AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[Robert Myers]

An "ad hominem" argument forces others to defend.

Employees for large corporations frequently are it's harshest
(because most accurate) critics. They see what goes on and are
insulated from personal gain or loss by the size of the corp.
So long as they don't actually reveal specifically confidential
information, the corp has trouble making reprisals, if it is
even aware!

I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument was intended
to impeach the credibility of the speaker with respect to the argument
he was making. It doesn't matter whether Keith (or any other IBM
employee) would be critical of IBM: what matters is the inevitability
that they would regard the myopic view of the world in which they were
immersed as the true, complete, and only view of the world.

The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly everyone
outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly, no matter what memos
circulated inside IBM, long after the 1956 consent decree. The
insistence, here, that IBM was not a monopoly has come from IBM
employees, using an argument based on the legalities to which IBM was
subjected.

Why would someone who *worked* for a corporation be concerned on
whether is was a monopoly or not? Why, based on what rules they had to
follow and what pieces of paper they had to sign, and that's exactly
the view we got here from employees of IBM. Why would the rest of the
world care what rules Keith had to follow or what pieces of paper they
had to sign? The rest of the world cares about how competitive the
market was, and the difference between IBM being dominant and IBM not
being dominant was like night and day... a difference you will _never_
see as an outcome of action against Intel.

As to the "not being disinterested" part, the simple fact is that an
employee of IBM is not a disinterested party with respect to Intel.
IBM has lost jobs and prestige, and IBM employees have lost jobs, job
security, and had things like benefits threatened as a result, and the
success of Intel (and its protege Dell) are a direct cause of those
reversals of fortune. Individual employees of IBM have most definitely
not been insulated from IBM's difficulties, and I can't believe you
think otherwise.

RM

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument
was intended to impeach the credibility of the speaker with
respect to the argument he was making.

The validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility
of the speaker. Validity depends on facts and logic, and not in
the least upon who states them.

Now, if you wish to attack facts (as they do in a court of law),
you are entirely free to do so. Best to attack with other facts.
Attacking the credibility of a reporter is risky for the attacker:

The reporter knows exactly what happened so the accusations
are silly. Their usual reaction is "What a [malevolent] idiot".
Third parties will form their own opinions and again the attacker
risks credibility. Attackers may also be thought to be revealing
their own mental state -- what they would do.

what matters is the inevitability that they would regard
the myopic view of the world in which they were immersed
as the true, complete, and only view of the world.

All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.

The point of contention was my calling IBM a monopoly. Nearly
everyone outside IBM regarded IBM as a successful monopoly,

Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power). What Keith has
very valuably reported is that IBM did not see itself as a monopoly.
It saw enormous outside competition. Glass half empty. This then
greatly reduced monopolistic behaviour, at least in pricing terms.
I think Microsoft (an adjudged monopoly) is in an even more dominant
position today than IBM ever was. Yet even they are afraid
internally (Lotus, Netscape, Oracle, Linux, ...)

As to the "not being disinterested" part, the simple fact
is that an employee of IBM is not a disinterested party
with respect to Intel. IBM has lost jobs and prestige, and
IBM employees have lost jobs, job security, and had things
like benefits threatened as a result, and the success of
Intel (and its protege Dell) are a direct cause of those
reversals of fortune. Individual employees of IBM have
most definitely not been insulated from IBM's difficulties,
and I can't believe you think otherwise.

Ah, but individual employees within a large corp do not
believe they have much power to change their fortunes.
That makes them bystanders and they become disinterested or
even jaded to keep their sanity. Dilbert is _not_ fiction.


Perhaps Intel has cost IBM some jobs (I'm really not sure overall,
share has fallen in a growing market) but do you think any employee
is going to risk their personal credibility for the near-zero
influence they have on their future? Or are you accusing Keith of
being like "he who must not be named" who was shilling high-latency
memory from a patent submariner?

-- Robert

 

[Robert Myers]

I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument
was intended to impeach the credibility of the speaker with
respect to the argument he was making.

The validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility
of the speaker. Validity depends on facts and logic, and not in
the least upon who states them.

Now, if you wish to attack facts (as they do in a court of law),
you are entirely free to do so. Best to attack with other facts.
Attacking the credibility of a reporter is risky for the attacker:

The reporter knows exactly what happened so the accusations
are silly. Their usual reaction is "What a [malevolent] idiot".
Third parties will form their own opinions and again the attacker
risks credibility. Attackers may also be thought to be revealing
their own mental state -- what they would do.

I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but now I'm
going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:

<RM>

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
disinterested party.

<RM>

The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been: I was there,
so I know. My response is: you were there, so you have a very odd
point of view.

All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.

What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar names
is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?

Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power).

Oh, spare me. If *buyers* experienced IBM as a monopoly, it's because
IBM was a monopoly.

Now, some of this got started because Yousuf wanted to hammer away at a
*legal* definition of monopoly, and I've taken the trouble to explore
what that legal definition is and whether or not it has actually been
shown to be met. There is no need to argue about what legal decisions
were handed down with respect to IBM. The decisions are a matter of
record.

This current part of the argument started when I casually commented
that IBM got a great deal of work done when it was a monopoly. If you
want to state that IBM escaped the clutches of the Justice Department
during that period, you are free to do so, and that has been done.
Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a monopoly, it
was experienced that way by customers, and the Justice Department
continued to pursue IBM until the matter was more or less moot because
the market moved faster than the lawyers.

