So when was the last time you went to a GM dealership and tried to buy a nissan???

Thats right - you cannot (unless its a used vehicle)

Auto manufactures pay the dealers to sell the cars...

either through cut prices, advertising dollars, warranty work.....

the list goes on....

i don't see GM filing suit against Ford for not playing fair????


AMD has a long history of suing...
Intel seems to be the current target....

AMD is cash strapped and cannot compete -
so they are crying unfair and suing Intel,
IMO - trying to make up for lost bottom line figures???

OK, I'm most likely going to offend some people, but I can't help myself, some people just beg to be FLAMED!

Tony, your a simpleton, your every post proves this. In fact while Sander, and a few of the others attempting to "stick up" for Intel, have marginally valid view points. Your post nothing but heartfelt (this is made quite apparent) Intel "fanboy" drivel, with nothing but misinformed opinions to back your self up with.
YES, I'm an admitted AMD "fanboy", but this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. In fact if the roles were reversed, I would be sticking up for Intel instead of AMD. Consumer loyalty is one thing, but acting in a illegal manner is something else all together.

The majority of your argument (at least till your last few posts) boils down to a few simple facts. Incentive programs are common in all most all industries, and therefore Intel is doing nothing wrong. If the roles were reversed AMD would be doing the same thing. And finally that "AMD is crying, while using the court system as a tool - shame on them!!

<B>If you cannot compete - get out of the market!</B>" Great coding skills by the way.

Your argument would be spot on, except you choose to ignore THE ONE THING THAT CHANGES THE ENTIRE MAKE UP OF THE SUIT. The simple fact that Intel is TARGETING AMD.
Why does that make all the difference? While a company can have an incentive tied to exclusivity, they can't target another brand. Intel can tell big OEMs that if they use only Intel products they will receive better pricing, but they can't tell them that they will receive retaliatory actions if they use AMD products.
And that is what the AMD lawsuit states has and is happening. Big OEMs are basically being bullied by Intel into not carrying AMD products.

One of the things you stated was "AMD - still a cry baby - Intel AND AMD all stipulated that if you don't sell enough of our product to meet your quota, then you will not receive your check - BIG EFFN DEAL, it happens all the time - standard operating procedure."
If you think this is what AMD is accusing Intel of, your totally wrong. Intel is being accused of either refusing to allow the big OEMs to participate in incentive programs, or actually with holding moneys all ready earned through incentive programs, if a big OEM is either shipping or considering shipping an AMD based system. In the first case, where is the so called quota your referring to? The big OEM isn't even allowed to try and meet the quota. In the second, whatever quota (or any other incentive conditions you might think of) your referring to has already been met, and the rebate earned. Intel is withholding the rebate, to pressure the OEMs in question to "toe the line". Again totally different from what your attempting to misrepresent.

As for the concept of advertising. While many people are swayed by an ad campaign, your assertion that that is the only mitigating factor is totally misplaced. If that was the fact, then with any product it's percentage of the available market would be totally based on how much was invested in advertising. It should be readily apparent, that that isn't the case in real life. I live in Canada, and I see a lot of American advertising, but some one like, say Macco, has very little of the Canadian market presence, even though they're one of the only auto body shops I've seen advertising. Why? Because we don't have all that many Macco outlets here, in fact I don't think I've ever seen one.
Availability is just as important as brand awareness. And this what's at the heart of the AMD suit, that Intel has tried to reduce the availability of AMD based systems to the end consumer, by preventing the big OEMs from offering said systems.

At the point where you've been proved an idiot, instead of admitting that Intel is in the wrong you go on to post "Now AMD says the INTEL C++ compiler makes code run slower
on AMD machine.....". First off, if true or not, it has little bearing on the lawsuit in question, and is a pathetic attempt on your part to show AMD in a less then favourable light. Secondly at the heart of that complaint isn't that the compiler is optimized for Intel CPUs, but that it will compile code in a manner that reduces it's efficiency on an AMD CPU. Again obvious TARGETING OF AMD by Intel, if it proves true.

At the heart of your next post is the statement
"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!!!"

As has already been shown by not just myself, but many others, and you still refuse to see.
THE AMD LAWSUIT ISN'T ABOUT INTEL'S INCENTIVES, BUT HOW THEY USED THEM TO BULLY BIG OEMS INTO ONLY CARRYING INTEL PRODUCTS! How you keep missing that point is beyond me, unless of course your a TOTAL IDIOT!

