Itanium and the NY antitrust suit against Intel
mathog
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2355462,00.asp
about the NY antitrust suit against Intel. Of course, most of the
article is about x86 competition, or the lack thereof.
It was an oddly fascinating and yet disgusting read. Sort of like an
insightful review on the the mating habits of cannibalistic insects.
Regards,
David Mathog
Neil Rieck
In the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years there was a commonly held belief by
all citizens (in all western countries) that government should get out
of the way of business. The results of this philosophy go horribly
wrong when Microsoft effectively killed Netscape. In the article you
provided it looks like Intel was up to the same shenanigans as
Microsoft in the previous decade.
I am not advocating "big government". I am only saying there is
nothing wrong with "some" government controls and oversight (think
speed limits and stop lights on public roads). Obviously unbridled
capitalism can lead to unintended consequences. For example, after
Microsoft won the browser wars in the middle-to-late 1990s, they did
virtually nothing to advance the state of browser technology.
(Microsoft was now fixated on SUN so were copying Java into C# and
JavaScript into J++). It was Mozilla (with Firefox) and Google (adding
AJAX to their already popular search engine, etc.) that breathed new
life into a sleeping Microsoft.
I get the feeling that these big companies miss this point: "if all
their competition was removed then the resulting industry would end up
stagnating like anything we have seen in ex-communist East Europe or
the now defunct USSR.
NSR
Neil Rieck
Sorry for the second post but I forgot to add something about Itanium.
I don't want to get into conspiracy theories but the Extremetech
article makes me wonder what kind of backroom deals were made between
Intel and Compaq-HP to kill Alpha and PA-RISC. Remember that HP
engineers didn't want to kill PA-RISC because of competition from
other processors, including Alpha. Then in 2001 while Compaq was in
merger talks with HP, Compaq kills Alpha and transfers ~ 300 engineers
to Intel. After the HP-Compaq merger, HP followed through with killing
off PA-RISC.
It is possible (although unproven) that Intel dropped the price of x86
technology sold to HPQ for a number of years in exchange for the death
of Alpha and PA-RISC (spending technological capital, as it were).
Maybe Dell's problems were related to HPQ getting x86 components at a
price much lower than HPQ.
NSR
JF Mezei
>
> In the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years there was a commonly held belief by
> all citizens (in all western countries) that government should get out
> of the way of business.
Canada's current government, the reform party headed by George W Harper
has the same mentality, especially when it comes to mr Rieck's employer:
Its policies are to let market forces work their magic, and the
government conveniently forgets that Bell Canada is still, to a large
extent, a monopoly and its actions of recent have been focused on
preventing competition in the ISP business. In fact, the GW Harper
cabinet is about to rule within the next 10 days to overturn one of the
few CRTC decisions that was on the consumer's side and allow Bell Canada
to restrict competitors to slow DSL speeds and prevent them access to
streetside pedestals (forcing very long copper loops to the CO where
ADSL speeds will be even slower).
So you use of "all citizens" should be changed to "some citizens".
Customers of ISPs who purchase access from the Bell canada monopoly are
very aware that we are being screwed by a monopoly while the government
claims there is healthy competition. On 3 occasions, the CRTC condoned
throttling of certain applications 10 hour per day to less than 240kbps,
ignoring the Telecom Act which prohibits discrimination and prohibits
the changing of the purpose of a telecommunications. (Bell's argument is
that those transfers being crippled are not important and can take
longer to accomplish, that is akin to saying that a voice conversation
isn't important unless you use a red telephone at both ends :-)
At least the FCC forced Comcast to manage its network and service speeds
in a non discriminatory way.
The CRTC is fully aware that bell is breaking the Telecom Act, but their
"Policy directive" set by the political arm of the government (GW
Harper) is forcing their hand to write decisions that somehow twist the
meaning of the Telecom Act to justify/support Bell Canada's actions.
And this from a governmnet that supposedly passed laws to prevent
corporate donations to political parties. Perhaps Bell is giving that
party free long distance, free use of the Bell corporate jet for an
afternoon game of golf in the bermuda or florida or whatever other type
of "help" Bell might give to the government in exchange for the
government interpreting the law in Bell's favour.
JF Mezei
> Remember that HP
> engineers didn't want to kill PA-RISC because of competition from
> other processors, including Alpha. Then in 2001 while Compaq was in
> merger talks with HP, Compaq kills Alpha and transfers ~ 300 engineers
> to Intel. After the HP-Compaq merger, HP followed through with killing
> off PA-RISC.
Something of note here: not long before June 25 2001, there was another
significant event for IA64: First boot of Windows on an IA64.
