

>>How would you like it if the store owner w/ the "good prices" on fruit to tell you that if he sees you go into >>the store w/ the "good prices" on meat that you were no longer welcome in his store?
That is 100% the store owners RIGHT to refuse service!
It is HIS/HER store - he/she is capable and well within his RIGHTS to do whatever he/she wants!
And me, as a consumer of products that they sell, can either
a) apologize and beg to be allowed to continue shopping the in the store
b) go to another store

THATS WHAT MAKES THE WORLD GO AROUND!



>>Your proud on that waste of bandwith?
you read, and responded... pot calling the kettle black???
(p.s. i love your outfit...)

As for the Intel vs. AMD "war"
there isn't one - AFAIK

AMD is crying they cannot compete (and IMO never will be able to)

They simply cannot do it -

They don't have the cash to expand, they don't have the sales to support
an infrastructure to deal with the volume that intel provides.

Let me pose this question...

Why did APPLE select INTEL over AMD???

My answer (and only my answer) is because AMD is not able to produce a
chip fast enough (manufacturing time only) as INTEL can.
Speed wise - i'm sure they can stretch the x86
core to accomplish the task - but how long will it take,
and if, and that is a HUGE if, IF they can do it all, what will
Apple sell in the mean time -

Thats right - nothing.

So Apple is SMART for going with Intel - and AMD will hurt as
a result of it - again.

but maybe AMD will do a reverse engineer of the processor that
Intel will be SELLING to Apple and in a few years can produce
a chip that will FORCE all existing Apple/Intel users to change the
motherboard, video card and perhaps the memory - just to say they are
using the AMD processor for the Apple???

Not very cost effective - wouldn't you say???

Therefor - AMD will once again (as they always have) cry to the judges
and cry to the courts for anti trust and anti compete judgements
and hope that the winnings will once again keep them in business.

I see you never studied law, shame

When I went to high school, criminal law, & civil law were required courses

(before getting my degree in Automotive Engineering)

OCGW

PEACE

Cmon ppl, i dont understand what the buzz is all about, first off, intel rips off everyone who buys from them, So what if AMD clones the intel chip, its cheaper and just as fast, now i may not be a genius but good savings always have attracted me. I hope AMD gets intels money, i hope intel ends up looking like a fool and the overpriced cpus they sell exposed for the inferior chips they are!

-NinjaQuick-
AMD 3000+ 754
ASUS K8V-X
1 gig Kingston Value Ram 2-2-3-6
200 Gb seagate 133
ATi Radeon 9800 pro @ 420/670

Dell blows who cares

GO AMD!

">>How would you like it if the store owner w/ the "good prices" on fruit to tell you that if he sees you go into >>the store w/ the "good prices" on meat that you were no longer welcome in his store?
That is 100% the store owners RIGHT to refuse service!
It is HIS/HER store - he/she is capable and well within his RIGHTS to do whatever he/she wants!
And me, as a consumer of products that they sell, can either
a) apologize and beg to be allowed to continue shopping the in the store
b) go to another store"

Refuse service on what grounds? And shouldn't we thankful there's another store to go to?
Your thought process borders on the absurd.
Yes Apple chose on the basis of more guaranteed supply, so what does that prove exactly? That Intel has the ability to supply more chips? Is that something that was a state secret or something? Also, Apple is not exactly a mainstream OEM you know. Until the ipod their success was very limited.

As a company AMD needs to make future projections on demand and their ability to supply that demand, and reinforce their manufacturing ability accordingly. That is hard enough. Intel using their unfair monopolistic advantage to constantly throw a wrench in their plans makes it almost impossible! This lawsuit aims to take the Intel threat out of the equation, until Intel comes up with a better chip design that is.

Oh, and for your reference please follow the link below. If Intel knew it was not in the wrong why would they reverse their position on this?

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21503796

Well - grandmaster bug - since you like to throw stones...
i can see why GM is about to go belly up...

As to the store owner refusing to serve you - it doesn't matter
why the reason, i've seen people refused service because they
are wearing JEANS...
If they don't want to service you - they don't have to.
PERIOD

But to be fair to grandmaster bug -

He works for GM (AFAIK)
GM copied ideas from Ford so on and so on...
I own a Nissan...

So i'm being hipocritical - GM and Ford are "american" automobiles assembled in a foriegn country,
and my nissan was almost 100% made in and assembled in USA.
So if Ford and GM are the equivelent of Intel
then my Titan is the equivilent of AMD...

But you don't see Nissan running to the courts filing suit
against GM and Ford....

neither do i

What did GM steal from Ford

Plus who cares about ford GM has Cadillac

also companies cant refuse service to ppl becuase they r wearing jeans unless they have a dress code

I am going to write another pointless statement for people to read. Then I can babble on endlessly about the difference between AMD and Intel. Do you want to drive a '69 Baracuda or a '67 Camaro they will both sound really load and peel out. Who does care about AMD or Intel all I care is that the company I but the CPU from will be in business as long as the warranty is good.

AEC-396
eight-way opteron system running at 2.6GHz a piece
six 230GB SCSI III 10,000RPM HDs
24GBs of ram

p.s.---You cannot beat a Cadillac!!! Unless you live in England and spend three or four hundred thousand.

AMD used Intel's architecure for the x86 and such.
Intel is using AMD's 64 bit architecture, after their own attempt failed.

