Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: AMD Files Antitrust Against Intel Corp.

  1. #1
    tesco's Avatar woowoo
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    24,069
    [news=http://img115.echo.cx/img115/815/amdintel2fw.gif]Advanced Micro Devices, the world’s No.2 maker of x86 microprocessors, said Tuesday it had filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp., the world’s largest maker of chips, in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware accusing Intel of unfair competition, which limited market share growth of AMD.

    “Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation -- and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market,
    ” said Hector Ruiz, AMD chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer. “Whether through higher prices from monopoly profits, fewer choices in the marketplace or barriers to innovation – people from Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel’s monopoly abuses.”

    The antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation was filed under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel – including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents, AMD claims.

    AMD said that Intel’s share of the x86 chip market currently counts for about 80% of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90% by revenue, “giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power”.

    AMD said Intel’s illegal and unfair actions include the following:
    • Intel has forced major customers into exclusive or near-exclusive deals;
    • Intel has conditioned rebates, allowances and market development funding on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
    • Intel has established a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the practical and intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
    • Intel has threatened retaliation against customers introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments;
    • Intel has established and enforced quotas among key retailers effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Intel-powered computers, thereby artificially limiting consumer choice;
    • It has forced PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches and promotions;
    • Intel has abused its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products which have as their central purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.


    This litigation follows a recent ruling from the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC), which found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel deliberately engaged in prohibited business practices to stop AMD’s increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers. Intel did not dispute these charges. The European Commission has stated that it is pursuing an investigation against Intel for similar possible antitrust violations and is cooperating with the Japanese authorities.

    In the lawsuit AMD brings several examples how Intel forced customers not to buy AMD processors, how the chipmaker provided or withdrew marketing or engineering funds from certain PC makers or provided other privileges or disadvantages in order to stop those companies from using AMD chips or participating in AMD events. The Sunnyvale, California-based company says that Intel has attempted to change specification of DDR3 memory pin-out in order to slowdown adoption of the memory type by the main rival. Among other things AMD blames Intel in creating compilers for software that caused AMD chips either to work slower than Intel’s, or to crash.

    AMD demands the court to find Intel guilty of all charges and compensate AMD its losses as well as profits caused by Intel’s actions.

    Intel has not yet received any formal word from AMD or the Delaware Court regarding this alleged complaint. We cannot comment on this matter unless or until we receive and have a chance to review the alleged claims,” an Intel European spokesman told X-bit labs on Tuesday.

    Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...628010541.html[/news]
    Link: An Open Letter from Hector Ruiz, AMD Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    Link: AMD's Complaint against Intel
    Last edited by tesco; 06-28-2005 at 08:30 PM.

  2. News (Archive)   -   #2
    micolithe's Avatar Painfully average.
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    30
    Posts
    153
    AMD will probably win, I have yet to see a major name brand computer openly admit to having an AMD processor.
    Current Favorite Song
    Exodus Damage by John Vanderslice

  3. News (Archive)   -   #3
    peat moss's Avatar Software Farmer BT Rep: +15BT Rep +15BT Rep +15
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Delta B.C. Canada
    Posts
    10,816
    Heres some thing I didn't know Ross .

    Intel and Advanced Micro Devices' long history of competing for microprocessor dominance has landed them in court before.


    1968--Intel is founded by Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore.

    1969--AMD is founded by Jerry Sanders along with a team of former Fairchild Semiconductor employees.

    Early 1980s--IBM chooses Intel's so-called x86 chip architecture and the DOS software operating system built by Microsoft. To avoid overdependence on Intel as its sole source of chips, IBM demands that Intel finds it a second supplier.

    1982--Intel and AMD sign a technology exchange agreement making AMD a second supplier. The deal gives AMD access to Intel's so-called second-generation "286" chip technology.

    1984--Intel seeks to go it alone with its third-generation "386" chips using tactics that AMD asserts were part of a "secret plan" to create a PC chip monopoly.

    1987--AMD files legal papers to settle the 386 chip dispute.

    1991--AMD files an antitrust complaint in Northern California claiming that Intel engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.

    1992--A court rules against Intel and awards AMD $10 million plus a royalty-free license to any Intel patents used in AMD's own 386-style processor.

    1995--AMD settles all outstanding legal disputes with Intel in a deal that gives AMD a shared interest in the x86 chip design, which remains to this day the basic architecture of chips used to make personal computers.

    1999--Required by the 1995 agreement to develop its own way of implementing x86 designs, AMD creates its own version of the x86, the Athlon chip.

    Etc :

    Link :

    http://news.zdnet.com/Intel+and+AMD:...&subj=technews
    Last edited by peat moss; 06-29-2005 at 12:35 AM.

  4. News (Archive)   -   #4
    fkdup74's Avatar Pneuberator.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,616
    Quote Originally Posted by micolithe
    AMD will probably win, I have yet to see a major name brand computer openly admit to having an AMD processor.
    "openly admit" ?
    sheesh, you make it sound like having an AMD chip is, like,
    being Jewish in the 1940's Germany or something

    or....Bush is still trying to find Hussein's stockpile of AMDs

    but if you mean advertising, you musn't read the ads a lot,
    I have seen plenty of HP systems advertising AMD chips
    no, not as much as Intel chips, but they're out there

    just think about it, if you were Intel....
    wouldn't you try everything you could to keep AMD from owning yer ass?
    'cause they can't keep up in performance

  5. News (Archive)   -   #5
    tesco's Avatar woowoo
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    24,069
    Quote Originally Posted by FKDUP74
    Quote Originally Posted by micolithe
    AMD will probably win, I have yet to see a major name brand computer openly admit to having an AMD processor.
    "openly admit" ?
    sheesh, you make it sound like having an AMD chip is, like,
    being Jewish in the 1940's Germany or something

    or....Bush is still trying to find Hussein's stockpile of AMDs

    but if you mean advertising, you musn't read the ads a lot,
    I have seen plenty of HP systems advertising AMD chips
    no, not as much as Intel chips, but they're out there

    just think about it, if you were Intel....
    wouldn't you try everything you could to keep AMD from owning yer ass?
    'cause they can't keep up in performance
    I think he means seeing ads on tv that are like
    "All our computers feature award winning and fast-performing Intel Pentim 4 chips", making it seem like anything but Intel is shite...

  6. News (Archive)   -   #6
    peat moss's Avatar Software Farmer BT Rep: +15BT Rep +15BT Rep +15
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Delta B.C. Canada
    Posts
    10,816
    Think there may be a lot of the old delete button going on!



    Quote :

    Advanced Micro Devices will subpoena thousands of e-mail messages, including ones from its key partners if needed, to help prove its antitrust case against rival Intel, a lawyer for the chipmaker said.

    Charles Diamond, a lawyer at O'Melveny & Myers and AMD's lead outside counsel, told CNET News.com on Tuesday that the computer makers, executives, retailers and other parties mentioned in the lawsuit may also find themselves in court and their documents subpoenaed.

    "There is going to be a lot of 'he said, she said' in this case," Diamond said, noting that AMD's legal team is asking its potential witnesses to begin securing e-mail and other correspondence.

  7. News (Archive)   -   #7
    lynx's Avatar .
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    9,810
    I've noticed that on some hardware sites you often see things like "limit 2 per customer" on AMD processors, but you rarely see the same for Intel processors.

    I've often wondered why. Maybe it's another part of the Intel "Market Development Funding" policy.
    .
    Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •