AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[Robert Myers]

Yup:

"According to Roland Vogl, Executive Director for the Stanford Program
in Law at Stanford University, AMD carries the burden of proof. 'First,
AMD has to prove that Intel actually has monopoly power, which would be
40 percent in the US - that should be a non-issue here.'"
http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050712/index-02.html

Remind me not to hire you or Tom as a lawyer. If Tom is quoting Roland
Vogel correctly, I'm not sure I'd vote to give him tenure, but I
suspect he is not being quoted correctly.

The assertion that 40% market share defines a monopoly in the US smells
like a can of tuna fish that's been open too long.

Here's something that sounds a little more plausible:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/computing/0004/microsoft.finding/2.html

<quote>

Where courts have found that the agreements in question failed to
foreclose absolutely outlets that together accounted for a substantial
percentage of the total distribution of the relevant products, they
have consistently declined to assign liability. See, e.g., id. ¶ 1821;
U.S. Healthcare, 986 F.2d at 596-97; Roland Mach. Co., 749 F.2d at 394
(failure of plaintiff to meet threshold burden of proving that
exclusive dealing arrangement is likely to keep at least one
significant competitor from doing business in relevant market dictates
no liability under § 1). This Court has previously observed that the
case law suggests that, unless the evidence demonstrates that
Microsoft's agreements excluded Netscape altogether from access to
roughly forty percent of the browser market, the Court should decline
to find such agreements in violation of § 1. See United States v.
Microsoft Corp., Nos. CIV. A. 98-1232, 98-1233, 1998 WL 614485, at *19
(D.D.C. Sept. 14, 1998) (citing cases that tended to converge upon
forty percent foreclosure rate for finding of § 1 liability).

</quote>

That might be above the level of reading comprehension of some who'd
like to follow along (but not yours, I'm sure), so let me translate:
the forty percent refers to a portion of the market from which the
accused has successfully *completely* (100%--"foreclose absolutely")
excluded the aggrieved by illegal tactics. If, for example, Dell were
40% of the market and it could be shown that Intel had used illegal
tactics to keep AMD out of Dell, Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act could be applied.

Here it is again:

<quote>

This Court has previously observed that the >>>case law<<< suggests
that, unless the evidence demonstrates that Microsoft's agreements
</quote>

That may be something that AMD can show, but it's a bit more than forty
percent overall market share for Intel as probative, and it certainly
does not define forty percent market share as being a monopoly. It is,
in any case, a matter of case law (tends to converge on forty percent),
under which courts have determined whether Section 1 of the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act can even be applied--not a definition of a monopoly.

RM

 

[YKhan]

Remind me not to hire you or Tom as a lawyer. If Tom is quoting Roland
Vogel correctly, I'm not sure I'd vote to give him tenure, but I
suspect he is not being quoted correctly.

If you're sure you know better than Mr. Vogl, so go argue it with him.
Or go argue it with Tom on his forums, if you think he didn't quote
Vogl right. You asked for a reference, and I gave you one.

After you've successfully gotten Tom -- or Mr. Roland Vogl -- to back
down from their assertions, then come back and tell us all about how
you were right and Tom or Roland were wrong. ;-)

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

If you're sure you know better than Mr. Vogl, so go argue it with him.
Or go argue it with Tom on his forums, if you think he didn't quote
Vogl right. You asked for a reference, and I gave you one.

This is how is works, Yousuf: when you quote someone else as
authoritative, it means you believe that what you are quoting is
credible. This discussion isn't taking place in Tom's Hardware Forum.
It's taking place here.

What you have quoted isn't credible, and I've given what I believe to
be credible evidence (which you snipped) as to why.

If you don't want to defend your own assertion, or if you believe that
a web page opinion is authoritative as opposed to straight text out of
the public record, you go on believing that, but I don't believe your
assertion, and you haven't defended it.

After you've successfully gotten Tom -- or Mr. Roland Vogl -- to back
down from their assertions, then come back and tell us all about how
you were right and Tom or Roland were wrong. ;-)

I have no interest at all in participating in Tom's Hardware Forums,
and your suggestion that I should do so is ludicrous.

This case will work itself out, as the Microsoft case worked itself
out. From my layman's perspective, Microsoft's behavior was about as
egregious as anything I've seen in my lifetime, and the "remedies"
taken in the Microsoft case were meaningless.

