AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[Robert Redelmeier]

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

Yes, but more: you accused him of indulging it, of not
being able to see past it. In sort, of unprofessionalism.
I was not surprised to see him react.

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

I was saying you might have caused less friction had you
written that the newsletters & conversation had some value.

When did you stop beating your wife?

I will take your response as a strong statement that you
do NOT mean to provoke or insult Kieth.

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.

Oh dear. Do you really see yourself under attack? This must
feel very uncomfortable, and I assure you I intend no such
discomfort. I try to separate discussing ideas and actions
from judgements of core personality.

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?

I assure you, I would be most interested in such a talk, and
take it extremely seriously. So would many others. There's
quite an industry of MS-entrail readers.

Excuses and justifications are often more interesting than a
simple repetition of known facts. There are so many different
ways to lie that the direction becomes interesting.

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.

I believe that's an unjustifiable correlation [prejudice].

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.

Only with respect to the verity of facts presented. I did
not see you disputing facts, only conclusions. The character
of the speaker is irrelevant to the logic of his arguments.

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

??? no, I was suggesting that you question Keith while
he was still talking with you (in this thread?).

Either you're younger than I thought or you're just not
thinking straight. There just were not that many choices.

I remember the 1970s quite clearly, and the large schism
between scientific and business computing, particularly on the
subject of IBM computing. There _were_ choices (even for biz),
but they were unpalatable because development costs that had
been credited as "saved" would have to be paid.

Not choosing IBM was like deciding not to use Micrsoft
Office would be today.

Not hardly. Far fewer users & apps. A DP dept to potentially
retrain vs 70+% of many corps.

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. Some jumped at the bait. How could they later
complain with any semblence of justice. Many were warned.
Should they be protected from their abject stupidity?

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

I don't know. I presume people read here because they feel
that will learn something. I take them at their own judgment.

Personally, I don't think I fully know what is going on. I see
various actions that have multiple explanations. I don't see
everything, nor know all the possible explanations. But in time,
more things will happen and "what's going on" may become clearer.


-- Robert

 

[George Macdonald]

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.

It's in the complaint. Obviously you have not read it and *obviously* I
reject your claim of universality... can you not read? Run around in
circular arguments if you want - it won't help.

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

NO, it's obvious even to a casual observer that you are running
"interference".

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?

Ask Intel about their hit-men... though certainly bag-men is right up their
street.

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

AMD has the clearly better product. Even the companies which have been
victims of the rackets have decided to rail against the "cease & desist"...
except Intel's retail arm: Dell.

 

[George Macdonald]

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.

People here are mostly technical, who get enthusiastic for the superior
technology, performance/$ and performance /watt... apart from apparently
you and yet... you claim to value technology. When challenged on this you
take a position of ignorance since you have obviously not looked at the
details of the AMD CPUs because you choose to ignore them with prejudice.

Nope, the only obsession here is yours.. to defend the reputation of a
company with inferior product and which has soiled its err, name.

 

[Robert Myers]

It's in the complaint. Obviously you have not read it and *obviously* I
reject your claim of universality... can you not read? Run around in
circular arguments if you want - it won't help.

This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous
hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it. *You*
made a comment about how players in the industry would react to Intel's
behavior in industry standard groups. How industry players will react
will not be settled by a judge or a jury, and it doesn't matter whether
Intel's behavior is in the complaint or not. One way of predicting how
they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar
situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their
dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it
because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret
is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an
enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so.

AMD has the clearly better product. Even the companies which have been
victims of the rackets have decided to rail against the "cease & desist"...
except Intel's retail arm: Dell.

That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has
a better product."

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

People here are mostly technical, who get enthusiastic for the superior
technology, performance/$ and performance /watt... apart from apparently
you and yet... you claim to value technology. When challenged on this you
take a position of ignorance since you have obviously not looked at the
details of the AMD CPUs because you choose to ignore them with prejudice.

Nope, the only obsession here is yours.. to defend the reputation of a
company with inferior product and which has soiled its err, name.

