Jump to content
The Inquirer-Home

AMD, Nvidia not guilty of antitrust say lawmakers

Updated We never done nuffink
Monday, 13 October 2008, 11:50

AMD AND NVIDIA SAY THEY HAve been let off the hook by the US Department of Justice which found no need to pursue its investigation into allegations of antitrust violations regarding GPUs and graphics cards.

"In terms of ATI, the US DOJ has determined that it will not proceed with a criminal case or any other proceeding as a result of its investigation and has closed the investigation with no action taken," noted AMD spinner Michael Silverman.

After buying ATI in October 2006, AMD and rival Nvidia, were slapped with a subpoena two months later. The DOJ suspected the two firms had engaged in anti-competitive practices, together conspiring to fix, hike, maintain, or stabilise the price of cards and GPUs, violating both federal and state antitrust laws.

An investigation got underway, which ultimately revealed absolutely nothing.

An Nvidia spokesman told us the investigation against the company was now closed, and was quick to point out that "No specific allegations were made against the company during the investigation"

Although cleared by the DOJ, however, both Nvidia and ATI paid out of court settlements to the tune of $850,000 in September to settle a private antitrust suit filed against them in Northern California.

Both companies vehemently denied the charges but agreed on the payout if the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss claims. ยต

Share this:

Comments
Thank Intel!

The US legal system couldn't do anything because if it did, it would have to do something about Intel's virtual monopoly as well, and that would never do would it?

posted by : Fred, 13 October 2008 Complain about this comment
FINALLY!!!

And there ya have it.

Now ATI can move on to the business of spinning off the fab, some R&D, and new cards for 2009!!! The Spider Platform looks to be getting lethal for NV then!!

posted by : Eric The Red, 13 October 2008 Complain about this comment
not guilty of antitrust?

you forgot to say "antitrust violations" in the title. makes no sense otherwise.

posted by : r, 14 October 2008 Complain about this comment
Advertisement
Subscribe to the INQ Newsletter
Sign-up for the INQBot weekly newsletter
Click here to sign up Existing user
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Christmas computer sales

Will you be buying a new computer this Christmas?