What Keith has
very valuably reported is that IBM did not see itself as a monopoly.

Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee of IBM

It saw enormous outside competition.

Just as Intel sees enormous outside competition. Just as the US
perceives itself hopelessly beleaguered.

Glass half empty. This then
greatly reduced monopolistic behaviour, at least in pricing terms.

You are actually making a version of the argument I was pursuing early
in this thread: there is *always* price discipline, becuase there is
*always* another option. No one ever *had* to buy IBM mainframes.
Just as with avoiding doing business with Gates & Ballmer, there was a
cost to not doing business with Big Blue. That's always true: there
are always other options, and markets usually beat the lawyers to the
finish line. Hooray for markets. That doesn't mean it's unfair to be
calling IBM a monopoly during that period when computer and IBM were
all but synonymous.

I think Microsoft (an adjudged monopoly) is in an even more dominant
position today than IBM ever was.

I agree with that, and that's been part of my point all along. The
anti-trust action against Microsoft was a joke.

Yet even they are afraid
internally (Lotus, Netscape, Oracle, Linux, ...)

Exactly so. Who *cares* how paranoid Gates and Ballmer are, except to
laugh at them? Their assessment of reality just isn't useful as a
guide to anything.

Ah, but individual employees within a large corp do not
believe they have much power to change their fortunes.
That makes them bystanders and they become disinterested or
even jaded to keep their sanity. Dilbert is _not_ fiction.

That doesn't mean they don't resent Wintel for taking away the lifetime
job security they thought belonged to them and their co-workers.

Perhaps Intel has cost IBM some jobs (I'm really not sure overall,
share has fallen in a growing market) but do you think any employee
is going to risk their personal credibility for the near-zero
influence they have on their future? Or are you accusing Keith of
being like "he who must not be named" who was shilling high-latency
memory from a patent submariner?

If I want to accuse somebody of something, I'm capable of doing it
right straight out in unambiguous English, and I most always do. I'm
not accusing Keith of anything I haven't actually said. Keith seems to
think the sensibilities about monopolies he acquired as an IBM employee
are the last word or even a good word on the subject. I don't.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

Get a life, George. Where do you think I found out who Keith's
employer is?

Not from here - most of us know where and for which company he works but
I've never seen it directly spelled out. You did not need to do that.
Even if it's "known" it's still a cheap shot to throw it out... and in a
provocative barb. Didn't your mommy teach you anything?

And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
for Intel.

No, you just own a boat-anchor you're hoping will be recovered from the
deep. Shilling does not necessarily mean current ownership of stock. For
all I know you could be prepping to turn around a dump cycle.:-[]

You, like Yousuf, simply do not know what you're talking about. Either
that, or your desire to hold some particular view of the world
overwhelms your common sense. Intel is never going to bother to sue
you, so it doesn't matter that what you are saying is defamatory and
false, but it is. Intel has agreed to a set of rules for future
behavior. Period.

How can it be defamatory when it's true and spelled out in legal documents
which anybody can read - WISE UP!

As for your making demands of the type "you can do this or you can do
that," just who the hell do you think you are?

There are only two choices: either you believe the AMD accusations as
stated or you don't.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but
now I'm going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:

Thank you. I don't mind being called on anything. I am
far from perfect and am grateful for the chance to correct
misunderstandings I may have caused.

With some people, it undoubtedly does. With you it does not.
Contentious messages are least likely to be misunderstood when
precise and delivered in the framework of the receipient.

This is a rather bald statement. Why would anyone read
newsletters or engage in conversations if they thought they
_didn't_ provide useful information? The problem is it may
be inaccurite, or more likely, incomplete.

I suspect we'll discuss the validity of this below, but valid
or not, it _is_ inflammatory "ad-hominem".

The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been:
I was there, so I know. My response is: you were there,
so you have a very odd point of view.

This is reasonable, but I would add that the IBMer's posts are
valuable data into the mindset and culture of the organization.

What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar
names is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?

No, but that's another ad-hominem. Keith is unfortunately rude
at times. It is not to his credit in my eyes even when personal
attacks make such outbursts understandable.

Oh, spare me. If *buyers* experienced IBM as a monopoly,
it's because IBM was a monopoly.

Buyers and sellers frequently complain about each other.
I have never been either. I used mainframes in the 1970-80s
very heavily for scientific calcs. We used IBM, CDC and UNIVAC.
We recompiled and ran. I only cared for what was fast. One day
I remember some corp buyers dropping by and asking what we wanted
for a new machine. We all said _fast_. One asked if we cared
about brand and the old guy exploded and said "I don't give a sh!t.
I need hardware that will run these 3 hour jobs in 2!" We offered
to write them a benchmark, but I think they left unhappy.

Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a
monopoly, it was experienced that way by customers,

Perhaps with some customers who become locked into IBM
hardware or apps (CICS etc). I would consider them negligent
to be seduced and become dependant on a single vendor.

Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee
of IBM sees IBM? That's my whole <expletive deleted> point.

_I_ care. I care because I believe it gives me valuable insights
into predicting behaviours. I take it as _data_, and I will
make up my own mind about conclusions.

Just as Intel sees enormous outside competition. Just as
the US perceives itself hopelessly beleaguered.

Yes, this seems to be a pattern to keep the organization
focussed. Unfortunately, fear costs.

You are actually making a version of the argument I was
pursuing early in this thread: there is *always* price
discipline, becuase there is *always* another option.
Exactly.

