Federal Court orders Intel Corporation and third parties to produce documents.

[locutus12]

FEDERAL COURT ORDERS INTEL CORPORATION AND THIRD PARTIES TO PRODUCE FOREIGN DISCOVERY IN AMD VS. INTEL U.S. ANTITRUST SUIT

- Court Finds Production of Foreign Discovery Illustrating Global Misconduct is Essential Given Undisputed Global Nature of Microprocessor Market -

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Dec. 28, 2006 — AMD (NYSE: AMD) today announced a significant legal victory in its ongoing antitrust suit against Intel Corporation. In an order effective yesterday, the Federal District Court in Delaware overruled Intel’s objections and ordered it to produce documents and other evidence bearing upon Intel’s exclusionary conduct outside of U.S. borders.

AMD believes that the production of this foreign discovery will contain evidence of anticompetitive business practices that show clear violations of not only the Sherman Antitrust Act but also generally accepted anti-monopoly laws worldwide.

"Intel's acquiescence to the Special Master's findings is a big win for AMD,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “This case remains firmly focused on the worldwide misbehavior of a global monopolist. This ruling also removes any basis for Intel or its foreign customers to withhold evidence of Intel's exclusion, regardless of where it occurred. We will proceed vigorously to prove that Intel abuses its global monopoly power by limiting or excluding competition, which ultimately hurts consumers worldwide.”

Yesterday’s order resulted from Intel’s decision to accept Special Master Vincent Poppiti’s findings of December 15th, which recommended to presiding Judge Joseph Farnan that "as the undisputed geographic market is global, and approximately 68% of the total worldwide production of computers powered by x86 microprocessors are sold to non-U.S. customers evidence of foreign exclusionary conduct is essential for AMD to demonstrate" that Intel has violated U.S. antitrust laws. Judge Farnan appointed Special Master Poppiti to preside over all discovery disputes in the case.

well thats my day off to a good start.

 

[Final8y]

well thats my day off to a good start.

No Smoke With Out Fire.

 

[Corasik]

The only real winners in long drawn out court battles are the lawyers, intel and AMD have been in the courts since the mid 80's when intel first canceled amd's license to make 80386's.

 

[locutus12]

No Smoke With Out Fire.

eh ?

The only real winners in long drawn out court battles are the lawyers, intel and AMD have been in the courts since the mid 80's when intel first canceled amd's license to make 80386's.

they didn't cancel any licence, they had a contract together to co developing the 386 platform, AMD shared their data, Intels engineers didnt share theirs. Intel released the 386 and left AMD without a product due to basically stealing their research and not sharing back, AMD sues, its resolved in 1992, Intel is fined 10 million dollars and forced to hand over all documents on 386, by which times its too late as Intel is already producing 486 and has sufficiently stifled AMD to keep them in a catch up position for the next decade.

and history has just repeated itself as since the mid 90`s Intel has tried to strangle the hell out of AMD with the illegal discounts to suppliers in return for them only going with Intel products.

 

[Corasik]

No, Intel invented the 8086, 80286, 80386, and AMD made the same chips under license as IBM demanded that there were two suppliers for the CPU's for their PC's.

When the 386 came out intel saw that there was sufficient market in PC 'Clones' that they nolonger needed to accept IBM's dictated terms, and they attempted to pull the lisence agreement with AMD. They did not co develop with AMD.

Yes, Intel lose the court case in 1991, and but the cases continued and the courts rule in intels favour in 1994 that AMD couldnt use 30386 microcode afterall. A cross license was agreed shortly after which is still in operation. Which is why intel can make 64 bit processors using amd's enhancements, but also why AMD can make X86 processors with SSE1/2/3/4

However, because of the court battles AMD designed a 'clean room' clone of the 30386 which they called AM386 (released in 1991). If you ever see an AMD 80286, you'll see its even stamped with intel's copyright dates.

AM486 was also a reverse engineered design.

