Nanotech - The Circuits Blog

The Federal Trade Commission's complaint against Intel for alleged anticompetitive practices has a new twist: graphics chips.

To date, the antitrust actions of regulators worldwide toward Intel have focused on sale practices for central processing units, or CPUs, a market over which the company has fought heavily with Advanced Micro Devices. On Wednesday, however, the FTC spelled out a litany of allegations about Intel's alleged anticompetitive behavior in the market for graphics-processing units, or GPUs, in which Nvidia is a major player.

Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips but takes a distant second place in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.

Why graphics, and why now? "It would be really hard to sell the public on expending resources to take Intel through administrative proceedings when it had already paid over a billion dollars to AMD," said Joshua D. Wright, a professor at George Mason University School of Law and a scholar in residence at the Federal Trade Commission until 2008.

"[The FTC] needed to be seen as doing something new," Wright said.

"[Nvidia] becomes the remaining star witness, now that AMD has left the field," said Roger Kay, principal at Endpoint Technologies. "And the FTC's focus, which begins to look toward the future, has to take into account how graphics will fit in as computer technology develops," Kay said.

Intel General Counsel Doug Melamed asserted in a statement that the FTC complaint "is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated," referring to the GPU allegations. And Melamed added in a conference call that some of these GPU allegations were made as recently as December 8.

One of the areas the FTC case zeroes in on is the burgeoning competition for chipsets in Netbooks--small, inexpensive laptops that are typically priced around $350. Netbooks are powered by Intel's Atom processor--and integrated graphics silicon built into the chipset. In this market, Nvidia also sells its Ion chipset, which competes with Intel's integrated graphics product.

It's too tempting not to pose that question as the monthly Apple tablet rumors fly.

The Apple 'media pad' could look like this--just bigger with ad copy that says '4x faster.'

Conjecture about future Apple products is always an interesting exercise because it requires a lot of imagination to make up for the copious lack of hard data. This is especially the case for the rumored Apple tablet, despite analyst claims about product specifications, such as the oft-repeated 10.1-inch screen.

But there is one theme that keeps popping up that is highly plausible: it will be a device to view media and book content (rumor: 30/70 revenue split between Apple/publisher) in a "better" way. Hmm...let me think for a minute: the same way many people now use their iPhone? (Certainly, the media part.) So--though not a phone per se--basically an iPhone (or iPod) with a bigger screen, faster graphics, and better interface (and/or subscription model) to view content.

Does that about cover it? That doesn't sound like a tablet to me, with all the negative connotations that the word "tablet" has in the PC industry: fat, heavy, kludgey, boring.

Which is why "media pad" sounds a lot better. That, to me at least, connotes thin, light, modern, exciting. But I'll leave the branding to Apple. So far, they have a pretty good track record.

Rumors are a dime a dozen in Silicon Valley--and that's probably overvaluing their cumulative worth. But, on occasion, they can be fascinating, especially when they help crystallize the dynamics underlying competition between Valley heavyweights.

Recently an "Intel will buy Nvidia" theory appeared on the blog I, Cringely, written by the former InfoWorld columnist and the author of "Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions."

The upshot of the Robert Cringely post is that the recent project cancellations and legal wrangling between the two companies (and throw in Advanced Micro Devices, too) is simply leading toward an inevitable, unstoppable merger. This, of course, supersedes older rumors about a merger. And outright statements from Intel executives that they had considered a buyout in the past.

The short version of the facts (all real events) behind the theory goes something like this. Intel cancels initial Larrabee graphics chip. That's preceded by Nvidia nixing chipsets for the newest Intel Core i series of processors, as a result of an Intel lawsuit. Intel struggles to get its (Atom) chips into smartphones, while Nvidia has some success with the Tegra chip for small devices. And then Intel's sudden inclination to settle with AMD.

All reasons, theoretically, why the two companies need each other. Other sources--some close to Intel--think it's a patently absurd notion because of the regulatory issues involved, among a dozen more reasons.

Both Intel and Nvidia declined to comment.

The Federal Trade Commission has talked to Nvidia as its probe continues into Intel's business practices.

As CNET reported earlier, Nvidia has complained loudly for years about Intel business practices. Last month, Intel agreed to pay Advanced Micro Devices $1.25 billion to settle a long-running antitrust case against Intel.