Now as for the rest of that post dealing with how AMD is simply selling a copy of Intel technology, and therefore is basically inferior to Intel. With that type of reasoning, you would have a lot less innovation and product improvements in the market place. Do you only buy Bare Aspirin, over Tylenol, because it was the first pill based pain reliever? I don't think so. But again, this has little to do with the thread. It's about how Intel has being use tactics that are illegal under the anti-trust laws of many countries to attempt to freeze AMD out of the market place. The fact that AMD used the cross licencing agreement between them and Intel to produce a competing product, whether superior or inferior, is totally irrelevant.

You final post shows just how stupid you are.

"So when was the last time you went to a GM dealership and tried to buy a nissan???

Thats right - you cannot (unless its a used vehicle)

Auto manufactures pay the dealers to sell the cars...

either through cut prices, advertising dollars, warranty work.....

the list goes on....

i don't see GM filing suit against Ford for not playing fair????"

I don't know where your from, but though not common, we have dealerships that carry a domestic brand and an import brand on the same lot. Both current model years as well. If you want I'll find some ads, scan them, and post them. As well you'd be surprised just how many people running car dealerships own more then one lot, each one with a different brand, it's fairly common in bigger centres. But again this line of reasoning does nothing but muddy the waters. If GM told a person that they wouldn't get cars because they owned a Ford lot as well, and did this as a general practise, you better believe that Ford would be suing them! Thing is, as far as I know, GM has enough brains to know they shouldn't do it.

As for the possibility that AMD might be cash strapped, don't you think that Intel's unfair market practises might have something to do with that? If that's the case, and AMD can prove it in a court of law, then they'd be foolish not to attempt to seek redress wouldn't they?

In closing Tony, you haven't made one real valid point in all your posts, and with every subsequent post you make your self look more and more the idiot. If I was you I'd stop while I was behind, your giving all the intelligent Intel "fanboys" a black eye.

& listen to him harp about GM losing 1.2 Billion in a quarter, & are about to go "belly up"

PPl have worked their whole lives @ GM, retired, & died, & then their children worked their whole lives @ GM retired, & died, before this "kid" was ever born

General Motors has $50,000,000,000USD in the bank

For those that have never seen a #'s like that, that is $50BILLIONUSD

We aren't talkin' a mom, & pop "startup" like ATI

GM will rake in $2BillionUSD over operating expenses in a quarter, invest $3BillionUSD in 10 new plants, report a loss of a $BillionUSD, & laugh all the way to the bank because the top officers, & stockholders took home their cut "off the top"

ROTFLMAO

OCGW

PEACE

James -
You are 100% correct - in your own mind, and i'm glad to hear your side (slanted, of course) but your side none the less.

Resorting to name calling proves your immaturity and novice tendencies.

Car dealerships have brand loyalty, and brands (manufactures) pay the dealerships
in different ways, some provide signs, some provide better deals - especialy when
they ONLY sell GM (right grandmaster bug?)
but the bottom line is this...

Its all business, and AMD has survived by SUING - its a cheap way to increase
the shareholders ROI.

Do you think Intel makes only CPU's for the PC computer?
NO

Do you think AMD only makes knockoff CPU's for the PC computer?
NO

Do you think that anyone really gives a crap load about it in the long run?
NO (well maybe you and the other AMD zealots do)


so we'll see how it turns out in the courts -
and AGAIN - AMD will cry foul and try to sue again...

same play - over and over and over and over and over again....

kinda like nebraska's football team

Grandmaster Bug...

I think your reply is kinda misleading - to say the least...

GM will invest 2.5 Billion in CANADIAN Operations....
http://email.gmcanada.com/corpdb/cachq/pressrel.nsf/0/245a7af2...enDocument

AND

440 Million in more canadian engine plant...
http://email.gmcanada.com/corpdb/cachq/pressrel.nsf/0/bd0aa495...enDocument

AND

GM Plans to DOUBLE car production in CHINA...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/08/content_337473.htm

AND

New technology means fewer assembly jobs...
http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/bbdeal/bd020819.htm
"The cutbacks will affect assembly plant employees, who make up 4,200 of GM's 7,000 Lordstown employees. "



WAYYYYY to go GM.....

Lets hope YOUR position isn't sent to china -
or the families that depended on the Lordstown plant
can find some work in the surrounding areas....

GM biting the hand that feeds them....

Remember, I am an Automotive Engineer, @ the World famous Warren Techinical Center

I build experimental, prototypes, there is no assembly line, & there ae no production ppl on our campus

You are going to have to learn how to "pay attention to detail", if you ever want to be "gainfully" employed

Duuuuh!!

