News
Breaking: Intel Settles Antitrust Dispute with AMD for $1.25 Billion
Posted 11/12/09 at 09:31:08 AM by Paul Lilly
Comments
Print
Email
Talk about vindication. AMD waited a long time for this day and took a lot of heat from the Intel faithful, but the chip maker finally got it was looking for: a huge settlement.
Finally putting to rest the longstanding antitrust dispute, Intel and AMD announced today a settlement agreement in which Intel will pay AMD $1.25 billion, as well as agree to "abide by a set of business practice provisions." In return, AMD will drop all pending litigation and withdraw all of its regulatory complaints worldwide.
"While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development," the chip makers said in a joint statement.
The dispute dates back to 2004 when AMD filed a case accusing Intel of unfair business practices that entailed snuffing the smaller chip maker out. Intel allegedly offered sizable rebates to key vendors in exchange for either dealing exclusively with Intel, or delaying the launch of AMD products.
While AMD has agreed to take its money and run, Intel might not be out of hot water completely. The settlement doesn't prevent governments from initiating antitrust cases against Intel.
Image Credit: blogs.taragana.com
Please AMD
Submitted by sybert on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 7:40pm
AMD please put that 1.25 bil to good use in something like R&D and not into someones pocket.
Submitted by aerotive on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 3:29pm
I hear crow is being served in Intel's employee cafeteria.
Submitted by TechJunkie on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 2:41pm
OH SNAP!!
Submitted by onewithazureskies on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 11:20am
An important aspect of the settlement, mentioned in the linked cnet article, is that the cross-licensing agreement has been updated to allow AMD to operate as a fab-less company. Intel was going bring litigation against AMD for spinning its fabs off to Global Foundries.
"
The cross-license agreement has been updated to reflect AMD's move to spin off its processor manufacturing business into a separate company, Globalfoundries, which currently is an AMD subsidiary. Under the updated agreement, AMD will be able to operate as a "fabless" processor company--one that relies on others to build its chips. In addition, Globalfoundries "is free to operate independently and go after third-party business without issues," Prairie said.
"
cnet.com
Submitted by DasHellMutt on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 12:13pm
Awesome. I was concerned about that since I hadn't heard any news on it in a while. I am of course an AMD fanboy much to the dismay of my gamer friends who are all Intel.
Submitted by Deanjo on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 10:29am
intel got away lucky with this one they could have been held liable for a lot more then 1.25 Billion.
Submitted by snapple00 on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 9:53am
Don't really care too much about the lawsuit since it is stemming from the reputable EU (sarcasm), but all I know is that intel processors have beaten AMD in speed and efficiency and have better support (in windows at least) for a while now.
Maybe they got there the wrong way, maybe not. As an end consumer, I don't care. If by the time I build a new computer AMD has the better processor, then AMD it is.
It just seems that processors are still getting better and faster, but I don't really need the power, what with PC gaming coming to an end.
Submitted by Scootiep on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 4:09pm
So you're basically saying that, to you as an end consumer, the ends don't have to justify the means. Do you apply this philosophy to all products?Or just to the technologysector. Because guns could be made far more deadly and accurate if they were tested on live targets such as animals and even human beings, but most of us tend to think that the ends there wouldn't justify the means employed.
I'm personally glad for this settlement. The AMD/Intel battle is not as lopsided as you currently believe. AMD has held the upper hand in both performance and efficiency on many occasions. If Intel is engaging in illegal, monopolistic practices to make themselves the stronger company, then how much better do you think AMD's products would be if Intel wasn't allowed to do this. Honestly, IMO, AMD has made just as many technological advances as Intel, many of them far more innovative, all with the 900lb Intel gorilla pushing AMD around. It's about time Intel got smacked around a bit. Maybe now we'll get to see the benefits of some real capitalistic competition in action.
To start press any key...ohh, where's the "Any" key. - Homer Simpson
Submitted by snapple00 on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 9:35am
Rofl.
Hey, I just build computers. I don't go back in history and analyze each company's rights and wrongs before I decide which part to buy lol. Yet somehow you turned this into a philosophical problem.
Maybe next time, even if AMD has the inferior part, I should buy it anyway because they got screwed in the past.
However, I don't understand how you think guns could be made more accurate if tested on live targets? Where would the bullseye be? Would a shot right through the eye mean its good to go?
You soundz like a hippy!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Scootiep on Sat, 11/14/2009 - 10:04am
Wow, you really are ignorent. First off, as many on here have already explained, AMD has had far superior products in the past but because of Intel's underhanded dealings to halt competition, AMD was not able to capitalize on their superiod products. If Intel hadn't been allowed to do this, chances are AMD would either be ahead of intel now, or Intel would've had to produce a much more powerful and efficient products. Because they stifled competition, we all suffered. While you may think I sound like a hippy, you come off as sounding like a completely uninformed individual who simply builds whatever is marketed to him as the most "shiny" option. I "just build computers" too, but I at least use my brain when doing so. Try wrapping your head around this one; if Intel had invested all that "hush" money into R&D, where do you think your glorious Intel machines would be now? I'll give you a very simple answer, lightyears ahead of where you are stuck at now.
As far as the guns comment. This again just show's how ignorent you are. A target such as a bullseye offers no information on how effective the ammunition is at causing damage to a live target, how well a living target recovers from impact, how effective the gun is on an erraticly moving live target, and so on and so fourth. I have not now, nor have I ever been a hippy. The only reason I added the gun analogy was as an attempt to get you to think abstractly. Something you have aptly proven your brain is not capable of.
To start press any key...ohh, where's the "Any" key. - Homer Simpson
Submitted by deismanj on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 4:09pm
This Lawsuit is from 2004, long before the EU got involved. If you paid attention the lawsuit was also about what intel was doing in the P4 and Athlon XP days, and even a Dell exec was quoted for saying the AMD CPUs out performed Intel's in every benchmark and that they were losing customers to keep Intel's bribe's coming in, so Intel icreased them instead of producing better CPUs. This whole thing was about Intel's illegal actions taken to keep AMD out of the market because Intel products could not compete with AMDs. If AMD had not lost all those sales they could very well have more market share than Intel today, not to mention the extra money to invest in better technology.
This settlement is good news for everyone because AMD now has a large sum of money to invest to get their processors up to speed and increase competition between Intel and AMD, providing us customers with better products at lower prices. If you ask me, Intel got lucky with these payouts, they should have been a lot higher.
Submitted by snapple00 on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 9:38am
Nope, you are the dummy.
The whole point of my post, which you totally missed, was that I don't care about the lawsuit. I also don't care about what happened in the 'P4' days, nor do I care what happens in the future. As I said, right now, Intel has the better part.
Thats a really sad story how they got to that position (not), I'll make sure I'm more compassionate when buying lifeless electronics you lonely nerds.
Submitted by LatiosXT on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 9:20am
Considering that most of the PC world runs x86 or some derivative, I would rather have Intel be told to lay off AMD or its other competitors. And considering the shadiness Intel has been of late, I wouldn't want them to have a monopoly on processors. Even if someone came out with something different, well... that'd be like switching to a PowerPC Mac.
With that extra $1.25
Submitted by gendoikari1 on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 8:57am
With that extra $1.25 billion, AMD can just barely afford to buy a Core i9 processor when it comes out.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE Build a Crazy-Fast $647 PCFEATURE Six Single-Band 802.11n Routers ReviewedHOW TOTweak BitTorrent and FirefoxFEATUREClose Look at ClarkdaleWHITE PAPERLCD Panel Technology
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2010 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.