That doesn't mean it's unfair to be calling IBM a monopoly
during that period when computer and IBM were all but synonymous.

It is a little unfair because IBM was not a monopoly for
everyone. Not for the cautious who stuck with COBOL & FORTRAN.
We still run some VAXen. The last of the IBM mainframes was
powered off a few years ago.

I agree with that, and that's been part of my point all
along. The anti-trust action against Microsoft was a joke.

Agreed. I'm not sure what could be done. Breakup might
have been a stinging slap in the face, but it wouldn't
have changed the economics of lock-in.

Exactly so. Who *cares* how paranoid Gates and Ballmer are,
except to laugh at them? Their assessment of reality just
isn't useful as a guide to anything.

As I said above, it is perhaps a guide to their future
behaviours. And those could be quite awesome. So I really
don't want them paranoid.

That doesn't mean they don't resent Wintel for taking away
the lifetime job security they thought belonged to them and
their co-workers.

They might well. Who knows? But pretty much everyone else has
lost lifetime employment as well, so it's not sure who took it.


-- Robert

 

[Robert Myers]

Not from here

*Where*, then do you think I found out? If I recite chapter and verse,
all tucked away now in the google archive, you'll accuse me again of
violating his privacy. Believe me, it's all there.

- most of us know where and for which company he works but
I've never seen it directly spelled out.

Then you missed it, any number of times.

You did not need to do that.
Even if it's "known" it's still a cheap shot to throw it out... and in a
provocative barb. Didn't your mommy teach you anything?

You are beyond bizarre. Whatever my mother taught me, my experience of
life has taught me that making comments about mothers is a prelude to
trouble.

And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
for Intel.

No, you just own a boat-anchor you're hoping will be recovered from the
deep. Shilling does not necessarily mean current ownership of stock. For
all I know you could be prepping to turn around a dump cycle.:-[]

You know nothing, George. You (the one who is accusing me of low
blows) are the one who is making unfounded accusations. I'm not even
sure why I'm responding to you.

How can it be defamatory when it's true and spelled out in legal documents
which anybody can read - WISE UP!

Here is the document with the recommendations:

http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/pressreleases/2005/march/050308intel.pdf

The "facts-findings" are allegations, just as you would see in a
complaint to be heard at a hearing or trial. There has been no hearing
or trial, and the allegations will have to be defended by whoever
wishes to pursue them: AMD, in this case.

If a document summarizing the final regulatory action has been made
public, I can't find it.

At this point, you, Yousuf, AMD, or anyone else would be completely
safe in saying that the Japan FTC alleges that... That would be
exactly the same as saying that a prosecutor alleges that..., and it is
not the same (in US law, at least) as a fact being presumptively true
(Intel is guilty).

There are only two choices: either you believe the AMD accusations as
stated or you don't.

What I don't believe are your misinterpretations of Japan FTC's
actions. AMD wants to pursue them, fine, let AMD pursue them. I'm not
the judge or the jury and neither are you.

Your comment about racketeering reminds me of the first time RICO was
used against McDonnell Douglas over bribes to foreign government
officials. M-D had a terrible reputation as an employer, and I never
much cared for the airplanes: I din't like M-D. But neither did I
think it particularly appropriate to have James McDonnell humiliated in
that way. Call me whatever you like. I didn't own any M-D stock or
have a DC-3 in my backyard. I just didn't like it, and I'm not
thrilled about what's happening with Intel. And I don't like your
attitude.

RM

 

[Del Cecchi]

I didn't regard the argument as ad hominem. The argument
was intended to impeach the credibility of the speaker with
respect to the argument he was making.

The validity of an argument does not depend on the credibility
of the speaker. Validity depends on facts and logic, and not in
the least upon who states them.

Now, if you wish to attack facts (as they do in a court of law),
you are entirely free to do so. Best to attack with other facts.
Attacking the credibility of a reporter is risky for the attacker:

The reporter knows exactly what happened so the accusations
are silly. Their usual reaction is "What a [malevolent] idiot".
Third parties will form their own opinions and again the attacker
risks credibility. Attackers may also be thought to be revealing
their own mental state -- what they would do.

I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but now I'm
going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:

<RM>

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
disinterested party.

<RM>

The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been: I was there,
so I know. My response is: you were there, so you have a very odd
point of view.

All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.

What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar names
is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?

Probably true. But majority opinions do not make a fact.
Monopoly has a legal definition (pricing power).

Oh, spare me. If *buyers* experienced IBM as a monopoly, it's because
IBM was a monopoly.

That's funny. The US Government tried for 20 years to prove this in
court and couldn't. They got tripped up by the definition of relevant
market. The government wanted to make it the market for 370 compatible
mainframes. The judge didn't agree.

Now, some of this got started because Yousuf wanted to hammer away at a
*legal* definition of monopoly, and I've taken the trouble to explore
what that legal definition is and whether or not it has actually been
shown to be met. There is no need to argue about what legal decisions
were handed down with respect to IBM. The decisions are a matter of
record.

This current part of the argument started when I casually commented
that IBM got a great deal of work done when it was a monopoly. If you
want to state that IBM escaped the clutches of the Justice Department
during that period, you are free to do so, and that has been done.
Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a monopoly, it
was experienced that way by customers, and the Justice Department
continued to pursue IBM until the matter was more or less moot because
the market moved faster than the lawyers.