GM hires thousands of new, talented ppl every year, but you have to have a degree to start, & even after that you will be in the "school of life long learning", it would be the best investment you ever made

& until you can show 1/10 my achievement

That will be OverClockingGrandWizard to you

Who's yo' Daddy?

OCGW

I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, in fact though I haven't posted here for quite awhile, been too busy playing WoW. Any one who has seen my posts in the past will be able to say I very seldom reach the point of name calling. Why in this case? Because even in your post in response to mine, you choose to only respond to what you want to and in the manner you want to. You don't challenge or refute the points made in the posts responding to yours, instead you go off on another tangent, which in no way proves the points made in response to you to be wrong or in error.

To quote you
"Car dealerships have brand loyalty, and brands (manufactures) pay the dealerships
in different ways, some provide signs, some provide better deals - especialy when
they ONLY sell GM (right grandmaster bug?)
but the bottom line is this..."

This was obviously in response to my post about dealerships that have more then one brand on their lot. Could you please explain to me how this proves my point wrong and yours right. Or more importantly how this challenges the original subject of this thread, which was about the AMD/Intel lawsuit

That you don't know how to debate, or even argue if you will, effectively but continue to attempt to "muddy the waters" with your muddy logic, and obvious hate of AMD/GM, plus worship at the Intel alter, is why I feel your an idiot. As well if you must know, as I stated I'm a admitted AMD "fanboy", but this doesn't mean I feel that AMD is an object of worship, nor Intel a object to be vilified. In the same sense I use Microsoft programs, but I'm well aware of MS's short comings, neither AMD nor Intel are perfect. This whole debate centres around one pivot, the lawsuit AMD has filed against Intel, nothing more.

We all get it, you hate AMD, and love Intel. But it doesn't change the facts if proved in a court of law, Intel violated the anti-trust laws, and needs to be brought to heel. That's if we're ever going to have a fair and level playing field in the CPU market place.

P.s. I need to add this as well. AMD did not, nor has not survived by suing as you suggest. AMD did two things, that has allowed them to survive.
First off, AMD supported the socket 7 main boards (and extended it with the SS7 initiative), when Intel had abandoned S7, not too long after it was introduced. By doing this they created the sub $1000 PC market, and IMHO were the major factor in driving down prices on everything to do with PCs. Remember at one time when Intel was the only game in town, a middle of the road PC was $3000+, and top of the line, outrageous.
Secondly, AMD produce the Athlon CPU, which proved to be superior to any thing Intel had to offer at the time. The Athlon has had nothing more then "word of mouth" and great reviews to promote it, and it's still been able to give not only the P3, but early P4s a good run for the money.
Again you "muddy the waters" with opinion instead of facts!
Now Creative on the other hand is the master of surviving by suing.

Yup - appology accepted.

Couple things to straighten out...

I am NOT and Intel fan - I do own an AMD box now (gotta get ready for 64bit)
i did not purchase the unit for fun and games, but to further my knowledge of
the 64 bit world.

I purchased the AMD 386 unit and mobo when it came out a hundred years ago,
so no, i am not an Intel fan.

I do not agree with AMD and the tactics they are taking, file suit on this, file suit on that
file suit on intel C compilers, the list goes on.

As i have stated many times, AMD is suit happy, that seems (IMO) the only way
they can stay afloat and offer ANY kind of production capability increases.

As to refute your comments on muddying the water in my posts, i give examples
in other real world situations where the common practice of giving better deals
to companies that are LOYAL.

Dell has a LOT of money invested in packaging, distribution and advertising tied in
with Intel - that is a FACT.

AMD wants to be compensated for missing the Dell(s) boat...

AMD can continue to sell to gateways and the such all they want,
but the simple fact is AMD cannot compete in more ways than one -
Marketing
Production
Support
Established brand name

AMD cannot do it - so they will die.

I am not a AMD hater, and as I have stated before - i now own a 64 bit AMD unit.

but the fact remains - Intel is WELL within its rights to enforce the
branding and front page advertising -
As for "holding a gun to thier heads" i don't believe that for a single moment -

Paying a visit to a customer - i do beleive that
and if the language does get a little harsh - so be it.

The customer could have left the room at ANY time,
and went with AMD 100% - but the bottom line is MONEY
advertising dollars, branding dollars, kickback dollars
perks - what ever you call it - Intel has it, and Intel used it
to keep the customers HAPPY and in business.