At this point, I feel only as if I were defending myself.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

Yes, but more: you accused him of indulging it, of not
being able to see past it. In sort, of unprofessionalism.
I was not surprised to see him react.

My comment on the subject, which I have now posted twice, said
(exactly) that his knowledge of monopolies as the employee of a
monopolist was not a credential for discussing monopolies. You can
easily read into that the further thought that he has an odd point of
view, or is biased. Given the opportunity, I stated it as, he had an
odd point of view, not that he is biased. Pressed on the subject, I
have said that I do not Keith to be the kind of person who can see past
his own biases.

I will take your response as a strong statement that you
do NOT mean to provoke or insult Kieth.

No, I did not mean to provoke him. Nor was the purpose of my post to
insult him. It is very hard for me to disagree with Keith without his
acting insulted.

Oh dear. Do you really see yourself under attack? This must
feel very uncomfortable, and I assure you I intend no such
discomfort. I try to separate discussing ideas and actions
from judgements of core personality.

You're kidding, right? I'm tempted to turn this into a short story.
If I *were* in a bar, I'd have been out the door long ago, looking in
the rear view mirror to see if anyone was following me.

I assure you, I would be most interested in such a talk, and
take it extremely seriously. So would many others. There's
quite an industry of MS-entrail readers.

Excuses and justifications are often more interesting than a
simple repetition of known facts. There are so many different
ways to lie that the direction becomes interesting.

But would you take the explanations seriously as commentary on the
effect of monopolies on markets?

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.

I believe that's an unjustifiable correlation [prejudice].

You are entitled to your opinion.

Only with respect to the verity of facts presented. I did
not see you disputing facts, only conclusions. The character
of the speaker is irrelevant to the logic of his arguments.

The character of the speaker is relevant to deciding whether the
speaker can factor out his own biases. You said that some speakers can
"transcend." I gave just one characteristic of Keith as evidence as to
why I don't expect him to "transcend."

??? no, I was suggesting that you question Keith while
he was still talking with you (in this thread?).

The original sentence to which you took offense was phrased as a
question.

I remember the 1970s quite clearly, and the large schism
between scientific and business computing, particularly on the
subject of IBM computing. There _were_ choices (even for biz),
but they were unpalatable because development costs that had
been credited as "saved" would have to be paid.

Yup. And businesses do *not* have to use Microsoft now, but it's
damned hard not to.

Not hardly. Far fewer users & apps. A DP dept to potentially
retrain vs 70+% of many corps.

Your engineer's perspective is deceiving you. The dusty decks of
technical applications are history. Mainframe apps of decades ago are
still in use for fear of bringing down a house of cards. The technical
equivalent is NASA in the market for 8086 processors because that's
what some test rig for the shuttle uses.

Agreed. Some jumped at the bait. How could they later
complain with any semblence of justice. Many were warned.
Should they be protected from their abject stupidity?

The issue, I thought, was my characterizing IBM as a monopoly, not
whether regulatory action would have been justified or helpful. One of
the surprises of this thread for me is to find myself agreeing with the
logic of commentators from places like the Cato Institute in that I
have a hard time imagining how regulation will help. I see the net
effect of regulation as adding uncertainty and cost--not a view that
arises from any kind of dogmatic belief in the inherent badness of
government.

I don't know. I presume people read here because they feel
that will learn something. I take them at their own judgment.

Personally, I don't think I fully know what is going on. I see
various actions that have multiple explanations. I don't see
everything, nor know all the possible explanations. But in time,
more things will happen and "what's going on" may become clearer.

I may not know everything that's going on, either, but it will be very
hard to surprise me.

If Intel really were keeping a stranglehold on a market through
marketing tactics, that would be interesting to understand, but it will
take decades to sort that out, if it ever is sorted out--and the answer
to that question is different from the likelihood of AMD getting
anything like what it wants out of its lawsuit against Intel.

My opinion is that AMD isn't going to get much out of this action, but
my single opinion is at least as useless as any other single opinion in
the matter.