What pricing power? Ever hear about the value of an amdahl coffee cup?
The government was unable to prove any of this stuff. We are
supposed to take it as self evident based on your assertion?

Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee of IBM



Just as Intel sees enormous outside competition. Just as the US
perceives itself hopelessly beleaguered.

Intel sees enormous outside competition? You have evidence for this?
It sees fields it does not dominate, that what you mean?

The US doesn't see itself as "hopelessly beleagured, in my opinion. It
does see itself, justifiably, as under attack. You do remember the WTC,
right?
nips

 

[Del Cecchi]

snip


They might well. Who knows? But pretty much everyone else has
lost lifetime employment as well, so it's not sure who took it.


-- Robert

They blame a lot of folks but I never heard anyone blame Intel. John
Akers and his crew are my personal choice. Ask some oldtimers about
AMSROUND FORUM on IBMPC.

 

[George Macdonald]

*Where*, then do you think I found out? If I recite chapter and verse,
all tucked away now in the google archive, you'll accuse me again of
violating his privacy. Believe me, it's all there.

Any excuse to wriggle out of a fact?

Then you missed it, any number of times.

Certainly Keith does not advertize it and as long as I've been here, has
tried to be discreet on the subject. ISTR that someone else may have let
it slip a coupla times; that does not endorse you adding it to your arsenal
and blurting it out.

You are beyond bizarre. Whatever my mother taught me, my experience of
life has taught me that making comments about mothers is a prelude to
trouble.

Here's how it works: if you want to use someone's place of employment
against them, you'd better be ready to reveal some of your own details,
otherwise, you're just another cheap cowardly pretender. You don't even
appreciate what "bizarre" means!

And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
for Intel.

No, you just own a boat-anchor you're hoping will be recovered from the
deep. Shilling does not necessarily mean current ownership of stock. For
all I know you could be prepping to turn around a dump cycle.:-[]

You know nothing, George.

Learn that one at the err, Debating Society did you?:-[]

You (the one who is accusing me of low
blows) are the one who is making unfounded accusations. I'm not even
sure why I'm responding to you.

You're responding because you cannot resist some fundamental urge to defend
the reputation of suspected scoundrels, who have taken no action to defend
or deflect the charges. Your behavior here stinks of shilling - stock
ownership or not.

Here is the document with the recommendations:

There are other documents which you apparently haven't read... the AMD
complaint for one, which contains vivid descriptions of the rackets Intel
indulged in in Japan.

http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/pressreleases/2005/march/050308intel.pdf

The "facts-findings" are allegations, just as you would see in a
complaint to be heard at a hearing or trial. There has been no hearing
or trial, and the allegations will have to be defended by whoever
wishes to pursue them: AMD, in this case.

There was no hearing or summary phase because Intel tacitly confessed by
accepting the recommended changes to policies. By not proceeding further,
the JPFTC opened the door for the injured party to collect the damages.

If a document summarizing the final regulatory action has been made
public, I can't find it.

At this point, you, Yousuf, AMD, or anyone else would be completely
safe in saying that the Japan FTC alleges that... That would be
exactly the same as saying that a prosecutor alleges that..., and it is
not the same (in US law, at least) as a fact being presumptively true
(Intel is guilty).

U.S. law has nothing to do with this, nor U.S. legal normalcy of
proceedings. From my POV, basically Intel took something similar to the
"no contest" option equivalent in U.S. law.

What I don't believe are your misinterpretations of Japan FTC's
actions. AMD wants to pursue them, fine, let AMD pursue them. I'm not
the judge or the jury and neither are you.

Nice deflection but, once again, caught "in the slips".:-[] You know
nothing about JP law but are able to determine that I have
"misinterptretations" of it.Ô_õ

Nobody here is pretending to be the judge and jury - you OTOH seem to be
intent on disrupting any discussion of issues with irrational,
ill-informed, opinionated chafe.

Your comment about racketeering reminds me of the first time RICO was
used against McDonnell Douglas over bribes to foreign government
officials. M-D had a terrible reputation as an employer, and I never
much cared for the airplanes: I din't like M-D. But neither did I
think it particularly appropriate to have James McDonnell humiliated in
that way. Call me whatever you like. I didn't own any M-D stock or
have a DC-3 in my backyard. I just didn't like it, and I'm not
thrilled about what's happening with Intel. And I don't like your
attitude.

Ditto on your attitude. What's new?

What you consider "appropriate" for M-D, Intel or anybody else and whether
you "like it" has little bearing here. IMO the racketeering "shoe" fits.

 

[Robert Myers]

You're responding because you cannot resist some fundamental urge to defend
the reputation of suspected scoundrels, who have taken no action to defend
or deflect the charges.

Why should Intel give AMD the publicity it wants by trying the case in
the press?

I don't feel any need to defend the executives of Enron or Woldcom. I
think that both SCO and its laywer are scoundrels. I don't have any
urge to defend them. I'm prepared to learn that I was wrong about SCO.
Maybe they _do_ have a case, and we just haven't seen it yet, but I
don't think so.

The airplane business, to get back to McDonnell Dougles, is a brutal
business. I'd be simply amazed if bribery in the sale of airplanes has
stopped. Somehow or other, somebody is making bribes in certain
situations, or somebody else is getting the sale. It doesn't matter
whether I like it or not or whether I think it's right or wrong or not.
If the US catches people in the act and brings them to justice under
US law, it also doesn't matter whether I like it or not or whether I
think it's right or not. But I don't have to like it, and it doesn't
have anything to do with any special fondness for some corporation or
other. I tend to want to be as tolerant as possible when people are
forced into situations like that (make a bribe or don't make a sale,
when you know that _someone_ is going to make a bribe, so you lose
business to a competitor, and, unlike the mafia, you are selling a
respectable product).