Here is a quote....
"Fujitsu Siemens has never locked out AMD processors in the same way as manufacturers like Dell are alleged to have done, but AMD claimed in its deposition that Intel had convinced Fujitsu Siemens to impose restriction on AMD processors."
http://www.pcw.co.uk/vnunet/news/2139877/fujitsu-siemens-gets-back-amd

IMO - Intel told Fujitsu to push Intel and you get a discount -
This is NOT antitrust by ANY definition,
and If this is ANY indication of the types of material AMD
hopes to use in court - then all your (and now my) dollars are going to get
wasted away by lawyers....


Another Quote -
It also said former Gateway CEO Ted Waitt told AMD that Intel offered him large sums not to deal with AMD.
"I have to find a way back to profitability," the complaint quotes Waitt as saying. "If by dropping you I become profitable, that is what I will do."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/28/technology/amd_intel.reut/


THATS THE BUSINESS

Buy from me, vendor A, close out vendor B and i'll give you extra incentives...

BUSINESS EVERYDAY

People that think this kinda stuff doesn't happen everyday
need to pull thier heads out of the sand and smell the coffee -

<quote>
Remember, I am an Automotive Engineer, @ the World famous Warren Techinical Center
I build experimental, prototypes, there is no assembly line, & there ae no production ppl on our campus
You are going to have to learn how to "pay attention to detail", if you ever want to be "gainfully" employed
Duuuuh!!
GM hires thousands of new, talented ppl every year, but you have to have a degree to start, & even after that you will be in the "school of life long learning", it would be the best investment you ever made
& until you can show 1/10 my achievement
That will be OverClockingGrandWizard to you
Who's yo' Daddy?
OCGW
</quote>


Oh SOOO right - Grandmaster Bug...
The published report for 2004

http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/docs/fin_data/g...pp_03.html

States that GM total net sales was - 193 Million
With Total assets of 479 million

I don't see anywhere that GM has that much in the bank;
maybe you are looking with rosy glasses on -
but the total assets of 479 MILLION is a LONNNNGGGGGG
way off of your bank amount estimate.


Don't let the thought of closing plants -
killing entire communities
moving work offshore
outsourcing and all that other stuff
is basically taking the legs out of the american middle class....



Now go back to your wiring harnesses.

Bankruptcy: An option for GM?

Some analysts say it could help the world's largest automaker shave costs; others say not so fast.
June 8, 2005: 2:57 PM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - General Motors Corp. might be one of the richest troubled companies in history.

The world's largest automaker had $52.6 billion in cash and marketable securities on its balance sheet at the end of the first quarter, even as it was reporting a $1.1 billion net loss. While that cash balance is down about $1 billion from the beginning of the quarter, it's up about $3 billion from where it was a year ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/08/news/fortune500/gm_healthy_hurting/

General Motors Corp. has $52,600,000,000USD CASH MONEY FOOL

ROTFLMAO

Those glasses look rosier than a MF from where I am standing

The #'s you quoted are from GMAC, a subsiderary of General Motors Corp

Back to the grease pits, & friers for you

1 question, are you even intelligent enough to feel stupid @ this point??

OCGW

PEACE

Mr. Farrell,

Whatever you may or may not know about hardware and software, you know nothing about law or basic ethical business practice. You may offer discounts based on volume, but you may not offer incentives to shut out an opponent if you have monopoly market power. You may not use such market power to sell below your cost of production to drive out a competitor. But, you say, Intel is vastly profitable. The marketing agreements employed by Intel allow it to sell their processors at a higher price than Intel, but actually make less than AMD in direct competitive areas due to what amount to bribes, while making huge profits elsewhere. Using these methods to limit AMD's ability to expand over many years has only partially worked, but it has worked sufficiently for Intel's purposes. The only thing that has kept AMD in business is a sufficient patent portfolio to force Intel into cross-licensing, allowing AMD to compete in a monopoly marketplace, which is only possible when one can match the monopolist feature for feature. AMD has done that matching and much, much more, a credit to their creativity and tenacity. Processor by processor, fab by fab, AMD is better and more productive, but monopoly power has limited their market intrusion.