In addition to the AMD probe, the FTC has approached Nvidia about Intel's business practices. This time in the graphics chip market, according to an Nvidia spokesperson. The Nvidia-related probe was reported by BusinessWeek.

Intel commands about 50 percent of the graphics chip market. Though Nvidia is the world's leading supplier of "discrete," or standalone, graphics chips, it ranks a distant second in overall market share to Intel, which supplies "integrated" graphics built into the chipsets that accompany all of its processors. Mercury Research estimates the total market for graphics chips, including integrated graphics, at almost $10 billion in 2009.

In the third quarter, Intel had 53 percent of the graphics chip market, up from the 49 percent share in the same period last year, according to Jon Peddie Research, which tracks the graphics chip market. Nvidia took about 24 percent, down from the 28 percent in the third quarter of last year.

Nvidia claims that Intel's "bundling" tactics--the same tactics that AMD has cited for years and that were spelled out in a complaint filed by New York's attorney general last month--are causing it undue harm.

"Intel's tactics with Ion have been the most aggressive we've seen from a competitor," Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang said in a statement provided to CNET last month, referring to Nvidia's Ion chipset that is used in laptops. Intel disputes this.

"We have scrubbed and continue to scrub our pricing practices as it relates to chipsets and processors," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy told CNET last month.

And in another feud with Intel, Nvidia has halted development of chipsets for Intel's new "Nehalem" processor technology (marketed as the Core i series of chips), following a complaint filed by Intel in February--which Nvidia then countered in March.

Updated on December 4 at 10:55 a.m. PST: adding comment from Nvidia.

Intel and Advanced Micro Devices filed motions on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, seeking sanctions against each other. Both motions are related to the retention of information in the antitrust case filed by AMD in 2005.

Intel's motion asserts that AMD failed to adequately retain documents in the case it filed against Intel in 2005. "AMD misrepresented its efforts and tried to hide its failures from the court and Intel," according to an Intel statement Wednesday.

The chipmaker alleges that AMD's claims about document retention were exaggerated. "Ever since Intel disclosed its problems in 2007, AMD claimed to have an 'exemplary' scheme to retain documents in this case. It is now clear that AMD did not, and that some AMD executives and employees failed to retain thousands of documents and e-mails," according to Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy.

In the legal filing, Intel summarized its argument under the heading: "Summary of Argument: AMD Should Be Ordered To Do What Intel Long Ago Did Voluntarily." Intel stated: "At least by January of 2005, AMD reasonably anticipated its lawsuit against Intel and did everything a future plaintiff would to do to prepare for that case...But (it) did not start retaining relevant documents, the one thing the law obligated it to do."

Intel said its effort to "remediate or correct" mistakes it made in the discovery process cost the company tens of millions of dollars. It said it believes that it has complied with the plan and successfully corrected the problem. "As a result, Intel delivered nearly 200 million pages of documents to AMD."

AMD motion cites Intel's "auto-delete shredder"
In addition to dismissing the Intel motion as having "no merit," AMD filed a separate motion on Wednesday about Intel's "failure to preserve evidence."

AMD challenged Intel's claim that its remediation efforts (mentioned above) were successful. "Intel could have easily avoided this evidence preservation fiasco, had it and its counsel exercised a modicum of diligence in designing and implementing an effective document preservation program," AMD said.

This "fiasco," AMD said, led to "Intel's much-heralded, high-vaunted, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt at remediation."

An excerpt from the filing continues: "At the heart of Intel's preservation problems was its failure to disarm an aggressive auto-delete system, despite uncontroverted authority required it do so...It's auto-delete shredder continued to run without any safety net."

AMD also alleged that "Intel has severely and irreparably harmed AMD's ability to present its case. At a company where paper trails are strongly discouraged, Intel imposed a 'move it or lose it' document preservation regime, where any document not manually saved was permanently expunged."

In the conclusion, AMD states that it "has submitted a proposed jury instruction for the court that attempts to remedy prejudice caused by Intel's spoliation of evidence." The instruction provides that the jury be told that Intel "destroyed hundreds of thousands of relevant documents."

Updated at 3:10 p.m. PDT, adding statements from Intel and AMD motions.

SanDisk said Monday that it is shipping memory chips that will allow consumers to store more data on tiny Secure Digital flash cards.

