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.

On Aug 4, 11:10*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.

On Aug 5, 12:12*am, Robert Myers <rbmyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:10*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.

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?

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.

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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)

On Aug 5, 10:13*am, Intel Guy <In...@Guy.com> 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.

On Aug 5, 10:49*am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s.bez_sp...@remove.this.informa.and.that.pl> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 11:10 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.

In comp.sys.intel Intel Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> 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...

On Aug 5, 5:43*pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I have yet to read that any of Intel's actions caused harm to
consumers (from anyone credible).

As to Intel playing interconnect games, so what else is new?

One of the ironies here is that if Intel *did* keep prices
"artificially high," it would have benefited AMD, who has a hard time
selling chips at a profit.

As to good news for me, I don't see any. A regulatory tax on Intel's
business. More obstacles to innovation. Holding on to PCI-X is *not*
good news.

Fortunately, because of its ruthless business tactics, Intel can just
throw money at things, which means we will soon see photons as a
bigger part of the mix, and not a moment too soon, in spite of the
government (and AMD) interference.

Robert.