If the judgment against Intel is anything like you are hoping for, it
will be because there is something about this case I don't understand.
That's always a possibility, but I think it unlikely that it will be
you that educates me.

RM

 

[Yousuf Khan]

This is how is works, Yousuf: when you quote someone else as
authoritative, it means you believe that what you are quoting is
credible. This discussion isn't taking place in Tom's Hardware Forum.
It's taking place here.

What you have quoted isn't credible, and I've given what I believe to
be credible evidence (which you snipped) as to why.

If you don't want to defend your own assertion, or if you believe that
a web page opinion is authoritative as opposed to straight text out of
the public record, you go on believing that, but I don't believe your
assertion, and you haven't defended it.

Okay then, I'll also tell you how it works with me. I quoted a website
which quoted a lawyer they interviewed with some knowledge about
anti-trust cases. I'm not a lawyer, but the interviewee is. Until
another lawyer with similar background tells me that this first lawyer
is full of it, then I have no reason to disagree with him. Or someone
proves that the website misquoted him.

If you think you've discovered a flaw with his statement, then take it
up with him directly. Or take it up with the website that interviewed him.

Long story short, the interviewee is a lawyer. You are not.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Pankaj]

This is how is works, Yousuf: when you quote someone else as
authoritative, it means you believe that what you are quoting is
credible. This discussion isn't taking place in Tom's Hardware Forum.
It's taking place here.

What you have quoted isn't credible, and I've given what I believe to
be credible evidence (which you snipped) as to why.

If you don't want to defend your own assertion, or if you believe that
a web page opinion is authoritative as opposed to straight text out of
the public record, you go on believing that, but I don't believe your
assertion, and you haven't defended it.

I have no interest at all in participating in Tom's Hardware Forums,
and your suggestion that I should do so is ludicrous.

This case will work itself out, as the Microsoft case worked itself
out. From my layman's perspective, Microsoft's behavior was about as
egregious as anything I've seen in my lifetime, and the "remedies"
taken in the Microsoft case were meaningless.

If the judgment against Intel is anything like you are hoping for, it
will be because there is something about this case I don't understand.
That's always a possibility, but I think it unlikely that it will be
you that educates me.

RM

RM,

I am a silent reader of this forum and I enjoy reading all discussions
here. I tried posting earlier, but something went wrong and it didn't
go through. Let me first thank you for keeping the discussion here very
civilized even after getting pounded here!

I am not a lawyer and so I cant comment on the technical details of
monopoly. I do agree with you that the 40% cannot be a clear cut
definition of monopoly. Here is the case wher it cant be applied- in a
two player market, if one has 40%, the other will have 60%. So which
one is a monopoly? How do you prove that a company has a monoploy. Here
is a link. Not a very authoritative, but beleivable.

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html

From a market share point of view, there's no clear cut definition, and

it should not be (in my views). But a clear cut definition has been the
ability to control prices and exclude competition. I think this is a
very appropriate way of defining it. Based on AMD's allegation, this
should not be a difficult task. I dont think it matters that there were
no written contracts to show exclusionary rebates, as the judges (and
the jury) have to be convinced that a threat of any kind was made to
exclude competition.

I am very much with AMD on this one. You do agree that Microsoft has
abused their monopoly, I dont see why you see this case to be totally
different. How many IE versions have we seen after Netscape was gone?
In Intel's case, they had to improve because of competition (AMD
lately). I truly beleive that in the absence of competition, we would
have a PIII 800 MHz as the fastest desktop cpu by now! Thats why
competition is necessary. And once its there, laws are there to keep it
fair. Thats all that AMD is asking for.

Pankaj

 

[Robert Myers]

Okay then, I'll also tell you how it works with me. I quoted a website
which quoted a lawyer they interviewed with some knowledge about
anti-trust cases. I'm not a lawyer, but the interviewee is. Until
another lawyer with similar background tells me that this first lawyer
is full of it, then I have no reason to disagree with him. Or someone
proves that the website misquoted him.

If you think you've discovered a flaw with his statement, then take it
up with him directly. Or take it up with the website that interviewed him.

Long story short, the interviewee is a lawyer. You are not.

[Struggling to maintain my composure.]

I am not asking you to believe anything that *I* say. I am asking you
to compare the apparently absurd comment you insist that I believe
compared to a statement taken straight out of the public record.

