AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[YKhan]

As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
against Intel in a Delaware court.

EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164903291

AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
against Intel in a Delaware court.

EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164903291

AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236

How to win friends and influence people:

<wsj.com>

The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and
customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek
subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk
alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf.

"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said
Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who
isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the
idea."

Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many
Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the
litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on
the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said.

</wsj.com>

I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
expedition through corporate e-mail.

Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
The question is whether they are illegal.

Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
looked over SCO's financials before filing?

RM

 

[YKhan]

I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
expedition through corporate e-mail.

Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
The question is whether they are illegal.

Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
looked over SCO's financials before filing?

Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since
the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have
believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit.

Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?

RM

 

[YKhan]

Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?

I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even
want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
response to it.

They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
with his hand in the cookie jar could be.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even
want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
response to it.

They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
with his hand in the cookie jar could be.

Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't
think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has
not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not
Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages
for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the
record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only
what they have to say to keep investors informed of material
developments.

You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't
understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has
nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else.
That's just the way the world works.

RM

 

[Never anonymous Bud]

I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively.

I REALLY doubt they're worried.

Based on the MS anti-trust suit, this will be in the Courts for years,
and there won't be nearly enough damages awarded.

 

[Rob Stow]

I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively.

Otellina and other Intel execs are simply a matter of doing what
their expensive lawyers tell them. Par for the course in this
kind of situation. At most I would have expected him to read a
brief statement written by Intel's legal staff. Absent that, a
simple "No comment" or denial is all he really can do right now.

To me, the puzzling thing is that you or anyone else would expect
anything else out of any Intel execs at this point.

 

[nobody]

How to win friends and influence people:

<wsj.com>

The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and
customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek
subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk
alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf.

"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said
Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who
isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the
idea."

Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many
Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the
litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on
the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said.

</wsj.com>

I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
expedition through corporate e-mail.

Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel.
They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either.
The question is whether they are illegal.

Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
looked over SCO's financials before filing?

RM

It is a fact of the matter that INTC is a monopoly and behaves as
such. Yet establishing this fact legally is not an easy feat,
otherwise it would've been done a decade earlier. If AMD decided to
go forward with the suit now, it probably means they have obtained
some legal ammunition that was not available before. Or they just
think they have...

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't
think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has
not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not
Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages
for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the
record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only
what they have to say to keep investors informed of material
developments.

No, but often in the past they'd say that they are studying the lawsuit
and won't have any further comment till later. Not even such an
announcement.

You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't
understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has
nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else.
That's just the way the world works.

Actually I never said that, you did. But since you bring it up, Wall
Street does seem to understand this one pretty well. From today's action
it seems WS is very pleased with the announcement as AMD's stock price
climbed over 6% in response to it. Intel's went up as well, but it
stayed in line with the rest of the chip group at 2%. There's even some
very conservative analysts who would usually wait till a trial begins
before beginning to forecast outcomes already forecasting them right
now. Wells Fargo, inside Forbes, says it's 75% probable that AMD will
come away with a settlement equal to $8/share. So it looks like Wall
Street is giving AMD the big thumbs up to go ahead with this lawsuit.

'High Degree Of Likelihood' For AMD Win Against Intel - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/06/28/0628automarketscan14.html?partner=yahootix&referrer=

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I REALLY doubt they're worried.

Based on the MS anti-trust suit, this will be in the Courts for years,
and there won't be nearly enough damages awarded.

Well there's your big mistake right there, because you can't base this
on the Microsoft case. In this case Intel has already admitted its guilt
once already. That was during the Japanese FTC ruling against it.
Microsoft never once admitted its guilt like Intel has.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
to be determined.

Of course... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
optimistic on that.

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking?

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

 

[Robert Myers]

Actually I never said that, you did. But since you bring it up, Wall
Street does seem to understand this one pretty well. From today's action
it seems WS is very pleased with the announcement as AMD's stock price
climbed over 6% in response to it. Intel's went up as well, but it
stayed in line with the rest of the chip group at 2%. There's even some
very conservative analysts who would usually wait till a trial begins
before beginning to forecast outcomes already forecasting them right
now. Wells Fargo, inside Forbes, says it's 75% probable that AMD will
come away with a settlement equal to $8/share. So it looks like Wall
Street is giving AMD the big thumbs up to go ahead with this lawsuit.