There are lots of players in the business of selling things right now
that I don't much care for: Wal-Mart and Dell, for example. As much as
I dislike Dell, they have successfully pushed the commodity model to
the palce where everyone expected it to go. Lots of people could have
done it, but they actually did it, and lots and lots of computers are
being sold at very low prices. Capitalism and free markets at work.

Intel marketing has been a driver for turning computers into
commodities. They understand what it takes to get vendors to move
merchandise, and they do it. AMD wants to argue that Intel's
aggressiveness was aimed at eliminating AMD as a competitor. Intel
will argue that its aggressivenss has been aimed at increasing sales
and nothing else.

Where does the truth lie? You think you know. Someone inside Intel
marketing looks at the number of units a vendor is selling and says,
"We want all those sales and more." What's wrong with that? If the
intent is simply to drive AMD out of business, it's clearly illegal.
You think such distinctions are easy to make. I don't.

It's as difficult to make regulated markets work as it is to make
central planning work. The rules, very clearly, are being made up as
we go along. The only really free market is just that: you let people
go out there and do whatever they have to do, short of violence, theft,
and fraud, and may the better competitor win. That this mid-world of
self-righteous losers in the competition would be the heroes of
proponents of free markets is a puzzle to me.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

Why should Intel give AMD the publicity it wants by trying the case in
the press?

Well what we have so far are just the initial rumblings of the err,
approaching storm. The "publicity" is coming, at Intel's preference or not
- the point will be reached where silence on specific issues is
self-incriminating.

Intel marketing has been a driver for turning computers into
commodities. They understand what it takes to get vendors to move
merchandise, and they do it. AMD wants to argue that Intel's
aggressiveness was aimed at eliminating AMD as a competitor. Intel
will argue that its aggressivenss has been aimed at increasing sales
and nothing else.

Bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct supplier/customer
relationship, and "stealing" AMD systems off their promotional floor space
is more than aggressive. It's depriving the public of a choice - I don't
think most people will be too pleased at those revelation.

Hi-jacking industry standards groups and blocking membership is sure to
make those admitted wonder when it might be their turn.

Where does the truth lie? You think you know. Someone inside Intel
marketing looks at the number of units a vendor is selling and says,
"We want all those sales and more." What's wrong with that? If the
intent is simply to drive AMD out of business, it's clearly illegal.
You think such distinctions are easy to make. I don't.

No, I don't think I "know" any more than you do. All I do say is that AMD
appears to have a strong case... pointless to argue on that -- clearly

It's as difficult to make regulated markets work as it is to make
central planning work. The rules, very clearly, are being made up as
we go along. The only really free market is just that: you let people
go out there and do whatever they have to do, short of violence, theft,
and fraud, and may the better competitor win. That this mid-world of
self-righteous losers in the competition would be the heroes of
proponents of free markets is a puzzle to me.

Nobody needs to be self-righteous - it is redundant when faced with
rascals. Payola is not illegal - people just shun those who indulge in it
when they learn the truth. When that Payola includes an order to "cease &
desist" from competitive offerings, it amounts to a great ad for the
targeted competitor... an admission of fear of that competing product's
excellence. Intel can't win on the PR side of this.

 

[Robert Myers]

Well what we have so far are just the initial rumblings of the err,
approaching storm. The "publicity" is coming, at Intel's preference or not
- the point will be reached where silence on specific issues is
self-incriminating.

No need to speculate about it here. My google news-o-meter keeps
telling me that comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is a real hot spot for
interest in this case, but if it starts showing up in ways that matter,
it won't be hard to tell.

Bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct supplier/customer
relationship, and "stealing" AMD systems off their promotional floor space
is more than aggressive. It's depriving the public of a choice - I don't
think most people will be too pleased at those revelation.

Hi-jacking industry standards groups and blocking membership is sure to
make those admitted wonder when it might be their turn.

Intel throws it weight around. The most powerful player always does.
France is fond of berating the US for the way it throws its weight
around in international forums, but when France was the dominant player
in world affairs, it played the game of diplomacy in exactly the same
way.

No, I don't think I "know" any more than you do. All I do say is that AMD
appears to have a strong case... pointless to argue on that -- clearly
you're not going to sway my opinion nor me yours -- but you do.<shrug>

I feel as if I had been forced to continue pursuing an argument that
isn't all that interesting to me because you keep implying that I have
some kind of dark motive or that I am somehow so perversely loyal to
Intel that I can't see that I am defending a bad position.

As I've pursued the argument, though, some things about the argument
have emerged that really do interest me: "competition" as opposed to
"monopolies" isn't an obvious win for "competition," "competition"
doesn't necessarily always benefit consumers, regulation to create a
"free" market necessarily creates a market that isn't free, especially
when the rules are ad hoc and ex post facto.

In the end, though, none of that will matter to a court case, which
will be determined on technical considerations that will probably leave
all of us shaking our heads in bewilderment. It's the prospect of such
an outcome, hard on the heels of the Microsoft grand waste of taxpayer
resources, that leaves me unenthusiastic about seeing more productive
resources going into the pockets of lawyers who will settle nothing.
Microsoft is more profitable than ever.

