Monday, July 06, 2015
Search
  
Submit your own News for
inclusion in our Site.
Click here...
Breaking News
Samsung's s 2TB 850 PRO SSDs Are Rolling Out Globally
JDI Touts Energy Efficient Reflective Display
LG Display Launches Slimmer LCD Panels with Advanced In-Cell Touch Technology for Notebook PCs
Minecraft Windows 10 Edition Beta Revealed
U.S. Is Running out Of IP Addresses
Uber Suspends UberPOP in France
Casio To Enter The Smartwatch Market
GELID Has A new Low-profile CPU Cooler for Intel LGA115x
Active Discussions
How to back up a PS2 DL game
Copy a protected DVD?
roxio issues with xp pro
How to burn a backup copy of The Frozen Throne
Help make DVDInfoPro better with dvdinfomantis!!!
Copied dvd's say blank in computer only
menu making
Optiarc AD-7260S review
 Home > News > General Computing > Intel A...
Last 7 Days News : SU MO TU WE TH FR SA All News

Friday, September 02, 2005
Intel Answers AMD in Court


Intel Thursday filed its response to the antitrust complaint recently initiated by AMD regarding Intel's business practices. In the response, Intel refutes AMD's claims and states that its business practices are both fair and lawful.

In a 63-page document filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Intel emphatically denied having a monopoly on PC microprocessors and locking out AMD from deals with computer manufacturers through threats and targeted rebates. In its lawsuit filed in June, AMD claimed that Intel imposed scare tactics and coercion on 38 companies, including large-scale computer makers, small system builders, wholesale distributors and retailers.

The Intel response explains that AMD's claims are factually incorrect and contradictory. In addition, AMD's complaint -- by attempting to impede Intel's ability to lower its prices -- would hurt consumers, not help them.

"Innovation, investment, customer focus and great products have led to Intel's success over the years," said Bruce Sewell, Intel general counsel. "These are the things that have been fundamental to our decision making as we've sought to move the industry and the pace of technology forward.

"Likewise, AMD has made its own business decisions and choices that have determined its position in the marketplace. Yet, with its lawsuit, AMD seeks to instead blame Intel for the many business failures AMD has experienced that are actually a direct result of AMD's own actions or inactions."

In its response filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court in Delaware, Intel described the semiconductor industry business model that has led to phenomenal growth and steadily increasing value to customers over the years. That business model is based on three fundamental principles: production, product and price. The Intel response indicates that "AMD's choices and behaviors with respect to each of these core principles over the period covered by the complaint provide a compelling answer to the allegations it has made in this case."

Intel's response further states, "AMD's complaint presents a case study in legal dissonance. Although AMD has purportedly brought its complaint to promote competition, its true aim is the opposite. Under the cover of competition law, AMD seeks to shield itself from competition. AMD seeks to impede Intel's ability to lower prices and thereby to allow AMD to charge higher prices. AMD's colorful language and fanciful claims cannot obscure AMD's goal of shielding AMD from price competition."

Intel and AMD's long history of competing for microprocessor dominance has landed them in court before.

In its answer to the latest antitrust allegations, Intel referenced a 1992 ruling in which an arbitrator awarded AMD $10 million.

Intel admitted that it paid the $10 million, but added that the amount paid was less than 1 percent of the original claim.

The transcript from the 1992 arbitration remains under seal, an Intel spokesman said. Intel quoted from it because AMD has made the 1992 arbitration an issue in the case.

Later, in a 1995 legal settlement between the two companies, Intel noted that AMD left out the terms of the settlement in its complaint. In the settlement, AMD paid $58 million to Intel in licensing fees. Overall, Intel netted $19 million from that settlement, an Intel spokesman said.

In another section of the answer, Intel said Sony dropped AMD processors from its PC lineup in 2003 in an effort to reduce the number of component suppliers and not, as the complaint asserted, in a contract that demanded Sony exclusively use Intel chips.

In the complaint, AMD asserted that Intel intimidated MSI and Atipa and Fujitsu-Siemens from participating in the launch of AMD's Opteron Chip on April 22, 2003. Intel said in its answer that Atipa and MSI put out press releases outlining their support for Opteron on or around the same day and that Fujitsu-Siemens sells Opteron servers.

The complaint asserted that then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett said Acer would suffer "severe consequences" if the company participated in the launch of AMD's Athlon 64 chip, according to Acer founder Stan Shih. The answer said that Shih has refuted the assertions, stating that the conversation with Barrett only dealt with industry trends. The answer also noted that Acer continues to use AMD chips.

In its complaint, AMD asserted that Intel prevented it from joining the Advanced DRAM Technology group, a group working on a new memory standard, in a meaningful way. Intel said the organization invited AMD to join as a "co-developer," the highest level of membership. Intel further added that the ADT fell apart without producing a standard.

A summary of Intel's response along with the full response and other related information can be found at www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050901corp.htm.

The AMD Comments

Just a few hours after Intel's response, AMD released the following statements:

"Intel's response is not surprising considering what they are trying to hide, but the facts of illegal monopoly abuse are clear and undeniable," said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. "Intel's anticompetitive business practices are under intense scrutiny by governments around the world. The Fair Trade Commission of Japan found Intel guilty of antitrust violations that harmed consumers based on direct evidence, and still Intel refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing. Intel's illicit conduct forces customers and consumers to pay artificially higher prices and limits their ability to choose the best products available."

"We look forward to presenting our evidence in front of the entire industry and the entire world. Let's put the truth on the table and let the court decide," McCoy continued.


Previous
Next
Rewritable DVD+RW Double Layer Format to Be Finalized by Year-End        All News        IFA 2005: LiteOn Extends its HDD/DVD Recorder LineUp
FujiFilm Introduces Full Memory Stick Range     General Computing News      Recording Industry Sues More U.S. File - Swappers

Get RSS feed Easy Print E-Mail this Message

Related News
Intel President To Leave The Company
Intel Compute Stick Comes With Ubuntu
AMD Fury X Reviews Show Impressive Performance That Does Not Put Nvidia's 980 Ti Aside
AMD Considers Spinoff, Breakup: report
AMD Officially Launches The Retail Radeon 300 Series
Intel Eyes Future of Wearables With Acquisition Of Recon
E3: New AMD Radeon R9 and R7 300 Series Graphics Line-Up Takes Advantage Of New HBM Technology
Intel To Provide Details of Current Chips, Potential Technologies for the Future of Moore's Law
Intel Releases Game Optimizations and New Drivers for Intel Graphics
Intel To Invest $125M In Technology Companies Run By Females
Intel Opens Lab to Advance Big Data Solutions for Healthcare, Smart Cities
AMD Targets Notebooks and All-in-Ones With 6th Generation A-Series Processor

Most Popular News
 
Home | News | All News | Reviews | Articles | Guides | Download | Expert Area | Forum | Site Info
Site best viewed at 1024x768+ - CDRINFO.COM 1998-2015 - All rights reserved -
Privacy policy - Contact Us .