At 9:34 AM -0400 6/8/98, Gordon Campbell wrote:
>At 10:06 AM 05/06/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>i concur. the case has grown out of a suit between Intel and Intergraph,
>>in which Intel refused to let Intergraph see technical documents because
>>they weren't playing ball the way Intel thought they should. the court
>>decided that without those documents, Intergraph could not remain
>>competetive, nor could Intergraph develop a viable competetive technology
>>without access to the same documents.
>
>Boy, you Yanks make your businesses go through some pretty strange hoops. I
>staill want to know why Intel should share their trade secrets with
>competitors. Makes no sense to this Canuck, let me tell you. It's their
>info, they shouldn't have to give it to anybody.
sigh.
they /voluntarily/ give this info to OEMs and others -- so that their chips
get used. they (intel) withheld the "proprietary" information in a
carrot-and-stick manner -- hence the lawsuit. You can't give the info to
some customers, but withhold it from others as "blackmail." /That's/ the
offense -- and the solution is not "Intel must share all of its trade
secrets with competitors."
The fact is -- the industry is structured in both a competitive and
sybiotic manner. Digital has a line of "PCs" but also makes Alpha (which
competes with Intel -- and is far superior is the general consensus). So
your customer may also be your competitor.
Three companies -- Digital Equipment Corporation, Intergraph Corporation
and Compaq Computer Corporation -- hold patents on microprocessor and
related technologies. When they sought to enforce those patents against
Intel or other computer companies who buy Intel products, Intel retaliated
by cutting off technical information and threatening to cut off the supply
of microprocessors.
In the case of Digital -- when Digital complained that Intel had infringed
on 10 of its patents -- Intel's response was to cut of Digital from the
very technical information that Intel was provided to OTHER OEMs. In case
this isn't obvious -- this action puts Digital at a competitive
disadvantage with other OEMs. This is "predatory" practice in actin.
In the case of Intergraph -- they were "the first company to develop a
family of workstations and servers based on Intel processors and NT." In
1996, intel-based systems represented 100% of their business. Intel wanted
to incorporate Intergraph's technology into its chips -- ROYALTY FREE.
Intergraph refused. Intel then cut them off.
When Compaq sued Packard Bell for /motherboard/ patent infringement --
Intel cut off technial information that Compaq needed to design computers
that used the latest Intel chips "even though that technical information is
widely available to similarly situated computer manufacturers. Intel
restored Compaq's access to
technical information only after Compaq agreed to cross-license its patents
with Intel, the agency said."
I certainly hope that this makes sense, now, Gordon. I'm sure that Canada
/also/ has laws preventing such corporate blackmail from taking place.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9806/intelc.htm
<quote>
"But if Intel can use its monopoly position in the market for
microprocessors to prevent other firms from enforcing their own patents,
other firms will have little incentive to invent new features to challenge
Intel's dominance. As a monopolist, Intel can compete by producing better,
cheaper and more attractive products. It cannot act to cement its monopoly
power by preventing other firms from challenging its dominance. Intel has
acted illegally. It has used its monopoly power to impede innovation and
stifle competition."
The complaint charges that Intel has unreasonably used its market power to
cut off important customers who sought to protect their own patent rights
in microprocessor and related technologies that rival Intel's technology.
Over the years, Intel has promoted and marketed its microprocessors by
providing customers with technical information in advance of the official
commercial release of new microprocessor products. This makes it possible
for computer makers to have computers based on new Intel microprocessors
ready to sell at the time of the official commercial release of the
microprocessors, or shortly afterwards. While Intel considers the advance
technical information to be proprietary, it makes the information broadly
available subject to nondisclosure agreements. This is part of the mutually
beneficial relationship between Intel and its customers. Intel benefits
because its customers -- computer systems manufacturers - - commit
resources to designing new computer products that incorporate the new Intel
microprocessors. The customers benefit because they are able to introduce
"leading edge" computer products with the latest microprocessor technology
on a timely basis, the complaint states.
[aside -- not unlike MS giving advance knowledge of OS changes to their own
software developers and others who 'play by their rules']
The FTC alleged that on at least three occasions, Intel has terminated
or threatened to terminate its mutually beneficial relationships in a
selective, targeted fashion to retaliate against the firms that sought to
protect or assert patent rights in rival microprocessor technologies or
that refused to license such rights to Intel. This retaliation has
primarily taken the form of cutting off access to technical information
needed to design computer systems based on soon-to-be-released Intel
microprocessors. By its actions, Intel sought to injure the customer until
that customer surrendered the patent licenses Intel desired. These actions
have hurt the sales and profitability of the targeted companies and
threatened to have an even more significant, long-term impact on their
computer systems businesses absent settlement agreements or, in one case,
judicial intervention, the complaint charges.
</quote>
===============================
Kathy E. Gill, Guide - http://agriculture.miningco.com/
Publisher, eNetDigest - http://www.enetdigest.com/
WWW design � writing � training - http://www.dotparagon.com/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