Beyond that, I believe that you are incorrectly interpreting what has
happened in Japan, but I've put all my arguments forward and I don't
think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to
consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion
about what's happened so far. Don't hold your breath waiting for a
summary judgment.

RM

 

[Felger Carbon]

...I don't
think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to
consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion
about what's happened so far.

That sounds an awful lot like "everybody's out of step but me",
Robert.

 

[Robert Myers]

That sounds an awful lot like "everybody's out of step but me",

And what is the significance of a poll of a self-selected group? If it
were up to csiphc regulars, there would be no need for AMD to sue
Intel. As the sales numbers show, csiphc isn't representative of much
of anything, except its own obsessions.

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

No need to speculate about it here. My google news-o-meter keeps
telling me that comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is a real hot spot for
interest in this case, but if it starts showing up in ways that matter,
it won't be hard to tell.

Self-fulfilling meter IYAM.

Intel throws it weight around. The most powerful player always does.
France is fond of berating the US for the way it throws its weight
around in international forums, but when France was the dominant player
in world affairs, it played the game of diplomacy in exactly the same
way.

<sigh> For the umpteenth time, the question the court must answer is if
it's more than throwing "weight" around. Ford, GM and even Chrysler at one
time, throw their weight around.

I feel as if I had been forced to continue pursuing an argument that
isn't all that interesting to me because you keep implying that I have
some kind of dark motive or that I am somehow so perversely loyal to
Intel that I can't see that I am defending a bad position.

You're just so persistent about it - if you were as disinterested as you
want to suggest, I don't see how you'd be so defensive of Intel.

As I've pursued the argument, though, some things about the argument
have emerged that really do interest me: "competition" as opposed to
"monopolies" isn't an obvious win for "competition," "competition"
doesn't necessarily always benefit consumers, regulation to create a
"free" market necessarily creates a market that isn't free, especially
when the rules are ad hoc and ex post facto.

If there were no competition we'd be in a sorry state. The above Ford
et.al. are kept quasi-honest by competition. Maybe you'd like Cuba?

In the end, though, none of that will matter to a court case, which
will be determined on technical considerations that will probably leave
all of us shaking our heads in bewilderment. It's the prospect of such
an outcome, hard on the heels of the Microsoft grand waste of taxpayer
resources, that leaves me unenthusiastic about seeing more productive
resources going into the pockets of lawyers who will settle nothing.
Microsoft is more profitable than ever.

M$ had *no* real tangible competitor. By the time the court case rolled
around it was too late for even the alternate network companies.

Beyond that, I believe that you are incorrectly interpreting what has
happened in Japan, but I've put all my arguments forward and I don't
think I have any chance of getting you or anyone else here even to
consider the possibility that you have made an incorrect conclusion
about what's happened so far. Don't hold your breath waiting for a
summary judgment.

I'm not holding my breath for anything - I'm looking forward to the
(multiple) proceedings with interest.

 

[Robert Myers]

That's funny. The US Government tried for 20 years to prove this in
court and couldn't. They got tripped up by the definition of relevant
market. The government wanted to make it the market for 370 compatible
mainframes. The judge didn't agree.

You keep coming back to what the JD did or did not manage to prove in
court. My whole point is that the history of these anti-trust actions
as I know them has been an exercise in arbitrariness and near futility.

I'll happily stipulate that IBM always had competition, in the same
sense that I keep repeating that there is always competition.

IBM had a market dominance in mainframe computing for over two decades.
Every sizeable organization that I was involved with in that period
had one, if only to print W-2 forms and to do whatever else it is the
beancounters do. The change from when IBM had that market dominance to
when it didn't was obvious from every conceivable perspective: manager,
worker-bee, investor, customer, busybody in a bar. If you don't want
to characterize the pricing power that IBM had during that period as
the same pricing power that a monopoly would have, then don't, but I
do.

What pricing power? Ever hear about the value of an amdahl coffee cup?
The government was unable to prove any of this stuff. We are
supposed to take it as self evident based on your assertion?

You don't have to take my word for anything. You're hung up on what
the Justice Department could and could not prove. As to my saying
anything defamatory about IBM (it was a monopoly), I'll happily
stipulate that the JD never managed to nail IBM after 1956. What I'm
stating would fall into what I'm confident my lawyer would tell me is
opinion. Your opinion is apparently different from mine.

Intel sees enormous outside competition? You have evidence for this?
It sees fields it does not dominate, that what you mean?

If you were responsible for maintaining the gross margin numbers at
Intel, I suspect you would see the outside competition as "enormous."

The US doesn't see itself as "hopelessly beleagured, in my opinion. It
does see itself, justifiably, as under attack. You do remember the WTC,
right?

Oh, "hopelessly beleaguered" was rhetorical overkill. I don't know
what I should have said, instead.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

Thank you. I don't mind being called on anything. I am
far from perfect and am grateful for the chance to correct
misunderstandings I may have caused.


With some people, it undoubtedly does. With you it does not.
Contentious messages are least likely to be misunderstood when
precise and delivered in the framework of the receipient.


This is a rather bald statement. Why would anyone read
newsletters or engage in conversations if they thought they
_didn't_ provide useful information? The problem is it may
be inaccurite, or more likely, incomplete.

What are you doing here but pecking at me? I said that corporate
newsletters and water cooler conversation don't necessarily provide
useful information. I didn't say the information was always useless to
the point where no one would seek it. You want to edit what I write so
I say exactly what you want me to say? You're not get that privilege,
and neither do you have the right to attack your misstatement of what I
wrote as if I had written it. Why are you doing this?