RM

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

said (exactly) that his knowledge of monopolies as
the employee of a monopolist was not a credential for
discussing monopolies.

By the same token, nor is it any sort of disqualification.
Or perhaps you only wish to hear one side?

Pressed on the subject, I have said that I do not [see] Keith
to be the kind of person who can see past his own biases.

This is apparent. Do you see how that could be considered
very insulting?

You're kidding, right?

I'm not kidding. If I were, I'd use a smiley which I've
slowly come to regard as just as important as punctuation.

I'm tempted to turn this into a short story. If I *were*
in a bar, I'd have been out the door long ago, looking in
the rear view mirror to see if anyone was following me.

Then do the cyberspace equivalent by not responding.

But would you take the explanations seriously as
commentary on the effect of monopolies on markets?

Absolutely. I do not feel comfortable making up my mind
until I've heard both sides, and preferably well enough
that I'm capable of debating either postion with equal force.
Then it boils down to a question of values and preferences.

The character of the speaker is relevant to deciding
whether the speaker can factor out his own biases.

Biases only matter with respect to reporters of facts when
those facts cannot otherwise be corroborated. Otherwise,
in logical everyone can be biased and it doesn't much matter.

You said that some speakers can "transcend." I gave just
one characteristic of Keith as evidence as to why I don't
expect him to "transcend."
The original sentence to which you took offense was
phrased as a question.

I think you misread. I answered your question.
And I haven't taken the slightest offense.
I am not so weak as to be easily offended.

Yup. And businesses do *not* have to use Microsoft now,
but it's damned hard not to.
Agreed.

Your engineer's perspective is deceiving you. The dusty
decks of technical applications are history. Mainframe apps
of decades ago are still in use for fear of bringing down
a house of cards. The technical equivalent is NASA in the
market for 8086 processors because that's what some test
rig for the shuttle uses.

Yes, I well aware of legacy apps, and how difficult it is to
replace a running system. The first automation took most of
the benefits. Any upgrade has far fewer to claim. What
is often successful at my co is a claim on reliability.

The issue, I thought, was my characterizing IBM as a monopoly, not
whether regulatory action would have been justified or helpful.

Yes, IIRC, this is how the thread started. And it might have
proceeded less contentiously had you simply agreed with Keith that
IBM was not an adjudged or agreed monopoly, but was still very
much viewed as one by many customers and competitors. I very
much doubt he could have disputed that. OTOH, contention isn't
necessarily bad. I _am_ sorry you feel beat up.

One of the surprises of this thread for me is to find myself
agreeing with the logic of commentators from places like
the Cato Institute in that I have a hard time imagining how
regulation will help. I see the net effect of regulation as
adding uncertainty and cost--not a view that arises from any
kind of dogmatic belief in the inherent badness of government.

Yes indeed. A very valuable insight. On closer examination,
I find many things to be the exact opposite of first appearances.

For instance, this AMD lawsuit might benefit Intel [sic]
enormously. A reasonable settlement would be for Intel to
post prices and be audited for conformance. That would
eliminate the complaints. But it would also help Intel.
Their sales[wo]men would have to stand firm against purchasor
pressure. All purchasors would know they're getting as good a
deal as their competitors. Nice, transparant market.
Dell might actually have to build some AMD machines!

My opinion is that AMD isn't going to get much out of this
action, but my single opinion is at least as useless as
any other single opinion in the matter.

I haven't formed an opinion yet. I see lots of possibilities
on both sides, but frankly I have trouble seeing what AMD could
get other than ephemeral cash that would qualify as a win.

-- Robert

 

[George Macdonald]

At this point, I feel only as if I were defending myself.

.... obsession!

 

[George Macdonald]

This is tiresome, especially with your incessant self-righteous
hostility and demeaning language, but I'm going to stay at it.

You mean you cannot see how provocative and inflammatory some of your
remarks have been?

*You*
made a comment about how players in the industry would react to Intel's
behavior in industry standard groups. How industry players will react
will not be settled by a judge or a jury, and it doesn't matter whether
Intel's behavior is in the complaint or not.

