Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss 
Thanks for the link, but that was the EU's case, this one is from the FTC. Could be similar is some respects, but the laws and the politics in the US are different. Here is the text of the complaint:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf
Haven't read it completely yet, but Apple is mentioned only twice. Still, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the FTC's attention that Apple was until recently a competitor to Intel, but has since abandoned competition to become a customer. If I were an FTC lawyer, I'd sure want to talk to some people at Apple about how that happened.

Thanks for the link, but that was the EU's case, this one is from the FTC. Could be similar is some respects, but the laws and the politics in the US are different. Here is the text of the complaint:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf
Haven't read it completely yet, but Apple is mentioned only twice. Still, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the FTC's attention that Apple was until recently a competitor to Intel, but has since abandoned competition to become a customer. If I were an FTC lawyer, I'd sure want to talk to some people at Apple about how that happened.
Apple is mentioned as a "Tier One OEM", and is bunched together with the top names. How much of this was Apple involved in? Was Apple a victim? Number 54 below is rather juicy.
"49. Hewlett-Packard/Compaq, Dell, IBM, Lenovo, Toshiba, Acer/Gateway, Sun, Sony, NEC, Apple, and Fujitsu are the largest OEMs in the world (“Tier One OEMs”). Tier One OEMs account for over 60 percent of the computers with CPUs in the relevant markets. Intel has prevented or limited the sale of non-Intel CPUs to these Tier One OEMs...
50. Because of Intel’s actions and threats, certain Tier One OEMs reasonably feared that purchasing too many non-Intel CPUs would expose their companies to retaliation from Intel...
51. Intel took advantage of its monopoly power and induced and/or coerced certain Tier One OEMs to forgo adoption or purchases of non-Intel CPUs, or to limit such purchases to a small percentage of the sales of certain computer products...
54. Intel used OEMs that were exclusive to Intel to discipline and punish OEMs that chose to deal with Intel’s competitors. Intel gave OEMs that agreed to buy CPUs exclusively from Intel the best pricing, supply guarantees in times of shortage, and indemnification from patent liability relating to the patent litigation initiated by Intergraph against several OEMs. Intel also offered these OEMs a slush fund of hundreds of millions of dollars to be used in bidding competitions against OEMs that offered non-Intel-based computers. These payments were contingent on the OEMs purchasing CPUs exclusively or nearly exclusively from Intel..."







*sniff* *now you made me cry* 

I see bundleGate has pulled the wool over your eyes.
See the FTC document on Intel's "miselading statements". Why do they even need to bother mentioning DX10 and Shader model 4.0? You can't do anything with DX10 and Shader model 4.0 on a X4500HD (or whatever is in Clarkdale or Arrandale) - the frame rates will be way, way too low, for sure. It's pure, unadulterated marketing candy floss. Maybe Aero might have something to do with DX10, I could be mistaken.