I really don't know how long I can keep this up.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

I am not a lawyer and so I cant comment on the technical details of
monopoly. I do agree with you that the 40% cannot be a clear cut
definition of monopoly. Here is the case wher it cant be applied- in a
two player market, if one has 40%, the other will have 60%. So which
one is a monopoly? How do you prove that a company has a monoploy. Here
is a link. Not a very authoritative, but beleivable.

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html

The actual question here is applicability of Section 1 of the Sherman
Anti-trust act, which applies when a company has been found to have
monopoly power. The document I cited from the Microsoft findings seems
clear. No matter what Yousuf thinks, Intel will contest that Section 1
sanctions are applicable. If and when a court makes a finding that
Intel has monopoly power, then it will be appropriate to say that Intel
has monopoly power.

I am very much with AMD on this one. You do agree that Microsoft has
abused their monopoly, I dont see why you see this case to be totally
different. How many IE versions have we seen after Netscape was gone?
In Intel's case, they had to improve because of competition (AMD
lately). I truly beleive that in the absence of competition, we would
have a PIII 800 MHz as the fastest desktop cpu by now! Thats why
competition is necessary. And once its there, laws are there to keep it
fair. Thats all that AMD is asking for.

AMD will have its day in court (maybe).

RM

 

[YKhan]

And I'm trying to tell you your fight is with the authors of the
article and the people they interviewed. There's no point in taking it
up with me.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

And I'm trying to tell you your fight is with the
authors of the article and the people they interviewed.
There's no point in taking it up with me.

Then pray tell, why did you post it?

Unless you posted it with a clear critique: "look at what
these idjuts are saying", you are presumed to support it.

In this case, IIRC you posted a quote to support your
arguments. Then you must accept the quote, warts and all.
And rebuttal is entirely appropriate.

Your argument stinks of "appeal to authority": that
credentials or media incorporation somehow make the
information or arguments more credible. This is entirely
anathema to the egalitarian medium of USENET.

-- Robert

 

[Pankaj]

The actual question here is applicability of Section 1 of the Sherman
Anti-trust act, which applies when a company has been found to have
monopoly power. The document I cited from the Microsoft findings seems
clear. No matter what Yousuf thinks, Intel will contest that Section 1
sanctions are applicable. If and when a court makes a finding that
Intel has monopoly power, then it will be appropriate to say that Intel
has monopoly power.

Most antitrust cases are tried under section 2. Section 1 doesnt even
talk about monopolization. I am sure Courts will decide if Intel is a
monoploy, we are here to just have a discussion about it, right? Or do
we want to have this discussion after the trial is over!

AMD will have its day in court (maybe).

I hope so. I dont want AMD to make an out of court settlement. Intel
has history of making out of court settlements just for one reason-
They dont want to be declared a monopoly. A company that makes 2
billion dollars a quarter, can pay that amount easily to keep
benefitting from their monopoly. Where are DEC, Intergraph today?

Pankaj

 

[Robert Myers]

Most antitrust cases are tried under section 2. Section 1 doesnt even
talk about monopolization. I am sure Courts will decide if Intel is a
monoploy, we are here to just have a discussion about it, right? Or do
we want to have this discussion after the trial is over!

I believe the byplay between Yousuf and me was over whether it was
obvious on the face of it (based on a quote in Tom's Hardware), that
Intel is a monopoly as defined by anti-trust law.

I hope so. I dont want AMD to make an out of court settlement. Intel
has history of making out of court settlements just for one reason-
They dont want to be declared a monopoly. A company that makes 2
billion dollars a quarter, can pay that amount easily to keep
benefitting from their monopoly. Where are DEC, Intergraph today?

Trials are expensive. Once you get in front of a judge, anything can
happen. Getting into the courtroom should be a last resort from
someone who is not grandstanding.

Far from my reading this as a bold move from a self-confident AMD, I
see it as a sign of desperation. How do we turn our expectations as to
what we are worth into reality? Sue.

Consolidation in the semiconductor business is utterly unavoidable. If
Intel does not survive or is very much weakened, that is not
necessarily good for the industry.

As to DEC, how do you spell self-destruct? I don't know about
Intergraph. There are, I suspect, people out there who admire
Microsoft the way that I admire Intel. I have no illusions that Intel
is nice, fair, or even always the best. They get the job done. That's
all.

