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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[locutus12]

You must have a very very unfullfilling life

extraordinarily...

 

[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.

 

[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.