SanDisk X4 chip

(Credit: SanDisk)

The Milpitas, Calif., company's X4 technology packs four bits of data into each memory cell. To date, flash memory chipmakers typically stored one bit or two bits per cell. Each individual die--or chip--holds 64 gigabits of data, or 8 gigabytes. This is the highest capacity per die in the industry, according to SanDisk.

The technology is not yet shipping in cutting-edge retail products, however: it is currently being used in 8GB and 16GB SDHC (Secure Digital High Capacity) cards as well as 8GB and 16GB Memory Stick PRO Duo cards, the company said.

Future related technology from SanDisk--possibly not based on current X4--is expected to yield SD flash cards that hold 64GB of data and larger capacities. Currently, mainstream SanDisk SD cards top out at 32GB.

Flash memory cards sold at retailers are typically not as reliable as solid-state drives--which also use flash chips--sold with laptops. And the higher the density per chip and the more bits per cell, the bigger the challenge for maintaining data reliability. SanDisk says it has met this challenge.

"Our challenge with X4 technology was to not only deliver the lower costs inherent to 4-bits-per-cell but to do so while meeting the reliability and performance requirements of industry standard cards," Sanjay Mehrotra, SanDisk's president and chief operating officer, said in a statement.

But X4 will, for the time being, be hampered by poorer performance and endurance than X3 (3-bits-per-cell) technology, said Gregory Wong, founder and principal analyst at Forward Insights, which does research on flash memory technology.

The memory technology itself--the 4 bits per cell 64-gigabit memory--is codeveloped and co-owned by SanDisk and Toshiba. The X4 controller technology is solely owned by SanDisk.

Drop the word "Apple" into any discussion with any company and the effect is nothing short of remarkable.

This innocuous logo can evoke fear

Over the last year, I have talked to middle-level and high-ranking executives at enough companies to know exactly what to expect when the topic of Apple is broached: fear.

A recent interview with a fairly big company provides an example as good as any. (But I could cite a much bigger company too, it's doesn't seem to matter.)

The way this interview proceeded was typical. Most of it was devoted to questions about the company's product plans (unrelated to Apple)--and the interviewee divulged plenty of information. A smaller slice of the interview was about customers or companies related to the interviewee (again, unrelated to Apple). Here, queries were answered with differing levels of transparency. Though less was revealed, nothing was a conversation stopper.

Then, toward the end, the conversation turned to Apple--which is not unusual as Apple's tentacles are everywhere, particularly in the case of hardware. My question began something like: "So, I understand Apple is..." The response was remarkably consistent with past interviews. I quote from the mid-level manager: "I don't want to lose my job." I've heard variations on this job security (I-have-absolutely-nothing-to-say) theme related to Apple during the last 12 months or so.

The angst is always palpable. When the interviewees clam up, then quip something like "I like getting a paycheck every month," with a wry smile, they aren't joking. And these people don't even work for Apple.

I haven't written about the Apple gag-order syndrome until now because it hadn't struck me as that surprising, i.e., the stock phrase "I can't comment on another company's product plans" is used often--not to mention the legal weight of nondisclosure agreements.

But this changed a few months ago when I realized how the Apple question consistently evokes fear (or call it distinct unease) in many interviewees.

A sensational claim? Maybe it sounds that way. But I'm calling it as I see it.

Why Apple? It's not a stretch to say that Apple is probably one of the most secretive companies in Silicon Valley. But it's also one of the most influential and, consequently, most powerful. How do I know this? This middle-level manager at this fairly big, independent, and successful company felt compelled to comment on his job security twice. And the second time he said it, the smile had clearly left his face.

European antitrust regulators on Monday published internal e-mails that detail alleged antitrust behavior by Intel.

The European Commission Monday published a "non-confidential version" of its May 13 decision against Intel, which imposed a fine of $1.45 billion against the chip giant. That decision found that Intel broke EC Treaty antitrust rules (Article 82) by engaging in illegal practices to exclude competitors from the market for "x86" central processing units (CPUs).

The EC action was based on complaints from Intel's chief rival, Advanced Micro Devices.

Intel appealed the decision in July to a European court, saying that "evidence was ignored or misinterpreted."