Everyone here knows that I don't think much of AMD's long-term
prospects. If what people here are dreaming about came to pass: an
Intel much debilitated by lengthy litigation and a ruinous judgment, it
would not be a good thing.

Fairness? Give me a break. Pay attention to what's happening in the
world. There are much bigger things to worry about than whether AMD
executives have their dreams fulfilled.

RM

 

[YKhan]

Then pray tell, why did you post it?

Umm, because you asked me to?

Unless you posted it with a clear critique: "look at what
these idjuts are saying", you are presumed to support it.

Did I ever say I didn't support it? As I said previously, I have no
reason to not believe it. If another expert with similar credentials
might disagree and explain why, then I'll revisit this gentleman's
claims.

Your argument stinks of "appeal to authority": that
credentials or media incorporation somehow make the
information or arguments more credible. This is entirely
anathema to the egalitarian medium of USENET.

Don't take it personally, if it comes to an argument about computer
chips or computer architecture between you and Mr. Vogl, I'll take your
word with much higher authority than his.

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

I believe the byplay between Yousuf and me was over whether it was
obvious on the face of it (based on a quote in Tom's Hardware), that
Intel is a monopoly as defined by anti-trust law.

Okay Robert, I'll throw you one bone. Perhaps, what Mr. Vogl said about
monopolies being declared after 40% marketshare is not a written rule,
just what he has observed in his years of observing many antitrust
battles? A defacto rule, or a rule of thumb, in other words.

Far from my reading this as a bold move from a self-confident AMD, I
see it as a sign of desperation. How do we turn our expectations as to
what we are worth into reality? Sue.

Well, it sure looks like AMD are self-confident and not desperate, they
just beat their quarterly earnings estimates yesterday during their
last quarter. Overcame weakness in flash memory with stronger processor
sales too. They actually think they might be stronger in processors
than what is the traditional weak seasonal pattern in that quarter. But
I digress, we're not here to discuss financial performance per se.

Oh there's been a couple of articles, one is regarding the recent raid
that was conducted on four of Intel's offices in Europe:

The EU's Assault on Intel
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050714_6222_tc024.htm

And why it might be very difficult for Intel to prove its innocence in
Europe:

Why Intel Faces an Uphill Slog
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050714_1997_tc024.htm

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Okay Robert, I'll throw you one bone. Perhaps, what Mr. Vogl said about
monopolies being declared after 40% marketshare is not a written rule,
just what he has observed in his years of observing many antitrust
battles? A defacto rule, or a rule of thumb, in other words.

It is not simply a question of whether it is written into the law or
inferred by the courts as a matter of precedent. It is a question at
to what the precedent means. To quote the citation I offered
previously:

"This Court has previously observed that the
case law suggests that, unless the evidence demonstrates that
Microsoft's agreements excluded Netscape altogether from access to
roughly forty percent of the browser market, the Court should decline
to find such agreements in violation of § 1."

It isn't just what Intel's market share is. It is what portion of the
market Intel has succeeded in excluding AMD from "altogether." That's
a straight reading of an opinion from a court (only changing the names
from Microsoft and Netscape to Intel and AMD), not an off-hand comment
in a hardware column. That's a higher standard of proof than suggested
by Mr. Vogl's comment. AMD may well be able to prove it, but they
still have to prove it, and it seems far from obvious to me.

If Intel executives took someone from OEM into the back room and said,
"If you sell AMD products, we'll take away all your Intel Inside
stickers," and AMD was denied business at that OEM as a result, Section
1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act wouldn't apply unless the sum total of
such offenses could account for 40% of the market, no matter what
Intel's market share was, as long as AMD had "fair" access to at least
60% of the market.

Now, it may be that this Vogl simply made a number of unwarrented leaps
in making his comment or that he was misunderstood and subsequently
misquoted. I don't know, and I don't want to spend more time on it.
The remark looked silly, I did a little research, and I conclude that
the remark was silly (misleading at an absolute minimum, outright wrong
if Vogl were submitting answers on a bar exam).

I don't particularly care for playing lawyer, but I have reasonable
confidence in my ability to read plain English, and I have my own
notions of what seems reasonable and what doesn't. Neither Tom, nor
Vogl, nor you seem likely to be correct on this issue, and I have no
interest in exploring the matter elsewhere.