I suspect we'll discuss the validity of this below, but valid
or not, it _is_ inflammatory "ad-hominem".

I thought it _very_ understated. We disagree, apparently.

This is reasonable, but I would add that the IBMer's posts are
valuable data into the mindset and culture of the organization.

But it is the mindset and the culture of that organization. The only
party that should matter in protecting free markets is the customer.

No, but that's another ad-hominem. Keith is unfortunately rude
at times. It is not to his credit in my eyes even when personal
attacks make such outbursts understandable.

Excuse me? You're telling me that yes, some people are biased, but
that someone who is "more intelligent and observant can transcend." I
almost never even respond to name-callers, but I'm supposed to give
such a person consideration as someone who can factor out his own
biases? You are demanding a suspension of judgment on my part that
defies belief.

And you are accusing me of ad hominem in stating my reason for refusing
to do so when the question at hand _is_ the character of the speaker
(those who are capable of transcending their own biases--or not).

Perhaps with some customers who become locked into IBM
hardware or apps (CICS etc). I would consider them negligent
to be seduced and become dependant on a single vendor.

Oh, _come_on_. People are still using decades-old Cobol programs for
heaven's sake. IBM was the master of vendor lock, and you cannot blame
customers for being unwilling to risk overturning the apple cart to
save a few bucks on computer hardware.

_I_ care. I care because I believe it gives me valuable insights
into predicting behaviours. I take it as _data_, and I will
make up my own mind about conclusions.

It might make interesting conversation, but the only thing that matters
is whether markets can deliver competitive options to customers.

It is a little unfair because IBM was not a monopoly for
everyone. Not for the cautious who stuck with COBOL & FORTRAN.
We still run some VAXen. The last of the IBM mainframes was
powered off a few years ago.

I don't see it as particularly a bad thing that IBM had that kind of
pricing power. IBM's vendor lock wasn't particularly attractive, but
it didn't last forever, anyway. The more we pursue this subject, the
less enthusiastic I become about anti-trust regulation. Historically,
markets have been pretty efficient at disciplining enterprises that try
to abuse customers.

Agreed. I'm not sure what could be done. Breakup might
have been a stinging slap in the face, but it wouldn't
have changed the economics of lock-in.

I don't know what to do about Microsoft. Splitting the Office from the
OS was the only remedy that would have mattered in the slightest.

As I said above, it is perhaps a guide to their future
behaviours. And those could be quite awesome. So I really
don't want them paranoid.

They were *born* paranoid. That's why they're so successful.

They might well. Who knows? But pretty much everyone else has
lost lifetime employment as well, so it's not sure who took it.

Resentments are almost never rational.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

<sigh> For the umpteenth time, the question the court must answer is if
it's more than throwing "weight" around. Ford, GM and even Chrysler at one
time, throw their weight around.

You threw in an issue (participation in industry standards groups) that
has nothing to do with the court case. I responded with an observation
about the universality of the behavior you are objecting to. Now you
say that whether the behavior is universal or not has nothing to do
with the court case... but then, neither did the issue you brought up
in the first place.

You're just so persistent about it - if you were as disinterested as you
want to suggest, I don't see how you'd be so defensive of Intel.

I'm making a lame attempt to bring what I perceive to be a little
reality into a wildly skewed conversation.

If there were no competition we'd be in a sorry state. The above Ford
et.al. are kept quasi-honest by competition. Maybe you'd like Cuba?

Well, no. If someone can have people thrown in jail or executed for
competing, it will never work. Is Intel hiring hit men or something?

M$ had *no* real tangible competitor. By the time the court case rolled
around it was too late for even the alternate network companies.

And why do you imagine the AMD case against Intel will be any more
successful?

RM

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

What are you doing here but pecking at me?

I most certainly am. And I apologize. But you do not seem
to understand how you could be perceived as offensive by Keith.
Continually pushing negative viewpoints without remit, particularly
in personally sensitive areas, will do nothing but escalate an
argument without resolving anything.

I said that corporate newsletters and water cooler
conversation don't necessarily provide useful information.
I didn't say the information was always useless to the point
where no one would seek it.

This latter is what might cause less friction.

You want to edit what I write so I say exactly what you want

Most certainly not! I merely wish to make you aware
of how what you do say may be perceived differently
than you mean it.

me to say? You're not get that privilege, and neither do
you have the right to attack your misstatement of what I
wrote as if I had written it. Why are you doing this?

You didn't seem to understand why Keith was so upset.
Or did you actually mean to insult and provoke him?

I thought it _very_ understated. We disagree, apparently.

Yes, we disagree. I would hope that could be done without
becoming disagreable.

But it is the mindset and the culture of that organization.
The only party that should matter in protecting free markets
is the customer.

Agreed. However, how can one protect the customer without
some insight into the possible and likely avenues an
organization will use?

Excuse me? You're telling me that yes, some people are biased,

Who is misstating now? I don't much mind, because there are
often misunderstandings. What I said is that _ALL_ people are
biased by local effects. Strength and direction variable.

but that someone who is "more intelligent and observant can
transcend." I almost never even respond to name-callers, but
I'm supposed to give such a person consideration as someone who
can factor out his own biases? You are demanding a suspension
of judgment on my part that defies belief.

