If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Agreement.pdf
*** So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the CPU alone. (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a competitor. (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such agreements at a time. (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this anymore. (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's misrepresentations. (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are optimized for Intel processors only. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 4, 11:10*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre... *** So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the CPU alone. (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a competitor. (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such agreements at a time. (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this anymore. (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's misrepresentations. (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are optimized for Intel processors only. You left out the part where the federal government is dictating details of technology (PCI-X for six years). Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a joke. Robert. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 5, 12:12*am, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:10*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre... *** So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the CPU alone. (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a competitor. (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such agreements at a time. (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this anymore. (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's misrepresentations. (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are optimized for Intel processors only. You left out the part where the federal government is dictating details of technology (PCI-X for six years). Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a joke. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html "We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory for consumers," Joshua Wright, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University Law School in Arlington, Va., wrote in a blog post after Wednesday's decision. U.S. government agency settlements are not always that "meaningful, from a consumer welfare perspective," according to Wright, who also served as a scholar in residence at the FTC. Robert. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
Robert Myers full-quoted:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html "We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory for consumers," Would doing nothing and allowing Intel to continue to strong-arm customers have been better for consumers? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
Robert Myers wrote:
You left out the part where the federal government is dictating details of technology (PCI-X for six years). Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a joke. The joke is that PCIe was foisted on consumers as a replacement for AGP primarily to drive redundant video card and motherboard sales when the reality was that there was a negligible real-world performance increase with the new bus. Do you really want to keep seeing needless forced-obsolescence for your investment in computing hardware? Intel should be forced to support PCIe for 12 years - not 6. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre... *** So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the CPU alone. (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a competitor. (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such agreements at a time. (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this anymore. (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's misrepresentations. (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are optimized for Intel processors only. You left out the part where the federal government is dictating details of technology (PCI-X for six years). So what? Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a joke. Yes of course, monopolistic practices are good for customes -- according to Robert Myers rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 5, 10:13*am, Intel Guy wrote:
Robert Myers full-quoted: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20012636-64.html "We cannot simply assume that the settlement equates to a victory for consumers," Would doing nothing and allowing Intel to continue to strong-arm customers have been better for consumers? I should have quoted the rest: quote Wright sees other potential problems. "This settlement has the FTC getting itself involved in Intel's business arrangements, competitive strategy, and even product design at a remarkably deep level," he said, expressing concern about government micromanagement of Intel business practices. /quote It's a very bad precedent and, yes, it would have been better to have done nothing, if the something included having bureaucrats and lawyers micromanage a business, especially a high-technology business. Robert. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 5, 10:49*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote: Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: http://download.intel.com/pressroom/..._Executed_Agre.... *** So far, I've read that Intel-FTC agreement requires: (1) Intel will allow competitors to use any foundry they like. (2) Intel will not sue a competitor for a year, if that competitor gets sold to a third party, until a new cross license can be negotiated. (3) VIA gets an extension to its Intel license. (4) Intel cannot price a chipset/cpu combo below the the price of the CPU alone. (5) Intel cannot offer discounts based on market share levels. (6) Intel can only offer volume discounts. (7) Intel cannot punish a customer for having a relationship with a competitor. (8) Intel can enter into an exclusivity agreement with a customer, only so long as is required to recoup capital investment for that customer (I think this may refer to Apple). It cannot enter into more than 10 such agreements at a time. (9) Intel cannot give extraordinary lump sum assistance to customers (Dell). (10) Intel cannot degrade the performance of its products in the presence of a competitor's product (GPUs). Unless it's a bug. (11) Intel has to provide an interface roadmap to its competitors. (12) Intel must clearly state that its compilers will not optimize for its competitors' products. It will not be allowed to misrepresent this anymore. (13) It has to reimburse its compiler customers who thought this compiler would work with compatible x86 processors, based on Intel's misrepresentations. (14) Intel has to reveal that the SYSmark and MobileMark benchmarks are optimized for Intel processors only. You left out the part where the federal government is dictating details of technology (PCI-X for six years). So what? Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a joke. Yes of course, monopolistic practices are good for customes -- according to Robert Myers And you don't think the FTC and the European Commission are monopolies? Really, Sebastian, what's written in your history books about the miracles of government-planned businesses and all the munificent benefits they bestow through the intrusive exercise of power? Robert. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
In comp.sys.intel Intel Guy wrote:
The joke is that PCIe was foisted on consumers as a replacement for AGP primarily to drive redundant video card and motherboard sales when the reality was that there was a negligible real-world performance increase with the new bus. And how about today with PCIe Gen2? I'm not a HW guy, but how much headroom remained in AGP, or PCI-X for that matter? Do you really want to keep seeing needless forced-obsolescence for your investment in computing hardware? Intel should be forced to support PCIe for 12 years - not 6. Would you like ISA bus support with that? Given that PCIe Gen1 seems to date to 2004 and it is now 2010, if Intel supports PCIe for another 6 years, it will indeed have supported it for 12 years. IIRC Infiniband is already at 40 Gbit/s, which probably makes for "fun" with a dual-port HCA even in a x8 PCIe Gen2 slot. Dual-port 40 Gbit Ethernet will be equally fun, and haven't the IEEE done the spec for 100Gbit now (or am I getting ahead of them?) rick jones * not clear if first product shipped then or if that was just the spec - I'm going from a Wikipedia article - btw, wikipedia asserted that AGP was from 1997 -- the road to hell is paved with business decisions... these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 8/5/2010 12:12 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
You left out the part where the federal government is dictating details of technology (PCI-X for six years). As I said, those were my initial quick reads. But the PCIe issue is something they did for Nvidia, to give it plenty of time to adjust. Also it falls into the general idea of Intel now having to provide product roadmaps to its competitors. This is generally good because Intel has very recently been playing games with the USB 3.0 specs, first delaying giving them the specs, and then when it finally gave them the specs, it decided that it might want to replace it entirely with some kind of optical link instead. Does nothing but provide instability in the PC standards. Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a joke. Probably really good news for everybody listed above, including you Robert. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel to pull x86 cross-licensing agreement with AMD in 60 days | Yousuf Khan | General | 0 | March 16th 09 08:11 PM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Homebuilt PC's | 47 | November 22nd 06 09:18 AM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Storage (alternative) | 6 | October 15th 06 05:06 AM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | October 13th 06 08:07 PM |
Support contract agreement not met; what does Dell do about it? | Clint | Dell Computers | 8 | April 6th 06 09:06 PM |