Intel and other companies used IBM's architecture ("IBM CLONE" was a big phrase a decade or two ago).

MS and APPLE stole code from XEROX.

All these LIES people tell.

Yes, companies had battles over code, architecture, and etc.

WHY? Were they stealing? NO.
They were trading coders!

The individual PEOPLE who worked for those companies were JOSTLED AROUND so much between the different companies that no company had any exclusive right to the code - no one company was the first to have the ideas. The ideas came from the programmers they employeed. Court cases were held, rulings were made - usually in favor of whichever company rolled out a real product first.

Now, for the current lawsuit, Intel was offering good deals on their chips, AS LONG AS companies didn't buy AMD chips. That's illegal.
It's illegal.
ILLEGAL.

There's no "that's business" side to it - it's illegal because it results in market stagnation, price fixing, and a big SCREW JOB for consumers.

If you defend INTEL, why not defend MS in all of their cases? I sure as hell defend MS more than I do Intel - as it's easier to load up Linux on a PC instead of MS than it is to rebuild and configure systems and motherboards and everything. The distributors were much more at fault in MS's case than in this case. Dell and everyone else got SCREWED by Intel, and in the end, so did 90% of the consumers.

Hi Tony Farrell

You are a funny kid

GM, about to go "belly up"? you need to "lay off" the wacky tobacky for a while, it will stunt your growth

GM is 10x bigger than your GOD Intel

GM has been doing business for 103 years 1902-2005

GM is such a large part of the US economy, if they were "in trouble", the government would "bail us out" like they did Chrysler

But, so what if they did go "belly up", I am a "made man" kid

I actually left Ford Motor Co. to make more money in a smaller Engineering firm (Utica Products),

When walked into Utica Products to apply, they looked @ my education-, & my experience & said "Can you start today"

I left Utica Products for a more lucrative position in GM Engineering

You see, once you have an education, (& experience) they can never take that from you

I don't work on the "assembly line", I design assembly lines

I got my education son

You gotta' get yours kid, it will be the best investment you will ever make

Trust me on that 1

Going off "half c**ked", w/ nothing but your "feelings", doesn't cut it in the big leagues

ps. Even the name of this thread is ignorant, this law suit has nothing to do w/ AMD trusting Intel

Anti-trust laws are to protect the "PUBLIC TRUST", & if you don't know what that is "google it up", that can be your homework for tonight

OCGW

PEACE

SombaSan and Farrell,

This is a travesty. If Intel does not build special chips for Dell or HP or IBM, then they are not going to build special chips for Apple, which constitutes less than 5% of the marketplace.

"Please people - understand - AMD is a RIP OFF
they have NO original products to sell
they have NO original ideas - they are
MUD SUCKERS that only survive with the help of LAWYERS and Judges."

This only shows Mr. Farrell's complete lack of base level technical knowledge. AMD's technology has always been leading edge. They have gotten more processing out of fewer cycles and with less silicon at lower prices than Intel
could dream of, that is to say, as a cost effective set of processors, AMD has always been ahead. Now, they have moved ahead on an absolute basis. Also, Intel did not just give them that cross-licensing agreement. Intel needed patents that AMD owned. Now, Intel is following AMD's lead in 64 bit technology, albeit so poorly that they have done their best to block comparative benchmarks. Their MP technology is so flawed that it will inevitably fall flat on it's face at any price. No, because of Intel's monopolistic practices, they have accumulated enormous fab space, but not superior fab space. AMD has already shown the ability to bring 3rd party vendors up to their specification, and I suspect that, as their market percentage increases, they will both increase their fab space and use those 3rd parties.

Most of the Intel lead in image processing is based around cheating they do in their industry standard compilers, not in the intrinsic power of their processors. This can be seen by low level examination of the instruction operations and the pipeline structures. There is some slight advantage to their absolute clockspeed lead, but even that is narrowing quickly. Intel cannot make their extended pipeline problems vanish, no matter what they do. Building multiple pipelines and keeping them coherent is costly, in silicon and in heat budget and in complexity. Long pipelines take longer to refill on a stall than short pipelines, and that cannot change. Intel's only real hope of regaining actual parity without some form of cheating that will be detected in the long run is to go back to the Pentium M architecture and push it to 64 bit and MP. It is the only thing that they have that fits in heat budget and pipeline length. It appears that they may actually be doing that, but only time will tell.

Yup, your right Grandmaster Bug....

Your resume is very impressive,
you can start by cleaning the grease pits,
and next year, you'll move up to fries, and that is where the big money is!


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/21/business/gm.php

General Motors' domestic problems have been laid bare by its second-quarter earnings, its third consecutive losing quarter, as surging sales in June did not translate into profits.


On Wednesday, GM reported a $286 million overall loss in the second quarter, compared with a $1.4 billion profit a year earlier. That was mainly because of trouble in its North American automotive operations, which reported a $1.2 billion loss in the quarter, compared with a $355 million profit a year ago

$1.2 BILLION LOSS in the quarter
$1.2 BILLION LOSS in the quarter
$1.2 BILLION LOSS in the quarter

Are you a CEO of Intel or something? GM is a giant that's loosing out to foreign companies making a better quality product, just like Intel. So bad, bad, bad example, even if the guy works there.
Intel has played big brother long enough, and those in the know will make sure they won't in the future. You watch.