Regardless of the history why be happy. If intel were driven under (which wont happen), amd would have no reason to develop faster processors, and prices would skyrocket. AMD are underpressure because Core2 is superior to any of their processors, and intel will probably be able to respond very quickly if K8L manages to take the performance crown back. AMD simply respond by falling back on its tried and tested courtroom battles. /yawn.

 

[locutus12]

*snip*

Regardless of the history why be happy. If intel were driven under (which wont happen), amd would have no reason to develop faster processors, and prices would skyrocket. AMD are underpressure because Core2 is superior to any of their processors, and intel will probably be able to respond very quickly if K8L manages to take the performance crown back. AMD simply respond by falling back on its tried and tested courtroom battles. /yawn.

actually your right, just been reading up again, its funny how history gets muddled in your head but i think your misunderstood me a little, i dont want Intel to go under, just to play fair besides which even if the court told intel to pay 50 billion dollars (which it wont of course) they still wouldnt go under, there just too big and too vital.

as for AMD falling back on court battles because it cant compete ?? there you are very wrong. this court action was launched way before Core2 and was actually precipitated by the Japanese who successfully prosecuted Intel for breaches of monopoly practices.

 

[Margaret]

well thats my day off to a good start.

You must have a very very unfullfilling life

 

[locutus12]

You must have a very very unfullfilling life

extraordinarily...

 

[Corasik]

as for AMD falling back on court battles because it cant compete ?? there you are very wrong. this court action was launched way before Core2 and was actually precipitated by the Japanese who successfully prosecuted Intel for breaches of monopoly practices.

Your right too . I did some further reading as well, Seems AMD filed in 2005, and the case doesnt even goto court until 2009. Corporate law eh?

PS. Happy new year

 

[Final8y]

eh ?

In other words Intel must have been upto something.

 

[locutus12]

Your right too . I did some further reading as well, Seems AMD filed in 2005, and the case doesnt even goto court until 2009. Corporate law eh?

PS. Happy new year

your also right in that probably the only winners will be the bloody lawyers, i mean worse case scenario, Intel gets bound over to adhere to a special set of rules, AMD gets awarded a couple of hundred million and life goes on. its pocket change to Intel and as i said, they are just such a large and in many areas vital company that they will always be around, just so long as they play fair


in 2006 it came out that intel had paid skype to lock a feature so that only Intel processors could use it even though when unlocked it works perfectly fine on an AMD CPU... so it seems regardless of the court action it seems Intel is still content to be as dirty as they can in the hopes no one will notice, but like i said even when they get caught it doesnt seem to bother them in the slightest.

in any case, have a happy new year too!

In other words Intel must have been upto something.

indeed, it seems they just cant help themselves.

 

[Dolph]

indeed, it seems they just cant help themselves.

You seem to forget the difference between a business behaving like a business and a business behaving illegally in an anti-trust sense.... There isn't one, apart from a government finds it illegal and makes money off it.

Exclusive or preferential supply agreements aren't illegal, lots of businesses use them. They only change from being acceptable to unacceptable when the government of one country or another declares the company involved a monopoly.

Likewise including additional features in software isn't illegal... unless you're microsoft for some reason.

You seem to be getting all upset about standard business practices mainly because you don't like Intel. Would you have a problem with AMD doing the same thing? Funding development that can only be used with their processors, for example, or offering a PC manufacturer better rates for not dealing with Intel (both of which are perfectly acceptable business practices)

 

[NathanE]

I've tried explaining that to him before Dolph and got shot down pretty quick Meh.

 

[locutus12]

Dolph im so glad you have absolutely no influence on how the world is ran. Otherwise bullying would be encouraged in all forms at all levels, the weak would be shoved to one side and forgotten, and a whole host of other things that you seem to think are acceptable to humanity such as unbound greed and unrivalled personal wealth regardless of the cost to others would be prevalent.

You seem to forget the difference between a business behaving like a business and a business behaving illegally in an anti-trust sense.... There isn't one, apart from a government finds it illegal and makes money off it.

Using your monopoly position to maintain said position and stifle competition is illegal in most of the developed world, Intel did this, call it what ever the hell you want, it is illegal, like it or lump it.

