Intel Admits No Wrongdoing After FTC Settlement
The FTC paves the way for competition.
Intel and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have reached a tentative settlement in the antitrust suit filed by the Commission December 16. The FTC sued Intel alleging Intel had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which relates to antitrust practices.
Under terms of the settlement, Intel is not allowed to offer incentives to other companies to only stock Intel chips. Furthermore, Intel may not retaliate if a PC builder chooses to use CPUs from AMD or other make.
Intel is also banned from offering unfair bundling discounts that would make using competing, non-Intel products. This would presumably restrict the practice of Intel bundling together a chipset with a CPU that otherwise would be prohibitively expensive to purchase a single part on its own.
It's believed that Intel offered its Atom processor at a significant discount when purchased with an Intel chipset, making it difficult for OEMs to choose competing solutions, such as the Nvidia Ion, without incurring a considerable bump in costs.
Intel must also support the current PCI Express bus standard for another six years, keeping the graphics playing field open to other companies. This would stop Intel from ditching PCI Express, making the on-chip graphics of current Intel CPUs the only choice for video.
The FTC agreement also stops Intel from blocking competitive processor technology through software means, so that any change in software compiling for Intel's CPU would be disclosed and documented. The FTC alleged that Intel's compilers were designed to make AMD chips look bad. Intel also has to provide a $10 million fund for ISVs who wish to recompile their code for non-Intel processors.
Intel must also change its licensing terms to allow for companies who have agreements for Intel's technology to merge. Current licensees of Intel properties, such as AMD, Nvidia and Via would risk their agreements with Intel should two or more companies merge, but the new revisions would allow for licenses to carry on even after a merger. Via will also be getting its licensing deal for x86 processors extended to 2018.
What the settlement didn't appear to cover, however, is chipset licensing. This means that Intel is still the only producer of chipsets for the current generation of Nehalem-based processors, leaving Nvidia stuck at the Core 2 series.
FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz said it got 22 out of the 26 remedies it was seeking from Intel.
"We accepted this settlement because it helps consumers," Leibowitz explained. "Ensuring that this market remains competitive is essential to our future."
Even with this settlement, Intel feels that it has done nothing wrong.
"While Intel and the FTC have agreed to resolve that dispute, Intel is not admitting to any violation of the law nor does it agree with the allegations contained in the complaint," the company said in a statement.
Doug Melamed, Intel senior vice president and general counsel, added, "The settlement enables us to put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation."
Read the FTC settlement document here.
(Sources: Register, Electronista.)
- Verizon, Motorola Working on Android TV Tablet?
- Google was Crowned 'King of Malware' in Analysis
- Lots of StarCraft 2 Sold in the First Two Days
- ASUS Gaming Headset Includes Rumble Feedback
- New Samsung HDD Shoves 2TB on 3 Platters
- HP Settles with U.S. DOJ, Denies Illegal Conduct
- Crysis 2 Delayed; Need For Speed Shift 2 Coming
- Beware: Email Scam Targeting StarCraft II Fans
- PC Version of Fable III Delayed
- Deals for August 4: 23.6'' Samsung 2494LW $159
- Deals for August 5: Halo Reach for $44.99
- Blizzard Deleting 'Inappropriate' StarCraft 2 Maps
- Battle Hero Cooler Geared for Gaming Notebooks
- Apple Cannot Handle More Than 5-Percent
- Acer Debuts Dualboot Android/XP Netbook at $300
- Nvidia GF106 Chip For GeForce GTS 450 Leaked
- Kotick: Blizzard's Secret MMO Will Be New IP
- Blizzard Cracks Down Erotic Role-Playing in WoW






Fair competition is - partially - restored, so let's be happy. Intel is the biggest player and as such will always find ways to hinder smaller competitors, but at least the bluntest weapons in its toolbox are removed.
AMD really seems to be going from strength to strength recently: it is out of the red digits, Intel has to play it fair from now on and there GPU division is blooming like never before.
Actually there is an error in your article. You state that Intel must maintain a $10 million dollar fund for ISV's to recompile their code. That's not exactly right. That makes it sound like a total of only $10 million dollars. It's actually it must provide upto $10 million *per* ISV, for them to recompile their code if they were misled by Intel into believing that the Intel compiler wouldn't discriminate between Intel and non-Intel processors.
I want to see a direct comparison between a piece of software optimised for Intel, and another version optimised for AMD, just to see how things pan out. Intel's CPUs support more instruction sets, that is true, but how much of that is down to a refusal to licence them? Additionally, both types of CPU handle tasks in slightly different manners - Intel's implementation of AMD64 for example. If it turned out that this was the only reason that Core 2 was outperforming Phenom IIs in various tasks, then this would help sort that out. Until then, the point is moot. Anything you can help us with, Toms?
If general software is optimised for Intel, imagine how games would perform if they were properly optimised for AMD CPUs. All the times I see Intel badges on games, and wonder if they've even had the slightest bit of AMD optimisation - madness considering how well the second revision of the STARS core has sold.