http://www.betanews.com/article/FTC-Intel-fell-behind-against-AMD-used-unfai
r-tactics-to-catch-up/1261014794
But to those charges today, the FTC added an unexpected dose of venom -- a
tone completely opposite to that of the Bush-43 era FTC, which at times died
down to such a lull it was difficult to tell whether the Commission had
dropped its case. At the heart of the FTC's claim today is a broader
allegation: that Intel found itself to be technologically inferior to AMD,
and that it concluded it could only regain its footing through
anti-competitive behavior.
"In 1999 after AMD released its Athlon CPU and again in 2003 after AMD
released its Opteron CPU, Intel lost its technological edge in various
segments of the CPU markets. Original equipment manufacturers ('OEMs')
recognized that AMD's new products had surpassed Intel in terms of
performance and quality of the CPU," reads this morning's complaint from the
FTC. "Its monopoly threatened, Intel engaged in a number of unfair methods
of competition and unfair practices to block or slow the adoption of
competitive products and maintain its monopoly to the detriment of
consumers. Among those practices were those that punished Intel's own
customers -- computer manufacturers -- for using AMD or Via products. Intel
also used its market presence and reputation to limit acceptance of AMD or
Via products, and used deceptive practices to leave the impression that AMD
or Via products did not perform as well as they actually did."
The complaint alleges that Intel entered into deals with Dell, HP, and
others as a first-strike response to the technological threat from both AMD
and Via, a player whose name has been forgotten in recent years.
But in a completely new set of charges, the FTC is adding fresh allegations
that many did not see coming. Among them:
Intel is currently, actively engaged in manipulating the design of CPUs so
as to limit the development of CPU/GPU hybrid technologies to favor Intel's
graphics parts. Specifically, the FTC charges Intel with "adopting a new
policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs," and adds
that it's protecting its technology by "making misleading statements to
industry participants about the readiness of Intel's GPUs." This suggests
that the FTC may also have been investigating Intel's conduct with regard to
Nvidia, including the skirmish over whether Nvidia was licensed to produce
chips for Intel's Nehalem platform.
Intel is currently, says the FTC, bundling its chipsets with CPUs at
below-cost pricing in an effort to drive Nvidia out of the chipset market,
"resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in
which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered
as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate
measure of cost," as this morning's complaint alleges.
Intel intentionally designed the interface between its CPU and chipsets so
as to selectively, at a time of its own choosing, exclude Nvidia and ATI
(through AMD) from attaining full interoperability with its CPU.
ADDED 11:08 pm: Intel developed interface standards such as USB and the
high-def HDCP connection in such a way that it could take advantage of their
specifications before anyone else: "In these instances, Intel encouraged the
industry to rely on standards that Intel controlled and represented that the
standards would be fairly accessible," states the FTC's complaint. "But
Intel has delayed accessibility to the standards for its competitors so that
Intel can gain a head start with its own products and wrongfully restrain
competition. Intel's conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient
procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances
Intel's monopoly power in CPUs."
The FTC claims Intel intentionally distributed C++ compilers and software
libraries whose code would run slower on AMD CPUs than on Intel's. This has
been a minor concern of AMD's now-dismissed legal case against Intel, which
Intel has continually denied. Nonetheless, Intel did promise to continue not
doing this sort of thing, in its settlement last month with AMD.
Intel published misleading benchmark claims, the FTC alleges -- misleading
in that they didn't use real-world representations of performance, and that
they were on occasion manipulated. "In truth and in fact, the benchmarks
Intel publicized were not accurate or realistic measures of typical computer
usage or performance, because they did not simulate 'real world' conditions,
and/or overestimated the performance of Intel's product vis-à-vis non-Intel
products," the complaint states, going on to use the phrase "false and
misleading" to make the publication of tinted benchmarks the equivalent of
fraud.
Intel publishes false and misleading white papers, including this one (PDF
available here"), says the FTC: "Intel's Web site includes a White Paper
called 'Choosing the Right Client Computing Platform for Public Sector
Organizations and Enterprises.' In the document, Intel stated that the
'SYSmark 2007 Preview is a benchmark test that measures the performance of
client computing software when executing what is designed to measure
real-life activities.' In truth and in fact, the benchmark was not designed
to measure 'real life activities,' but to favor Intel's CPUs." SYSmark 2007
Preview is a benchmark produced by Business Applications Performance
Corporation, which that firm says was developed in cooperation with both AMD
and Intel, among others. Betanews located the offending passage as footnote
1 on page 3.