Well, it sure looks like AMD are self-confident and not desperate, they
just beat their quarterly earnings estimates yesterday during their
last quarter. Overcame weakness in flash memory with stronger processor
sales too. They actually think they might be stronger in processors
than what is the traditional weak seasonal pattern in that quarter. But
I digress, we're not here to discuss financial performance per se.

Oh there's been a couple of articles, one is regarding the recent raid
that was conducted on four of Intel's offices in Europe:

The EU's Assault on Intel
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050714_6222_tc024.htm

Either you don't read the articles you cite, or you don't understand
what they mean in real world terms (and I'd say that goes for the
Business Week writer as well).

<quote>

Intel agreed to abide by the ruling from the Japanese Federal Trade
Commission (JFTC), but denied the substance of the finding. Sources
close to AMD say that the JFTC case emboldened European investigators,
who hope to see some of the evidence gathered by their Japanese
counterparts. Moreover, it gave cover to AMD's own civil case.

</quote>

If you'd ever actually been involved with any of these regulatory
skirmishes, you'd know that an agreement not to break the law in the
future with no admission of wrongdoing is a very common way of avoiding
an actual finding of wrongdoing. So far, nobody has anything, except
Intel's agreement not to break the law. But they've already agreed
said they weren't breaking the law to begin with. You, AMD, Japanese
regulators, and the EU would like a piece of Intel's hide? <Yawn>.

I'm not following this closely because neither you nor anyone else has
convinced me it amounts to much. Consequently, I could be missing
something big. That's a chance I'll have to take. I've got other
things on my mind.

And why it might be very difficult for Intel to prove its innocence in
Europe:

Why Intel Faces an Uphill Slog
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050714_1997_tc024.htm

If you read this stuff, and you think it's wonderful, I'd say that's
pretty sad. The ambiguities and the uncertainties and the outright
absolute BS are just too much of the bottom line. That's the way it
goes when you get lawyers and regulators involved. That's how most
engineers would see it if it weren't for Intel in the dock.

RM

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Umm, because you asked me to?

I did not. Mr Myers might have.

If another expert with similar credentials might disagree
and explain why, then I'll revisit this gentleman's claims.

So credentials _do_ matter to you. I'm afraid I put personal
knowledge and common sense first. Certainly ahead of the
public pronouncments of a lawyer who represents one side of
a dispute. S/he is obliged to advocate.

Don't take it personally, if it comes to an argument about
computer chips or computer architecture between you and Mr. Vogl,
I'll take your word with much higher authority than his.

I can't speak for Mr. Myers, but I would not want you to.
Logic & facts matter. Who says them is "ad hominem".

-- Robert

 

[YKhan]

I did not. Mr Myers might have.

Oops, yeah, I did not even look that closely. Once I got past "Robert"
it all sort of melded into one. Google Groups gets a little unwieldy
when the threads become this deep.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Pankaj]

Trials are expensive. Once you get in front of a judge, anything can
happen. Getting into the courtroom should be a last resort from
someone who is not grandstanding.

Yes, trials are expensive. But the market share at stake is much much
higher than that. Anything can happen in court, but it still shouldnt
deter you to seek legal help, and this was the last resort for AMD.
They tried getting marketshare with a better cpu, but they couldnt by
fair means. Is one milion free processors too high a price?

Far from my reading this as a bold move from a self-confident AMD, I
see it as a sign of desperation. How do we turn our expectations as to
what we are worth into reality? Sue.
It is indeed a sign of desperation, because all else (fair game)
failed. AMD can not match their bullying power or bribery so they have
to take help of the laws that are made to help companies like hem. They
are confident that they will win and so are most people. From what is
out there, I have yet to see a convincing pro-Intel comment from anyone
(from people who have influence in public).

Consolidation in the semiconductor business is utterly unavoidable. If
Intel does not survive or is very much weakened, that is not
necessarily good for the industry.
When there are two companies in the market, what is consolidation? Are
saying intel take over AMD? Competiion is much better in this case than
consolidation. If Intel is all fair game, they will not loose it. The
majority opinion here and in public is that it wil not be the case. If
intel looses, it will weaken only their bullying power. They wil have
to adjust their business model slightly to account for loss in market
share.

There are, I suspect, people out there who admire
Microsoft the way that I admire Intel. I have no illusions that Intel
is nice, fair, or even always the best. They get the job done. That's
all.
I respect all those people who respect Microsoft and Intel too, its
just that I do not have the same thinking. We still have to coexist.
This give us different views to discuss. If evryone one here was pro
AMD, there wouldnt be much of a discussion.