This may have been some contractual item "once IA64 can do first boot fo
windows, it means it is close enough to market that you kill your own
chip" clauses that Intel had with both HP and Compaq/Digital.
Remember that Digital had a deal with Intel as part of Digital thanking
Intel for stealing Alpha IP. That deal not only included cool pricing
for 8086s but also porting of Digital Unix to that IA64 contraption.
So it is quite possible that Compaq inherited a contract with clauses
forcing Compaq to kill Alpha within X weeks of first boot of Window on
IA64. Just a theory.
Or LaCarly, after having had some sweet pillow talk with Curly went to
Intel and told them that she doesn't want to be the one to kill Alpha
(anti trust issues) and that she really really really needs Curly to
kill Alpha before they announce the wedding.
If Alpha were stil alive on Sept 7 2001 when Carly's glorious wedding
was announced, questions would have been asked about how she would
rationalise thge platforms, and the feds might be a tad concerned about
the merger resulting in too many cpu platforms being killed. Since Alpha
was killed before the wedding was announced, the feds didn't have to
consider that the merger would result in competing platforms being
eliminated.
The big question is how sweet was the 8086 deal Digital made with Intel.
From what I heard, Compaq saw that as a big asset because it was better
than the deal it had with Intel. Big question is whether that deal was
still in effect at the time of the HP merger and if it was better than
what HP had with Intel.
Paul Raulerson
but we also need the populace to keep control on government.
All in all, in North America, it always balances out that way, though it may sometimes take decades to do so.
And it is unpleasant to live during the times when it is overbalanced either way. Right now in the U.S., we have vicious
hatefilled unthinking "tea party" activists on one side, and smarter but just as vicious people on all the other sides.
Except the greens of course. They just are not as smart at all. :)
Intel will do everything it can to secure a monopoly for itself, and that includes destroying any competition, supporting government regulations that make it near impossible for a small startup to happen (Sarbanes Oxley, for instance) and will present a public face of being a fine benefactor. WalMart does the same thing of course, as does any other large company, HP and IBM included.
The best possible check on them is government regulation, though not so much as to strangle them. And the only possible check on the government is the populace - the voting citizens.
-Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Info-vax mailing list
> Info...@rbnsn.com
> http://rbnsn.com/mailman/listinfo/info-vax_rbnsn.com
>
VAXman-
>And it is unpleasant to live during the times when it is overbalanced =
>either way. Right now in the U.S., we have vicious
>hatefilled unthinking "tea party" activists on one side, and smarter but =
If you don't agree, that's OK; however, there is no reason to insult them.
That moron Thomas Jefferson held sacred many of the ideals these tea part-
iers are embellishing today.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free
to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,
and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has
earned -- this is the sum of good government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson
>just as vicious people on all the other sides.=20
>Except the greens of course. They just are not as smart at all. :)=20
I've see just as many "unthinking" types on this side of your political
fence.
>Intel will do everything it can to secure a monopoly for itself, and =
>that includes destroying any competition, supporting government =
>regulations that make it near impossible for a small startup to happen =
>(Sarbanes Oxley, for instance) and will present a public face of being a =
>fine benefactor. WalMart does the same thing of course, as does any =
>other large company, HP and IBM included.=20
Pure capitalism. Nothing wrong with that and the fucking goobernmint
should keep out of it. On the other hand, however, criminal coercion
as was practiced by Micro$oft and other niche monopolies should be in
the sights of the goobernment's law enforcement.
Fair competition, yes; unfair, no. Ayn, where are you when we need you?
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
Paul.Raulerson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: info-vax...@rbnsn.com [mailto:info-vax...@rbnsn.com] On
> Behalf Of VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 12:21 PM
> To: info...@rbnsn.com
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Itanium and the NY antitrust suit against Intel
>
> In article <mailman.37.1259512697....@rbnsn.com>,
> Paul Raulerson <pa...@raulersons.com> writes:
>
> >And it is unpleasant to live during the times when it is overbalanced
> =
> >either way. Right now in the U.S., we have vicious
> >hatefilled unthinking "tea party" activists on one side, and smarter
> but =
>
> If you don't agree, that's OK; however, there is no reason to insult
> them.
> That moron Thomas Jefferson held sacred many of the ideals these tea
> part-
> iers are embellishing today.
>
Actually, there is plenty of reason to insult them. They do *not* in any way
embody the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, any more than their "opposition" on
end does.
What these "tea party" types most resemble in today's word are perhaps the
Taliban.
