Spring Break
AMD, Intel going all out in anti-trust mud-sling
Dennis Mongello
Issue date: 7/8/05 Section: Sci-Tech
- Page 1 of 2 next >
On June 28 2005, on the heels of Intel making one of the biggest tech announcements of the year, AMD filed a monopoly case against Intel. This will be an uphill battle for AMD as they first have to prove that Intel has a monopoly and also that they used their pull in the market to undermine AMD's growth. Proving just one of these things won't help AMD as there is nothing explicitly illegal about being a monopoly (hello, Comcast) or trying to act competitively in the market. The law can only step in after it is clear that Intel in fact has monopoly status and has abused that status to gain a greater advantage over the competition. They filed in a Delaware federal district court. I'm not sure why, since both companies are based in California. Yes, Delaware leans to the left, and as such would be more likely to bust a monopoly, but there are also a lot of other blue states to pick from too.
AMD has made the complaint public on their website and are encouraging people to read it. They even took out full pages ads in 7 of the nation's largest newspapers (sans The Triangle, of course) to draw attention to it. The 48 page complaint itself is written less like a complaint (my years as a legal clerk/courier give me some expertise on the matter) and more like a memoir of AMD's history in the x86 business. Of course, coming from AMD this literature could be heavily biased, but Intel has yet to comment specifically. Intel CEO Paul Otellini said, "Over the years, Intel has been involved in other antitrust suits and faced similar issues. Every one of those matters has been resolved to our satisfaction." These other suits he spoke of probably did not include the recent Japanese case which ruled against Intel. Intel accepted the ruling and said nothing in dissent. I know this isn't automatically an admission of guilt, but Intel has had plenty of time to come up with a statement telling their side of the story.
The complaint is not exactly enthralling, but it is intriguing for anyone interested in the ongoing battle between AMD and Intel, business law or dismantling monopolies in general. But still, there is a good history of the two companies in the beginning and a brief summary of AMD's claims at the end. AMD is really trying to get public opinion on their side in this case, a case in which otherwise the public might care less about. Much of the complaint is actually anecdotal rather than full of law jargon. One story comes from a time when AMD had its highest market share, about 20%. This was in large part due to Compaq using AMD in most of its PC line. However, as the complaint puts it, Compaq CEO Michael Capellas felt that "he had a gun to his head" and had to stop buying AMD chips because of pressure from Intel. By putting the facts right in their faces though, AMD is appealing to the consumers and reminding them that they have a choice and that it could be bad for them if Intel becomes the sole supplier of x86 chips.
AMD has made the complaint public on their website and are encouraging people to read it. They even took out full pages ads in 7 of the nation's largest newspapers (sans The Triangle, of course) to draw attention to it. The 48 page complaint itself is written less like a complaint (my years as a legal clerk/courier give me some expertise on the matter) and more like a memoir of AMD's history in the x86 business. Of course, coming from AMD this literature could be heavily biased, but Intel has yet to comment specifically. Intel CEO Paul Otellini said, "Over the years, Intel has been involved in other antitrust suits and faced similar issues. Every one of those matters has been resolved to our satisfaction." These other suits he spoke of probably did not include the recent Japanese case which ruled against Intel. Intel accepted the ruling and said nothing in dissent. I know this isn't automatically an admission of guilt, but Intel has had plenty of time to come up with a statement telling their side of the story.
The complaint is not exactly enthralling, but it is intriguing for anyone interested in the ongoing battle between AMD and Intel, business law or dismantling monopolies in general. But still, there is a good history of the two companies in the beginning and a brief summary of AMD's claims at the end. AMD is really trying to get public opinion on their side in this case, a case in which otherwise the public might care less about. Much of the complaint is actually anecdotal rather than full of law jargon. One story comes from a time when AMD had its highest market share, about 20%. This was in large part due to Compaq using AMD in most of its PC line. However, as the complaint puts it, Compaq CEO Michael Capellas felt that "he had a gun to his head" and had to stop buying AMD chips because of pressure from Intel. By putting the facts right in their faces though, AMD is appealing to the consumers and reminding them that they have a choice and that it could be bad for them if Intel becomes the sole supplier of x86 chips.
Be the first to comment on this story