Intel USD 1.25 billion settlement fee to compensate AMD

This reporter Huangna Intern Guan Xie Report on the United States, New York State Attorney Andrew Coumeux antitrust charges soon after, Intel once again announced to the industry shocked news- Announced a settlement with old rival AMD: Intel paid 1.25 billion of billions of dollars to AMD and signed a 5-year patent cross Licensing agreement, both of which pledged to revoke all lawsuits against each other.　　In addition, Intel is committed to following a range of business practices. Will the settlement deal give the chip market a more relaxed and fairer competitive environment?　　This is the industry's most concerned topic. 1 Chip World Reconciliation Road long for the chip market and even the entire IT market, these two occupy the CPU market share more than 98% of the IT giants to reach a settlement, Granville Sheng Group Global vice President, Wei Sheng Electronics China District chief Xutao in the high fair during the interview with the media, said, " We hope that this matter can be changed, because we think that the CPU industry absolutely needs a fair competitive environment. The formation of such a fair competition environment, can make the whole industry more healthy development, not only to Granville has helped, for China's overall chip industry, the development of the semiconductor industry is also very important. "This should be the common vision of most companies suffering from unfair competition."　　However, careful analysis, we will find that the answer to this question is not optimistic. First, reconciliation has not changed the existing market structure. In the chip market, Intel has become a well-deserved hegemon with more than 80% per cent of its market share, a monopoly that is the basis for its ability to enforce monopolistic practices that in turn further entrench Intel's monopoly. The settlement does not have any impact on Intel's monopolistic position.　　It is also said that, if willing, Intel will be able to take any measures in their favour, including the "destructive strategy" mentioned in the two parties ' agreement. Second, despite the settlement agreement, Intel was forced to "not use a destructive strategy in the competition". And it's this commitment that gives Intel a huge space for manoeuvre. What is a "destructive strategy"? The agreement between the two sides does not give a clear definition of this. Even after the settlement was reached, Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, had not acknowledged that the return of the ad and the sale of the rebate were illegal. This is precisely Intel's control of downstream manufacturers, to maintain their monopoly of the important means.　　Xutao expressed dissatisfaction with Intel's evasive and evasive work, saying that during the reconciliation process, Intel was not seen to acknowledge such a thing (a monopoly) or to see what changes Intel was committed to make. Third, the settlement could be seen as an Intel's one-way commitment to AMD. The commitment to AMD does not imply commitment to the industry as a whole. For other potential rivals, Intel has no reason not to use a "destructive strategy" for its own benefit. Shortly after the two sides reached a settlement, Businessweek wrote that after addressing AMD, ARM will becomeFocus on the objects that Intel is focusing on.　　Other insiders point out that, in recent years in the field of low power computing has made a contribution to the Granville, will also become Intel's next focus of attention. 2 reconciliation intensifies Intel monopolies more insiders believe that the settlement is likely to make the original Intel's single Big "duopoly" situation replaced. Two total shares, over 98% of the entire CPU market. If AMD had been able to act as an antitrust fighter until there was no reconciliation, the most important balancing force for Intel would disappear after the settlement.　　What is even more frightening is that if Intel and AMD achieve some sort of table deal because of commercial interests, the overall industry imbalance will continue to intensify. As previously alleged by AMD, Intel has deprived users of the right to better products at lower prices, and has curbed industry innovation.　　The above analysis, if set up, in the foreseeable future, the CPU market monopoly will not be due to the two giants of reconciliation and change, and consumers will continue to pay additional costs, the state of industrial innovation will not have a substantial change.　　A journalist's "reconciliation door" revelation litigation, reconciliation, investigation, such words repeatedly appear, so that the anti-monopoly of Intel's trip is full of drama. Shortly before Intel and AMD reached a settlement, New York State Attorney General Cuomo challenged Intel's antitrust suits. After the two sides reached a settlement, Cuomo and the Federal Trade Commission said separately that they would not give up continuing investigations into Intel's monopolistic practices.　　At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission said it would retain the right to review the settlement agreement between Intel and AMD. AMD has been the number one pioneer against Intel's monopolies for years. Obviously, this is because the positions of the two are different. As an enterprise, AMD is the enterprise's interests as the first basis for decision-making.　　The worldwide agitation for Intel's antitrust suits was due to the fact that Intel's monopoly undermined AMD's interests, and at this time the settlement was due to the benefits of reconciliation, far beyond the benefits of sticking to litigation. The Government is a representative of the public interest. Consumer interests and industrial interests, is the basic basis for government decision-making. Despite the settlement between Intel and AMD, the monopoly of the chip market has remained unchanged, and the potential threat to consumers and even the entire industry remains.　　That is precisely why the Federal Trade Commission and Cuomo insist on lawsuits. "Reconciliation door" for the market, whether it is open or closed, the conclusion is difficult.