Utterly rabid reactions to anything they disagree with. (*sigh*)
> A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free
> to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,
> and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has
> earned -- this is the sum of good government.
> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> A government big enough to give you everything you want,
> is strong enough to take everything you have.
> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
>
> >just as vicious people on all the other sides.=20
> >Except the greens of course. They just are not as smart at all. :)=20
>
> I've see just as many "unthinking" types on this side of your political
> fence.
>
I only referred to the "greens" as being not smart. The political power
mongers
are some of the smartest people alive. Karl Rove for example. They are
perhaps, so
convinced of their righteousness that they are effectively blinded.
>
> >Intel will do everything it can to secure a monopoly for itself, and =
> >that includes destroying any competition, supporting government =
> >regulations that make it near impossible for a small startup to happen
> =
> >(Sarbanes Oxley, for instance) and will present a public face of being
> a =
> >fine benefactor. WalMart does the same thing of course, as does any =
> >other large company, HP and IBM included.=20
>
> Pure capitalism. Nothing wrong with that and the fucking goobernmint
> should keep out of it. On the other hand, however, criminal coercion
> as was practiced by Micro$oft and other niche monopolies should be in
> the sights of the goobernment's law enforcement.
>
Oh yes, there is a *lot* wrong with unbridled pure capitalism. Uncontrolled
capitalism is pretty much indistinguishable from tyranny - you know - one of
those things Jefferson and crew opposed with their life's blood?
You even agree, as you want the government to lay restraints upon Microsoft.
On the other hand, balanced capitalism, a system that gives everyone a
chance,
seems to me to be the best system yet devised by humankind. It allows
everyone
the greatest freedom and opportunity, while still reminding everyone that
there are larger concerns than obtaining the toy-of-the-year at Christmas
time.
> Fair competition, yes; unfair, no. Ayn, where are you when we need
> you?
>
Rand was a smart thinker, probably right in most of her thinking. But
then, so were a lot of other thinkers too. Some admirable- like Ghandi,
others
less so - like Peron.
>
> --
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker
> VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
>
> http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
>
> "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
Michael Kraemer
> In the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years there was a commonly held belief by
> all citizens (in all western countries)
Definitely not.
> that government should get out
> of the way of business.
> The results of this philosophy go horribly
> wrong
no surprise here.
Michael Kraemer
> Sorry for the second post but I forgot to add something about Itanium.
> I don't want to get into conspiracy theories but the Extremetech
> article makes me wonder what kind of backroom deals were made between
> Intel and Compaq-HP to kill Alpha and PA-RISC.
As far as PA was concerned: no backroom deal here.
PA's fate was sealed with the HP-intel pact as of 1994,
when it was publicly stated that Itanic should replace
PA.
> Remember that HP
> engineers didn't want to kill PA-RISC because of competition from
> other processors, including Alpha.
I don't think it was the engineer's decision.
Itanic wasn't ready, so a few more iterations of
PA were necessary to keep up HP's Unix business.
Michael Kraemer
> Something of note here: not long before June 25 2001, there was another
> significant event for IA64: First boot of Windows on an IA64.
>
> This may have been some contractual item "once IA64 can do first boot fo
> windows, it means it is close enough to market that you kill your own
> chip" clauses that Intel had with both HP and Compaq/Digital.
>
> Remember that Digital had a deal with Intel as part of Digital thanking
> Intel for stealing Alpha IP.
AFAIK intel never was convicted of "stealing Alpha IP",
so this is probably just an urban legend.
Note that intel in turn sued DEC over patent infringement,
and the whole thing ended with the well known settlement.
Note further that a few years earlier M$/Cutler were
indeed found guilty of stealing DEC's IP.
But according to some strange logic this is seen
as no problem because superhero Cutler was involved.
> That deal not only included cool pricing
> for 8086s but also porting of Digital Unix to that IA64 contraption.
>
> So it is quite possible that Compaq inherited a contract with clauses
> forcing Compaq to kill Alpha within X weeks of first boot of Window on
> IA64. Just a theory.
Not only theory, just a bit of business logic.
DEC sued intel to put a bit of pressure on them.
intel had the choice to fight it out, with uncertain
outcome, or to buy alpha. They chose the latter,
paid a few $100M and got a working fab,
alpha production rights, DEC's promise to support IA64
with DUX and very probably DEC's promise to kill Alpha
as soon as IA64 is out the door.
Otherwise the whole deal wouldn't make sense.
So intel got a lot of bang for their bucks,
and DEC got rid of the Alpha burden.
A win-win situation so to say.
Compaq simply inherited the contract
and EOLed Alpha when the time was right.