"…Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers — every day. Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits. Less innovation is produced because less competition exists. Purchasers lose their fundamental right to choose the best technology available."
— Extract from an open letter from Hector Ruiz, AMD's chairman and chief executive.
AMD's boss is very clear on why we should all take an interest in yet another antitrust trial worming its way through the US Justice system; given some of the revelations already emerging, his argument seems increasingly persuasive.
The latest chapter of the AMD versus Intel antitrust trial is especially engaging given the involvement of Skype — one of the darlings of the recent VoIP technology boom. You can almost hear the zeitgeist crackle and fizz. AMD is demanding to see documents relating to a deal between Intel and Skype to make one feature in the latest version of the Internet telephony software only available on Intel. The feature in question is the ability to make a 10 person conference call which for some unfathomable reason is not open to Skype users running AMD-based PCs.
There is nothing wrong with Intel helping Skype to write software, but the implication behind the deal is that only Intel processors can run such advanced software. The suspicion is strong that this is little more than marketing puff. It seems that some US marketers have failed to evolve much beyond their snake-oil peddling predecessors: this product has magical properties that you can't find anywhere else. What is in it? We couldn't possibly tell you that.
The problem for Intel and others so tempted is that times have changed and bluster is far easier to deflate. All it will take is one hacker to blog a patch to the Intel software and the company's left looking slightly silly at best. At worst, as AMD would like to suggest, it's more evidence of monopolistic practice.
If Intel wants to prove that its processors perform better than AMD's, it merely has to make them work that way. Attempts to finesse the issue will do the company no good whatsoever. Intel is proud of its high standards of corporate ethics — it should ignore no chance to demonstrate them.
Talkback
I
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/02/intel-skype-dirty-plot-and-why-ftc-is.html
On your story, "Intel makes wrong call with Skype" I'm very disappointed with the warm and fuzzy treatment Intel gets from you.
This isn't some small thing, it's absolutely anti-competitive, monopolistic and unAmerican of Intel to bribe and muscle Skype into adding code to prevent competition from superior 64 bit AMD chips in order to try to continue their domination of the computer market with their obsolete and inferior 32 bit Intel overpriced junk.
The Department of Justice and the Attorney General should be all over those crooks at Intel because this is not only crooked, but Intel has the arrogance to commit this crime while they are involved in a lawsuit with AMD over these same kind of mafia tactics which have cost the American Government (and tax payers) over half a billion dollars because of the policy of buying Intel only.
Let's get serious, Intel is far worse than Microsoft (the recent Microsoft antitrust trial) and we should star saying so and putting these vultures in jail. This is unbelieveable.
Who Wrote This?
I think it is a little unethical to write such a strongly worded comment piece such as “Intel makes wrong call with Skype” and then not provide the authors byline.
For all we know this piece could have been penned by Hector Ruiz!
The author of a comment piece should believe their work is of sufficient quality to attach their name, or it should not run at all. Was this piece written by an intern?
To make matters worse, I tried to email the bylined 'leader' link to send this message and that bounced!
My issue is not with the content, but I would like to know who will take responsibilty for this story?
Thanks for your comments Adam. A leader is a commonly used editorial vehicle to convey the collective editorial thoughts of an editorial team. At ZDNet we convene a leader meeting each morning to discuss the big stories that we're writing about, debate the issues surrounding them and form a line that one member of staff is tasked with writing up.
Every national newspaper in the UK employs leaders and their purpose is generally very well understood by those who read the newspapers. You may rest assured that like newspaper leaders, ours would never be ghost-written by a vendor or anybody else outside the full-time editorial team here at ZDNet UK.
As the site director for ZDNet UK it is my place to take responsibility for this and every other story that appears on the site, but I have no doubt that any number of our editors or writers would equally happily put their name behind any leader; the reason they don't is, I think, explained fully above.
I hope that answers your concerns.
Un-American? You are kidding me. This is American business tactics at its best. Those who don't do this if they can get away with it are just not very smart
Ever since the buyout by Ebay I have been expecting a number of unfavourable manoevers and have been exploring alternatives. I have gizmo (www.gizmoproject.com) working well and there are still some problems with the opensource wengophone which I'm sure will mature nicely.
Admittedly Skype has the lead on the others, but choice is widening.