Exclusive or preferential supply agreements aren't illegal, lots of businesses use them. They only change from being acceptable to unacceptable when the government of one country or another declares the company involved a monopoly.

A government declares a company a monopoly in an effort to maintain and stimulate competition in the given market place and allow smaller rivals access to compete. preferential supply agreements arnt illegal unless your business happens to dominate the market that it operates in and can literally buy the death of any small competing firm.

Likewise including additional features in software isn't illegal... unless you're microsoft for some reason.

for the very reasons i explained above, the dominant company can use its vast profits to stifle a smaller company's competitiveness and remove its access to vital contracts whilst at the same time increasing its market share and general dominance over the given market place. All things being equal,i,e, a multitude of firms of varying sizes competing, that's just business as usual. In the case of Microsoft and Intel you seem absolutely and totally unable to comprehend the tiny fact that all things are not equal.

You seem to be getting all upset about standard business practices mainly because you don't like Intel. Would you have a problem with AMD doing the same thing? Funding development that can only be used with their processors, for example, or offering a PC manufacturer better rates for not dealing with Intel (both of which are perfectly acceptable business practices)

AMD are unable to do the same thing as they are vastly smaller than intel even with the purchase of AMD, but for your information if the roles were reversed i would indeed be rooting for Intel as im in favour of fair playing fields because of the ethics and morality of a situation not because i like the name of a company.

you also keep coming back to this mythical idea of "perfectly acceptable business practices" Dolph, wake up. In a monopoly situation, what you call perfectly acceptable business practices does not exist. Not when one single company dominates 82% of its market and whose profits are 15 times larger than the next company down the food chain.

now i have no doubt youl come back in here and try to correct me on a point by point basis because god knows (and he honestly does, he reads these forums) you cant stand someone telling you your not right, well im going to go ahead and leave you to it as ive said all i need and want to say on the subject and i must get ready for new years eve.

 

[Dolph]

Dolph im so glad you have absolutely no influence on how the world is ran. Otherwise bullying would be encouraged in all forms at all levels, the weak would be shoved to one side and forgotten, and a whole host of other things that you seem to think are acceptable to humanity such as unbound greed and unrivalled personal wealth regardless of the cost to others would be prevalent.

What? How does this have any relevance to what I posted?

Using your monopoly position to maintain said position and stifle competition is illegal in most of the developed world, Intel did this, call it what ever the hell you want, it is illegal, like it or lump it.

You do remember how things are worked out to be illegal, right? All a government has to do is declare something illegal, and there you go

Fits in perfectly with what I wrote above, glad you support me.

A government declares a company a monopoly in an effort to maintain and stimulate competition in the given market place and allow smaller rivals access to compete. preferential supply agreements arnt illegal unless your business happens to dominate the market that it operates in and can literally buy the death of any small competing firm.

Or alternatively they do it to make money (see the EU and Microsoft) irrespective of what would actually be good for consumers.

for the very reasons i explained above, the dominant company can use its vast profits to stifle a smaller company's competitiveness and remove its access to vital contracts whilst at the same time increasing its market share and general dominance over the given market place. All things being equal,i,e, a multitude of firms of varying sizes competing, that's just business as usual. In the case of Microsoft and Intel you seem absolutely and totally unable to comprehend the tiny fact that all things are not equal.

Actually, that's where you are wrong. Both Microsoft and Intel have certainly done things to attack the competition directly in an unfair fashion in the past. I just don't agree that them doing normal business practices or working to provide what the customer wants fit in with that.

You seem to wish to litigate AMD to being Intel's equal, which is NOT what monopoly legislation is for.

you also keep coming back to this mythical idea of "perfectly acceptable business practices" Dolph, wake up. In a monopoly situation, what you call perfectly acceptable business practices does not exist. Not when one single company dominates 82% of its market and whose profits are 15 times larger than the next company down the food chain.