Ah, we get to the core of the argument: Merely because someone
loses their temper and resorts to name-calling does not make
them globally unintelligent or unobservant. Merit is not a
single scale, but an N-dimensional vector. Considering only
a single attribute is nothing but prejudice towards the others.

And you are accusing me of ad hominem in stating my reason

Yes. see previous para.

for refusing to do so when the question at hand _is_
the character of the speaker (those who are capable of
transcending their own biases--or not).

I would suggest that attacking character is best done as it
is in court -- with questions. Not assertions. Allow the
subject to hang himself. Often, they will!

Oh, _come_on_. People are still using decades-old Cobol programs
for heaven's sake. IBM was the master of vendor lock, and you
cannot blame customers for being unwilling to risk overturning
the apple cart to save a few bucks on computer hardware.

I most certainly can and will blame customers for swallowing
IBM bait. These are not unsophisticated consumers, but DP
professionals. They knew, or ought to have known, what they were
getting into. Ironic. The saying was "No-one got fired for buying
IBM" when the reality ought to have been "Anyone who commits to
IBM without a valid long-range analysis should be fired."

The more we pursue this subject, the less enthusiastic I
become about anti-trust regulation. Historically, markets
have been pretty efficient at disciplining enterprises that
try to abuse customers.

Agreed. I think the biggest effect of the thread Subject:
(AMD antitrust suit on Intel) will not be the judgement. It
will be Intel customers seeing how other customers got better
deals. If AMD wishes to avoid the charge of greenmail, this
had better come out in evidence even though Intel would pay
dearly to settle and keep it private. But the suit will hurt
Dell (I presume Intel's most-favored customer) far worse.

I don't know what to do about Microsoft. Splitting the
Office from the OS was the only remedy that would have
mattered in the slightest.

Agreed, and I'm not sure how much that would have done.

They were *born* paranoid. That's why they're so successful.

I don't think so. Look at early MS history (back to MITS).
Everything Gates has done is in response to earlier errors.
Lucky they were small, and the industry growing.


-- Robert

 

[Robert Myers]

I most certainly am. And I apologize. But you do not seem
to understand how you could be perceived as offensive by Keith.
Continually pushing negative viewpoints without remit, particularly
in personally sensitive areas, will do nothing but escalate an
argument without resolving anything.

_What_ is personally sensitive here? Keith has an identifiable bias
and I called attention to it.

This latter is what might cause less friction.

I don't understand the simple English meaning of that sentence or how
it relates to what I said.

Most certainly not! I merely wish to make you aware
of how what you do say may be perceived differently
than you mean it.

That's a problem that's inherent in human communication.

You didn't seem to understand why Keith was so upset.

And to make the statement seem sufficiently unattractive, you had to
misstate it.

Or did you actually mean to insult and provoke him?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Yes, we disagree. I would hope that could be done without
becoming disagreable.

Disagreeable? I don't know. I am annoyed as hell. No one likes to
get beaten up in a barroom brawl, and, as to being misperceived, you
don't seem to understand that I might see you, at this point, as just
another member of the mob.

Agreed. However, how can one protect the customer without
some insight into the possible and likely avenues an
organization will use?

Trying to dive into how an organization sees itself in a market it
dominates seems like an utterly useless exercise, unless you are doing
a study in organizational psychology. I mean, how would you react to
someone from Microsoft pontificating about monopolies? It might be
amusing to listen to, but could you keep from giggling?

Who is misstating now? I don't much mind, because there are
often misunderstandings. What I said is that _ALL_ people are
biased by local effects. Strength and direction variable.

I don't understand why this detail is so important to you, except that
you are apparently in nit-picking mode.

Ah, we get to the core of the argument: Merely because someone
loses their temper and resorts to name-calling does not make
them globally unintelligent or unobservant.

Of course not. But what we're talking about the ability to transcend
bias, not whether someone who loses their temper and resorts to
name-calling can nevertheless sometimes make accurate observation or a
good point. Someone who becomes emotional to the point of using
unambiguously offensive language in an argument doesn't strike me as
someone who can reliably factor out their own bias.

Merit is not a
single scale, but an N-dimensional vector. Considering only
a single attribute is nothing but prejudice towards the others.

I chose a point about the speaker's behavior that could easily be
verified, that's all.

Yes. see previous para.

You can say: your reasoning is faulty. You can't say: you are
inappropriately discussing the qualities of the speaker (ad hominem)
because the qualities of the speaker _are_ the subject of the
conversation.

I would suggest that attacking character is best done as it
is in court -- with questions. Not assertions. Allow the
subject to hang himself. Often, they will!

_You_ demanded a defense. I am to defend myself by asking questions
about Keith?

I most certainly can and will blame customers for swallowing
IBM bait. These are not unsophisticated consumers, but DP
professionals. They knew, or ought to have known, what they were
getting into. Ironic. The saying was "No-one got fired for buying
IBM" when the reality ought to have been "Anyone who commits to
IBM without a valid long-range analysis should be fired."

Either you're younger than I thought or you're just not thinking
straight. There just were not that many choices. Not choosing IBM was
like deciding not to use Micrsoft Office would be today. Keeping
intellectual property in the proprietary format of any vendor (IBM or
Microsoft) may seem wildly shortsighted, but deciding to do otherwise
may not even be possible in some corporate environments.

Agreed. I think the biggest effect of the thread Subject:
(AMD antitrust suit on Intel) will not be the judgement. It
will be Intel customers seeing how other customers got better
deals.

You really think people don't understand what's going on?

RM