'High Degree Of Likelihood' For AMD Win Against Intel - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/06/28/0628automarketscan14.html?partner=yahootix&referrer=

Opinions don't matter. What the market discounts as share price does.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
to be determined.


Of course... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
optimistic on that.

I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

RM

 

[Carlos Moreno]

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

Still, some of us are seriously disturbed by the comparison.

SCO's case is not an example of "litigation consumes resources" -- it's
more like an obvious case of the ultimate unsubstantiated, idle legal
claims, a huge scam that worked for a while. A grotesque stock market
fraud for which SCO's directive, like all criminals, should be behind
bars.

You see, after a year of the initial lawsuit, when they ran out of
excuses to not show any evidence to sustain their claims, they just
dropped all of the initial charges, and replaced them with new &
improved, ever more ridiculous ones, charges that require that IBM
discloses to SCO all of the code ever written (comical exaggeration
on this last item, yes). And you know, the charges were so trivial
to show: "millions of lines of code copy-n-pasted from our code" --
if the lines were copied, and were made public as part of Linux, why
would they be shy to show them? They wouldn't be showing any trade-
secret (not any more, if what they were saying had been true).

So, the balance: after a few months, SCO shares went from below a
dollar per share to more than 20 -- based *exclusively* on the
litigation; and they simply admit (not explicitly, but still) after
a year that those were all fake charges... I don't know what the
law says, but raw logic tells me that that's criminal behaviour,
stock fraud, for which they should go to prison. (yes, I know that
dropping the charges can be the result of realizing that one is
unable to prove "the truth" in a court of law... But in this case,
c'mon, how naive could one be??)

I don't see AMD planning to put its customers in line and start
suing them one by one as a strategy to bully them into doing
whatever AMD wants. See, *that* would be a serious killer to
AMD's finances... Ask SCO if you need evidence/precedent.

Carlos
--

 

[Robert Myers]

Still, some of us are seriously disturbed by the comparison.

SCO's case is not an example of "litigation consumes resources" -- it's
more like an obvious case of the ultimate unsubstantiated, idle legal
claims, a huge scam that worked for a while. A grotesque stock market
fraud for which SCO's directive, like all criminals, should be behind
bars.

You see, after a year of the initial lawsuit, when they ran out of
excuses to not show any evidence to sustain their claims, they just
dropped all of the initial charges, and replaced them with new &
improved, ever more ridiculous ones, charges that require that IBM
discloses to SCO all of the code ever written (comical exaggeration
on this last item, yes). And you know, the charges were so trivial
to show: "millions of lines of code copy-n-pasted from our code" --
if the lines were copied, and were made public as part of Linux, why
would they be shy to show them? They wouldn't be showing any trade-
secret (not any more, if what they were saying had been true).

I don't know about SCO's wild claims, and, if I'd taken them seriously,
I'd be too embarrassed to litigate for damages.

As much as I dislike SCO and the scummy ambulance-chaser fee agreement
it has with its lawyer, I'll actually be surprised if they come up with
*nothing.* Somewhere along the line, IBM code developed for a
derivative Unix work (AIX) has to have slid into its gifts to Linux.
An accident, I am sure, but if it *didn't* happen, it will be a
miracle.

In general, I don't like lawsuits.

So, the balance: after a few months, SCO shares went from below a
dollar per share to more than 20 -- based *exclusively* on the
litigation; and they simply admit (not explicitly, but still) after
a year that those were all fake charges... I don't know what the
law says, but raw logic tells me that that's criminal behaviour,
stock fraud, for which they should go to prison. (yes, I know that
dropping the charges can be the result of realizing that one is
unable to prove "the truth" in a court of law... But in this case,
c'mon, how naive could one be??)

I don't see AMD planning to put its customers in line and start
suing them one by one as a strategy to bully them into doing
whatever AMD wants. See, *that* would be a serious killer to
AMD's finances... Ask SCO if you need evidence/precedent.