Everyone here knows that I don't think much of AMD's long-term
prospects. If what people here are dreaming about came to pass: an
Intel much debilitated by lengthy litigation and a ruinous judgment, it
would not be a good thing.
If you beleive Intel's case is so strong, why would they be
debilitated? Do you fear that? But I do believe they will be
debilitated It would be a very good thing for the industry,
consumers. Trust me on this: "Competition is good".

Fairness? Give me a break. Pay attention to what's happening in the
world. There are much bigger things to worry about than whether AMD
executives have their dreams fulfilled.
I do pay attention to what's happening in the world, though not
everything. I dont know why you have mentioned it. Are you trying to
justify Intel's practices because they are not as bad as other things
in the world? Well this group is very focussed on the chips. If you are
worried about world Hunger, Intel can feed a lot of mouths with 2
billion a quarter!

 

[Robert Myers]

Pankaj wrote:

[Can you find someone who knows what they're doing to help you make a
post that displays properly?]

If you beleive Intel's case is so strong, why would they be
debilitated? Do you fear that? But I do believe they will be
debilitated It would be a very good thing for the industry,
consumers. Trust me on this: "Competition is good".

Much of the progress of civilization and been built on the creation of
monopolies, and competition is not always good. Many of the activities
that technologists admire and dream about require enormous
concentrations of power and of wealth, and the ruthless creation of
monopolies has more often than not been what has allowed those
concentrations to appear.

What do you think the computer industry would look like if it hadn't
been for IBM's ruthlessness? Follow comp.arch for a while and try to
grasp how much of the work was done by IBM when it was a monopoly.
What IBM didn't do, AT&T Bell Labs did. The insularity that went along
with IBM's enormous wealth and influence, not the actions of
regulators, eventually brought the monopoly to an end. AT&T was
brought down by regulatory activity, and it was not necessarily a good
thing.

As to my thinking Intel's case being so strong, that's something you
just made up. I'm sure that Intel has pushed things to the point where
their lawyers will have to work to earn their money. And the *lawyers*
on *both* sides *will* get *their* money.

I do pay attention to what's happening in the world, though not
everything. I dont know why you have mentioned it. Are you trying to
justify Intel's practices because they are not as bad as other things
in the world? Well this group is very focussed on the chips. If you are
worried about world Hunger, Intel can feed a lot of mouths with 2
billion a quarter!

I didn't mention world hunger, but I did mention genocide, which is a
problem that can't be cured so easily with money. I mentioned what's
happening in the world because I find the self-righteousness of
business theoreticians more than a little annoying. You don't have a
need for inexpensive top of the line processors. The world won't
necessarily be a better place if the AMD/Intel competition works the
way you want it to. It doesn't matter all that much whether
competition in business is fair or not.

RM

 

[YKhan]

It isn't just what Intel's market share is. It is what portion of the
market Intel has succeeded in excluding AMD from "altogether." That's
a straight reading of an opinion from a court (only changing the names
from Microsoft and Netscape to Intel and AMD), not an off-hand comment
in a hardware column. That's a higher standard of proof than suggested
by Mr. Vogl's comment. AMD may well be able to prove it, but they
still have to prove it, and it seems far from obvious to me.

Well, even by your slightly different interpretation, AMD definitely
has a case, as AMD was obviously restricted from attaining 40% of the
marketshare, it was restricted down below 20% and in most cases below
10%.

Either you don't read the articles you cite, or you don't understand
what they mean in real world terms (and I'd say that goes for the
Business Week writer as well).

<quote>

Intel agreed to abide by the ruling from the Japanese Federal Trade
Commission (JFTC), but denied the substance of the finding. Sources
close to AMD say that the JFTC case emboldened European investigators,
who hope to see some of the evidence gathered by their Japanese
counterparts. Moreover, it gave cover to AMD's own civil case.

</quote>

If you'd ever actually been involved with any of these regulatory
skirmishes, you'd know that an agreement not to break the law in the
future with no admission of wrongdoing is a very common way of avoiding
an actual finding of wrongdoing. So far, nobody has anything, except
Intel's agreement not to break the law. But they've already agreed
said they weren't breaking the law to begin with. You, AMD, Japanese
regulators, and the EU would like a piece of Intel's hide? <Yawn>.