Change your mind... again? In the previous post you seemed to think it
important enough to make a point that the issue of industry standard groups
had nothing to do with the court case. Anybody, including industry
standard group members and you, can read the complaint. If you disagree
with that I dont care - just don't try to weave a veil around the facts.

One way of predicting how
they will react is to look at how human behavior goes in similar
situations: Dominant players are always viewed as abusing their
dominance, but less dominant members of the group put up with it
because they don't have much choice. That's life. No enormous secret
is going to be revealed, and behavior won't change. Or maybe an
enormous secret will be revealed, but I don't think so.

I never liked amateur psychology, corporate or not. This is not about
dominance - it's about capricious, arbitrary, selective exclusion. Either
it's an "industry standard group" or it's an Intel pals group.

That's funny. AMD is going to win a court case because it "clearly has
a better product."

Relative to the M$ case, where there was no palpable victim left, yes AMD
*does* have a viable product which brings some leverage to the proceedings.
Had you lost the err track here?... or did you just want to have another
dig at AMD?

 

[Robert Myers]

You mean you cannot see how provocative and inflammatory some of your
remarks have been?

And you don't see that anyone who disagrees with you makes you angry?

Change your mind... again? In the previous post you seemed to think it
important enough to make a point that the issue of industry standard groups
had nothing to do with the court case. Anybody, including industry
standard group members and you, can read the complaint. If you disagree
with that I dont care - just don't try to weave a veil around the facts.

Your remark wasn't about the court case, it was about future
willingness of industry players to participate.

I never liked amateur psychology, corporate or not. This is not about
dominance - it's about capricious, arbitrary, selective exclusion. Either
it's an "industry standard group" or it's an Intel pals group.

*You* introduced the idea of how other members of the industry would
react, presumably to facts that would come out in court--*your* amateur
psychology. My amateur psychology disagrees with yours.

I'm going to spell this out for you: industry players don't need AMD's
court complaint or what comes out in court to explain to them how Intel
behaves. They already know. They put up with it because that's the
way the world works. It doesn't matter how it sits with your sense of
right or wrong, and how industry players react won't be settled in
court. They already know, and they've already reacted. They don't
like it, but there's not much they can do about it. You can call that
analysis whatever you want.

Relative to the M$ case, where there was no palpable victim left, yes AMD
*does* have a viable product which brings some leverage to the proceedings.
Had you lost the err track here?... or did you just want to have another
dig at AMD?

No, George. That was a dig at your bizarre logic. AMD has a better
processor. AMD should have better sales. The only explanation for AMD
lack of sales is illegal behavior on Intel's part. That's AMD's logic
and apparently it's yours. What else does AMD having a better product
have to do with it winning a court case?

RM

 

[George Macdonald]

And you don't see that anyone who disagrees with you makes you angry?

Ditto... and I guess you're just as "incessant" as I am.

*You* introduced the idea of how other members of the industry would
react, presumably to facts that would come out in court--*your* amateur
psychology. My amateur psychology disagrees with yours.

I'm going to spell this out for you: industry players don't need AMD's
court complaint or what comes out in court to explain to them how Intel
behaves. They already know. They put up with it because that's the
way the world works. It doesn't matter how it sits with your sense of
right or wrong, and how industry players react won't be settled in
court. They already know, and they've already reacted. They don't
like it, but there's not much they can do about it. You can call that
analysis whatever you want.

Like I've said umpteen times, it's your opinion in your "world"... repeated
for the umpteenth time does not make it axiomatic.

No, George. That was a dig at your bizarre logic. AMD has a better
processor. AMD should have better sales. The only explanation for AMD
lack of sales is illegal behavior on Intel's part. That's AMD's logic
and apparently it's yours. What else does AMD having a better product
have to do with it winning a court case?

Err, if they had an inferior prodcut they would have no case - I dunno how
to explain it better to you. To quote Soichiro Honda said "I want to touch
and hold a better piston, not watch another concept presentation". and "If
you make a better product, people will buy it". Hmm, seems to work,
despite your "world".