Maybe not. We'll see how AMD's customers react to the subpoenas
they'll be getting. Not well, I'll wager, and I'll bet some of them
are regretting right now that they ever talked to AMD about Intel. As
long as *they* get as good a deal from Intel as everyone else, there is
no reason for them to resent an Intel monopoly. They make their money
no matter whose chips they're selling... unless someone is getting a
better deal from Intel than they are. So the conversation goes:

"I want the same kind of deal Dell gets."

"Dell is one of our very best customers. Only our very best customers
get that kind of deal."

"Okay, what do I have to do to be one of your very best customers?"

[And what follows may or may not be illegal.]

To go back to the comparison to SCO: On slashdot, someone commented
that Intel Performance Primitives (apparently) don't work with AMD
processors. Intel has the money for that kind of stuff, and they spend
it. AMD doesn't have the money for that kind of stuff, but they do
have the money for lawyers. Such an ordering of priorities invites
comparison with SCO. You don't like that. Oh, er, you are "seriously
disturbed" by it.

As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.

RM

 

[Carlos Moreno]

As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

Something off-topic for this group. I have a variety of interests and
prioirities in what I want for me and for the world -- but we deal with
one thing at a time; when I come to this newsgroup, it is to discuss
things related to computers. I'm not trying to diminish the important
of this [what you pointed us to] or the many many many other crimes
against humanity and against individual human beings; I'm just saying
that this is not what we were talking about (and it would be impolite
to continue talking about it in this newsgroup)

You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.

The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
that other things are worse.

If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"

(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)

Carlos
--

 

[YKhan]

Maybe not. We'll see how AMD's customers react to the subpoenas
they'll be getting. Not well, I'll wager, and I'll bet some of them
are regretting right now that they ever talked to AMD about Intel.

Or maybe not, according to this Ruiz went ahead with the lawsuit after
asking his customers if he should do it.

"Japan's regulators provided an opening in March when they ruled
against Intel in an antitrust case there. Ruiz said he consulted with
customers and found they wanted AMD to go forward.

``In the end, it was the right thing to do,'' he said. ``The vast
majority of people are thrilled we have put this on the table.''"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/12013657.htm

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

How would you even begin to get a temporary injunction on secret
practices?

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

Actually if Dell were to become an AMD customer in the middle of all of
this, then that would probably hurt AMD's case.

The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

PR is an integral part of this battle. It looks like AMD has hired a
media relations firm in addition to an outside law firm for this. The
techniques they're using seem to be reminiscent of the recent American
elections as well as various successful high-profile court cases (e.g.
websites, strategic newspaper ads, etc.).

Also looks like they may be able to bring in some heavy-hitter former
CEOs as their witnesses, such as Carly Fiorina and Michael Capellas.
Neither of them are in any kind of business anymore that's got any
substantial business with Intel. So they can't be intimidated.

Possibly they can even bring in Ted Waite of Gateway since he's retired
now too.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

Well actually for that matter, neither does Microsoft have that kind of
money.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

This change, Intel has promised to enact in Japan... where they are now
under close scrutiny.

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

Hold my breath... for sales? They're already happening, despite all the
ambushes and they'll happen at a higher rate with a free market.

As for Dell, I don't think that's what AMD needs - brand name dilution by
someone who will undoubtedly try to low-ball their superior product as a
cheap alternative.

I don't know what other *example* you are missing - every single system mfr
that AMD has tried to deal with has been warned off, prosecuted by Intel.
Try reading a bit instead of shrugging it off:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/20...h_0629sidebar.html?partner=yahootix&referrer=

As for Intel's response, so far it's idiotic: "excuses & speculation" when
the details are clearly delineated and the JP case is "proven".

The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

Nope - there's a whole universe of customers out there who prefer not to
have to count fingers after every handshake... some of whom will find on
close examination, to their dismay, that they have already been nibbled.

If nothing else, what this case will reveal to Intel's OEM customers is the
disparity in prices paid for Intel chips and mbrds etc. compared with the
most favored of that group. Those funny blue men are going to get covered
in shit.:-[]

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

I don't know which case but preferably involving a complainant corp. which
actually makes product and is not just a nest of legal parasites with a
portfolio of nebulous IP.