So your solution to this is to prevent Intel conducting business until AMD catch up?

now i have no doubt youl come back in here and try to correct me on a point by point basis because god knows (and he honestly does, he reads these forums) you cant stand someone telling you your not right, well im going to go ahead and leave you to it as ive said all i need and want to say on the subject and i must get ready for new years eve.

How can you possibly be so hypocritical? You decided to try and correct me point by point with your opinion (which holds no more weight than mine or anyone elses) then claim that I'll rebutt it because I can't stand anyone telling me I'm not right? We're discussing a subjective issue, there is no definte right or wrong answer. Perhaps you could try and sway my view with something more than arrogance?

 

[trojan698]

You do remember how things are worked out to be illegal, right? All a government has to do is declare something illegal, and there you go

It clearly makes no sense that one country can simply claim that Intel is engaging in illegal practices without a basis for doing so - without some breach of the law - otherwise it simple wouldn't go to court. I'm all for fighting 'the man' but there must be more to it than Intel engaging in regular business practice.

 

[Final8y]

You do remember how things are worked out to be illegal, right? All a government has to do is declare something illegal, and there you go

That is a huge over generalization of how what is declared legal or illegal.

And no a government cant just declare what is legal or not a lot of people are involved.
Most laws come into existence because of the current negative effect at the time.

 

[Dolph]

It clearly makes no sense that one country can simply claim that Intel is engaging in illegal practices without a basis for doing so - without some breach of the law - otherwise it simple wouldn't go to court. I'm all for fighting 'the man' but there must be more to it than Intel engaging in regular business practice.

Emphasis mine.

Who writes the laws?

In recent years, most monopoly/anti-trust cases have had nothing to do with doing things to help the consumer, but have been either about someone trying to litigate their way to profitability with a product that hasn't sold because it's inferior (see Realplayer's complaints against MS for WMP) or as a means for a government to make impossible demands then fine for non-compliance (see EU and MS)

Yet while all this is going on with companies that aren't truely monopolies (MS and Intel both do have competition, especially when you consider the computer market, rather than simply the home PC market), we ignore the monopolies that governments have created (see privatisation of various services in the UK such as the railways or Water) because, well, there isn't much money to be made there.

I don't dislike monopoly legislation, I dislike the way it's currently used and the way people use the fact that some government backed court has declared company X to be a monopoly to mean they are obviously evil, when in general, they aren't, they just behave like any other company.

 

[Final8y]

Emphasis mine.

Who writes the laws?

In recent years, most monopoly/anti-trust cases have had nothing to do with doing things to help the consumer, but have been either about someone trying to litigate their way to profitability with a product that hasn't sold because it's inferior (see Realplayer's complaints against MS for WMP) or as a means for a government to make impossible demands then fine for non-compliance (see EU and MS)

Yet while all this is going on with companies that aren't truely monopolies (MS and Intel both do have competition, especially when you consider the computer market, rather than simply the home PC market), we ignore the monopolies that governments have created (see privatisation of various services in the UK such as the railways or Water) because, well, there isn't much money to be made there.

I don't dislike monopoly legislation, I dislike the way it's currently used and the way people use the fact that some government backed court has declared company X to be a monopoly to mean they are obviously evil, when in general, they aren't, they just behave like any other company.

Yes you are right as these laws do get abused but as far as MS & intel go they are Evil

 

[Fr0dders]

I don't dislike monopoly legislation, I dislike the way it's currently used and the way people use the fact that some government backed court has declared company X to be a monopoly to mean they are obviously evil, when in general, they aren't, they just behave like any other company.

totally with you on this one

All new apple's ship with quicktime, but nobody bats an eyelid over this. Same goes with them bundling ilife 06 and front row with all new macs

the whole argument as to "choice" is pointless anyway. Car manufacturers fit sound equipment with their cars, is VW including a sony stereo anti competitive to the other HU manufacturers ? under the MS ruling's thinkings it is, but again nobody bats an eyelid, because its accepted that cars come with CD players. To me, it should be accepted in the same way, that a computer operating system should be capable of playing media files, without having to download something to do it. Just like OS-X does.