Now Hear This!

Taking an opinionated stance that could well lead to real results at the federal level, the New York Times threw its substantial weight behind chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) in the company's ongoing war with industry leading rival Intel Corp.

For years, AMD has claimed that Intel has maintained its hold on the majority of microprocessor market share through unethical and illegal methods like coercing customers into not using AMD chips. In a strongly worded editorial published today entitled "F.T.C. goes AWOL," the New York Times said that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) failure to launch a formal investigation into those allegations of anti-competitive business practices is "bad for America's consumers and… bad for American business."

The editorial pointed out that the FTC's decision to conduct only an "informal, cooperative review" of AMD's claims that Intel uses monopolistic business habits is a markedly different approach from formal probes that have been launched by regulatory authorities in the European Union, Japan and South Korea. "A formal investigation gives the commission power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony from executives," the editorial reads. "Right now, Intel only has to hand over the information it wants to."

The Times went on to claim that the FTC's actions toward Intel seem unduly influenced by political factors, rather than by a duty to uphold the law and protect consumers. "The FTC's Republican majority clearly shares the 'starve the regulators and coddle industry' philosophy that has driven the Bush administration for seven years," the Times said.

Without a doubt, the New York Times' editorial page has high visibility in both the business and political realms; the fact that the paper's editors chose to make a public statement on the Intel/AMD war shows the chip industry's influence goes far beyond Silicon Valley.  Whether or not it will have a tangible effect on the case remains to be seen.  How, if at all, does the NYT's stance affect your opinion on the issue?

--Colleen Taylor, Contributing Editor