Think of the types of things that Intel has done recently. USB is a perfect example. Compared to IEEE 1394 a and b, USB is a processor dependent piece of junk, and it is not sufficiently cheaper than 1394 to make it worth the lack of flexibility inherent to a client server architecture as opposed to a peer to peer architecture. Only with USB 2.0 has USB even approached the capability of 1394, but head to head, still loses. 1394 b is completely beyond USB's capabilities, but will probably never happen. We will be left with another processor dependent technology that will both slow our computing and hurt the flexibility of our connections. Think again of the awful garbage of the Intel instruction architecture that we have suffered with until very recently. Had we adopted a flexible and powerful instruction set like that of the IBM 360/370 or the Motorola 68000 architecture, our software would be at least a generation ahead of where it is. Of course, it was IBM that gifted us with the twin monopolies, Microsoft and Intel, Wintel as many call it. One monopoly begat two more...certainly not intentionally, but done. If we allow those to drive out all competition, we shall continue to thrash around in the mud for quite a bit longer than we should.

Mr Everett,

>>You may offer discounts based on volume, but you may not offer incentives to shut out an opponent if >>you have monopoly market power.

You may do ANYTHING you want to in business - you are only obligated to the shareholders (if your public)

if your private - you can do ANYTHING you want to - thats the bottom line!

"The only thing that has kept AMD in business is a sufficient patent portfolio to force Intel into cross-licensing"

IBM required a second vendor for the first IBM PC's CPU - thats THE ONLY reason AMD ever got into the x86 market - THE ONLY REASON. (and they reversed engineered it)
INTEL woke up and pulled the plug from AMD - AMD got mad and filed suit.

goto the wikipedi and lookup AMD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD

Intel might see that it is cheaper just to buy off AMD (again)
and shut thier mouths - but i think this one is gunna go all the way
to the courts....

thanks for the spirited dialogs!!

Mr. Farrell,

I believe that you should follow your stated premise. Shortly, we will at least be absolutely sure from where you are posting.

AMD is not normal in their heads.

You cant just sue someone because they market their products better than you do.

AMD has been trying to compete with Intel for years but they just cant cut it, is it because their marketing sucks or is Intels products are just better.

Grandmaster -

you still think GM is the s**t??

4.8 BILLION loss in the fourth quarter

sounds like a ROSEY effn picture to me....

hows the wiring harnesses going?

oh - they are going to china -

ouch

Old thread, but Still!
ROTFLMAO!
Amazing how things work out now isn't it?

Mr. Farrell,

Any business, public or private is subject to the antitrust provisions, and is required to operate within the law. Threatening other corporations with loss of business based on their purchase of equipment from other than you is considered extortion in any world. You are allowed to compete on price so long as you do not consistently leverage a monopoly by using monopoly profits to subsidize your entry into or control of other marketplaces.

As recent political occurrences have reminded us, all are or should be subject to the rule of law. Without that, we are back to the shootouts of the 19th and early 20th century or the rule of the robber barons, where workers could be killed for refusing to work for a company. The modern weapons are different, but the results are the same. Many die or are seriously damaged due to the predatory practices of a few.

blah blah blah

it happens every day in every business

your diatribe about how the 'law' is supposed to take this crap and make everyone play
on a level playing field is so naive, almost to a point of laughter.

i'm sure you are well trained by the professors at your college
and i'm simply positive you think you are correct in you interpitation
of the 'law' as it is 'supposed' to apply in one of your 'worlds' that you referenced.
but the fact is this, plain and simple -
companies offer 'perks' to companies to use thier products -
and sometimes posturing and 'bad boy' attitudes are utilized
when the stakes are very high, such as vendors competeting for
a large market share.

There was a funny movie, with mr. dangerfield, i think it was called
back to school - where the well educated professor was talking his
well versed crap about how to run a business, when mr. dangerfield
told it how it really is in the real world -

maybe a little 'on the street' knowledge on how the engines work
will help you in your lifes journey; but then again, maybe the professors
are right, and us people that deal with this stuff everyday
are wrong.

but here is one thing to keep in mind - do the professors cut you
a check every week to feed your family?

i didn't think so.



best of luck

take care

Mr. Farrell,

I've had forty years in this business since my first computing course at U.T. Austin in 1966. I have no advanced degrees, only years of experience working for many and varied companies within varied industries. I've watched the damage done to the market and to other businesses by those who attempt what you call "'bad boy'" stuff. In the long run, such tactics fail, and the companies involved go belly up or are much reduced, leaving destroyed marketplaces and companies and investors and workers in their wake. Intel has taken a large hit in the most business-friendly of markets, Japan. It is hard to believe that even in the current administration in the U.S., that will not translate into some significant action. We shall see. I'm sure that you can find work with whichever "bad boy" is currently ascendant, and that you will hop to the next if that one goes down. Such sinking ships certainly deserve such as yourself. There is no shortage of cynical opportunists in this world. Whether they live long or die young, it matters little. Their passing is little mourned.

lol