You really like to grasp at straws don't you? This was not a civil
court ruling, where you don't have to admit guilt, just by paying off
somebody. This was a regulatory body ruling, and accepting their
recommendations is the same as admitting you were guilty. You either
accept it or you don't and you appeal. They didn't appeal, so they
accepted.

It doesn't matter if Intel agrees or disagrees with the ruling, once
they accept it, they have admitted their guilt. They weren't given a
choice of making a statement about it, they just chose to make one,
hoping it would convince people like you would take that as a
mitigating factor. It wasn't in the eyes of the JFTC, their only choice
to Intel was "do you accept it or don't you"?

I'm not following this closely because neither you nor anyone else has
convinced me it amounts to much. Consequently, I could be missing
something big. That's a chance I'll have to take. I've got other
things on my mind.

There isn't much that will ever convince you. Even after Intel is found
guilty has paid off billions of dollars, you're going to be still
saying Intel admitted to nothing.

If you read this stuff, and you think it's wonderful, I'd say that's
pretty sad. The ambiguities and the uncertainties and the outright
absolute BS are just too much of the bottom line. That's the way it
goes when you get lawyers and regulators involved. That's how most
engineers would see it if it weren't for Intel in the dock.

You quite obviously didn't read this article, I'm disappointed. Because
this was an article that was mostly pro-Intel. It had all kinds of
useful information in there which you could've used to argue why Intel
is being persecuted by the Europeans.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Well, even by your slightly different interpretation, AMD definitely
has a case, as AMD was obviously restricted from attaining 40% of the
marketshare, it was restricted down below 20% and in most cases below
10%.

You've just restated your own position, including the fact that AMD's
case is obvious. That is to say, you are perseverating again. It is
that forty percent of the market or more is completely inaccessible to
AMD, no matter what they do. AMD will argue that that has been the
case, but the case isn't proven simply looking at market share. Yes,
AMD has a case, but it isn't obvious, and they haven't yet proven it.

You really like to grasp at straws don't you? This was not a civil
court ruling, where you don't have to admit guilt, just by paying off
somebody. This was a regulatory body ruling, and accepting their
recommendations is the same as admitting you were guilty. You either
accept it or you don't and you appeal. They didn't appeal, so they
accepted.

You just don't know what you're talking about. All my experience is
based on practice in the US, but your post indicates that you don't
understand practice in the US. Agreeing to abide by a regulatory
ruling is not the same thing as admitting guilt; it means you are
agreeing to the standard of behavior described as a future standard of
conduct. Sometimes an admission of wrongdoing is part of an agreement,
sometimes it is not, just as in a civil case. Companies don't want to
agree to admissions of wrongdoing because of the potential of further
civil liability.

It doesn't matter if Intel agrees or disagrees with the ruling, once
they accept it, they have admitted their guilt.
No.


There isn't much that will ever convince you. Even after Intel is found
guilty has paid off billions of dollars, you're going to be still
saying Intel admitted to nothing.

Now you're accusing me of absurd behavior before the fact. If Intel is
found guilty and pays billions of dollars, then Intel is found guilty
and they pay billions of dollars, but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe it
has happened in the fantasy world in your mind, but it hasn't happened
yet in reality.

You quite obviously didn't read this article, I'm disappointed. Because
this was an article that was mostly pro-Intel. It had all kinds of
useful information in there which you could've used to argue why Intel
is being persecuted by the Europeans.

I did read the article. Here's a sample:

<quote>

Similarly, legal analysts from the Brussels office of law firm Cleary
Gottlieb note in a white paper that the ruling used a very
"formalistic" approach to Europe's Article 82, which is the equivalent
to the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act. The biggest problem, according to
the law firm, was that it seemed to indicate rebates from dominant
players generally aren't permissible unless they are clearly justified
by economies of scale or other cost savings.

This seems too strict a test. Cleary Gottlieb says "any non-predatory
price offered by a dominant firm that increases output should be
presumed legal even in the absence of specific cost-savings
attributable to the relevant transaction." As far as the Intel-AMD
situation is concerned, AMD will, of course, argue that Intel's pricing
was indeed predatory, and thus runs afoul of the law.

</quote>

In other words, nobody really knows what the rules are. We'll find out
after the lawyers, judges, and regulators have finished arguing about.


You think this is wonderful. I don't. You think I should think
something wonderful if it favors Intel's case. I don't.

RM