Today, the EC fired back. Some of Monday's particulars from the EC press release include:

• Intel rebates to Lenovo during year 2007 "were conditioned on Lenovo purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook segment exclusively from Intel. For example, in a December 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive stated: 'Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD based products in 2007 for our Notebook products'."

• Intel rebates to Dell from December 2002 to December 2005 were conditioned on Dell purchasing CPUs exclusively from Intel. For example, in an internal Dell presentation of February 2003, Dell noted that should Dell switch any part of its CPU supplies from Intel to its competitor AMD, Intel retaliation "could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [Lines of Business]."

• Intel rebates to HP from November 2002 to May 2005 were conditioned on HP purchasing no less than 95 percent of its CPU needs for business desktops from Intel (the remaining 5 percent that HP could purchase from AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions set out below). In a submission to the Commission, HP stated that "Intel granted the credits subject to the following unwritten requirements: a) that HP should purchase at least 95% of its business desktop system from Intel ..." An HP executive wrote: 'PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5% AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement.'"

• The EC also cited "Naked Restrictions" such as: "Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. For example, in a September 2003 email, an Intel executive reported: "good news just came from [Acer Senior Executive] that Acer decides to drop AMD K8 [notebook product] throughout 2003 around the world...They keep pushing back until today, after the call with [Intel executive] this morning, [Acer Senior Executive] just confirmed that they decide to drop AMD K8 throughout 2003 around the world. [Acer Senior Executive] has got this direction from [Acer Senior Executive] as well and will follow through in EMEA [Europe Middle East and Africa region]".

AMD was quick to chime in with a comment Monday. "This is the first time that Intel has had to confront now publicly available facts of its illegal behavior and it won't be the last. The U.S. FTC and New York Attorney General's continuing investigations and AMD's civil case against Intel will provide other clear demonstrations of Intel breaking the law, and we remain confident that we will win our U.S. civil case against Intel, which goes to trial in March," AMD said.

Intel also issued a response Monday. "There is nothing new here. This Decision reflects the underlying bias we have come to expect from the case team that ran this investigation," Intel said. "The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements," Intel said. "At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue."

Intel continued: "Also, the Commission consistently construed ambiguous documents in a manner adverse to Intel, while overlooking or dismissing authoritative documents as 'insufficiently clear' when they contradicted the Commission's case. This pattern occurred across the board with respect to documents and statements submitted not only by Intel but also by third parties. The result was that the Commission dismissed or ignored extensive exculpatory evidence."

IBM scientists have imaged the chemical structure of an individual molecule, increasing the possibility for creating electronic building blocks on the atomic and molecular scale.

By using an atomically sharp metal tip terminated with a carbon monoxide molecule, IBM scientists were able to obtain an image of the inner structure of the molecule. The colored surface represents experimental data. The model below shows the position of the atoms within the molecule.

(Credit: IBM)

Scientists In Zurich, Switzerland, have, for the first time, imaged the "anatomy," or chemical structure, of an individual molecule with "unprecedented" resolution, using noncontact atomic force microscopy (AFM), IBM said Thursday. Resolving individual atoms within a molecule has been a long-standing goal of surface microscopy, according to the computer company, which has a research and development program dating back to 1945.

This research will be essential for building computing elements at the atomic scale that are vastly smaller, faster and more energy-efficient than today's processors and memory devices, IBM said.

The research is reported in the August 28 issue of Science magazine.

Though in recent years progress has been made in research of nanostructures on the atomic scale with AFM, imaging the chemical structure of an entire molecule has never been achieved with atomic resolution, according to IBM.

The atomic force microscopy was done in an ultrahigh vacuum and at very low temperatures (5 Kelvin equals minus 268 degrees Centigrade or minus 451 Fahrenheit) to image the chemical structure of individual pentacene molecules. Pentacene has a crystal structure that gives it properties as an organic semiconductor.

Scientists were able "to look through the electron cloud and see the atomic backbone of an individual molecule for the first time." This is roughly analogous to X-rays that pass through soft tissue to enable clear images of bones, IBM said.

The Science magazine article follows another piece published two months ago in the June 12 issue of the magazine covering the "determination of atomic charge states." The results discussed in both of these articles will "open new possibilities for investigating how charge propagates through molecules or molecular networks," IBM said.

Understanding the charge distribution may lead to building computing elements ... Read more