Intel Replies to AMD Antitrust Lawsuits

pr1000 writes "The New York Times is reporting today that Intel has replied sharply to AMD's lawsuit. This lawsuit sounds like it will be a bruiser." From the article: "The claims are factually incorrect and contradictory...The evidence will show that every failure and setback for which A.M.D. today seeks to blame Intel is actually a direct result of A.M.D.'s own actions or inactions."

Comments

Your PC is too cheap...

[penguinoid]

Intel's formal response came nine weeks after A.M.D. accused Intel of unfair pricing and rebates, and of coercing customers to prevent them from using A.M.D. microprocessors.

While I rather like AMD, I really can't argue against lower prices. Um, yay intel?

Re:Your PC is too cheap...

[Dachannien]

I'd rather have access to lower prices that arise from market forces rather than coercion. AMD asserts that Intel only gave the lower prices to companies that agreed not to install AMD chips in their machines.

With fair competition, prices would remain just as low, and people would be able to choose between an AMD processor or an Intel processor in their crappy new Dell. Lower prices + choice > lower prices.

Reverting to the Microsoft defence...

[MosesJones]

MS/Intel: "We did nothing at all to try and impact our competition or operate in anyway unfairly"

Netscape/AMD: "So what about this memo where you say you are going to do everything to 'kill' us"

MS/Intel: "You made us do it, its your own fault"

Its going to be brusing but the key is going to be disclosure.

What would you expect?

[Slime-dogg]

Would you really expect Intel to say "Oh, we're sorry that we're monopolists. Please punish us!"

Who knows. Maybe Intel is right, maybe not. Court will decide.

Re:A bruiser?

[Infonaut]

More like a playground argument.

Perhaps, but it's a playground argument with big ramifications for both companies (for AMD in particular). They've been at it in the courts for years, but not without some consequences. As the article notes, a settlement in 1995 gave AMD the right to develop chips based on the Intel x86 design.

What I find interesting is Balto's claim that Intel is taking this suit very seriously and that it could take three or four years to litigate. That's got to be a big distraction in money and effort for both companies.

Blah blah blah

[SpazAttak]

Intel is right to an extent. AMD has always had trouble with production and all that. But that doesn't really address AMD's assertion of Intel's anti-competative practices in the least. They seem to be hoping everyone will be too busy saying 'oooooh snap' to realize that its all a bunch of double-talk.

Re:Blah blah blah

[Red Flayer]

Intel is also trying to limit their liability by disproving any claims for damages.

But, if AMD was not competitive due to internal problems, why would Intel need to bother strong-arming their clients?

The reason for the lawsuit

[vojtech]

It's just pure speculation, but I guess the real reason for the antitrust lawsuit by AMD is the Turion® mobile CPU.

AMD can't sell the Turions in the white-box market, where most of its CPUs are being sold, and must rely on bigger players in the PC industry, like Dell or HP to include it in their notebooks.

After all, who builds his notebook himself at home?

Now just the fact of the existence of the lawsuit will force Intel to tone down on their rebate practices, and this may open a window for AMD to sell the chips in quantities larger than the bare usually allowed by Intel's rebate system.

Good luck, AMD!

Re:Anti-Trust

[jim_v2000]

I use AMD for all my rigs; but is there really a need for the anti-trust laws today? The next company to build the better processor will get their advantage, instead of just watching who will win the next lawsuit.

You're looking at this from an I-Build-My-Own-Computer perspective. AMD doesn't care about selling to you. You're pocket change. AMD wants to sell to Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway....the commercial market. And right now AMD is claiming that because of financial blackmail, Intel is keeping AMD from being able to compete in that market.

Too much Kool-Aid around here!

[goldspider]

0mg wtf? Intel is t3h sux0r!

Seriously people, a lot of you need to start looking at things more objectively. Maybe Intel illegally leverages its market power. Maybe poor planning and management have hindered AMD's growth.

But to dismiss either side purely on ideology doesn't speak highly of your ability (or willingness) to comprehensively consider issues like this.

Let's wait for the facts to come out, and then we can start making our judgements.

Re:Too much Kool-Aid around here!

[KagatoLNX]

I've always pitied AMD because they seem to have a better engineered product (certain K6s and K6-2s excepted) but never seem to get anywhere because the right people don't adopt their product. Until fairly recently, I couldn't get a SuperMicro server with an AMD in it. Even now you can supposedly get an Opteron, but can't fit it in all of their rackmount options and they don't even list it on their web site!

It's the deals like this that make it really tough for AMD. Admittedly, as a customer, I can't find a vendor that satisfies my need for an inexpensive, reliable, AMD-based server. Looking a their pricing, this isn't AMDs fault and I don't really believe it's a technical issue either.

Similarly you'll note the dearth of 4+ processor AMD systems. This is important. Their MP model makes it easy to scale this high and it shows in the custom market (many 32/64 proc Opteron options if you're buying a custom-built supercomputer). However, the low end ones are not being built and its only because Intel puts a lot of pressure on its technology partners to insure that they can't afford to build a sub-$800 8-processor Opteron board. Either you lose your processor pricing or you'll get exciting new "patent-licensing" deals.

WRT to the market forces involved, the assumption is that, barring bad management, a good product at the right price should prevail. While Intel can complain about AMD's management, I think the problem is that they never have the money to operate correctly because of Intel's influence. The effective choice is that your management can hinder the company to match the amount of business the monopolist lets you have or it can operate with an aggressive but realistic business plan that falls on its face because of illegal practices. In short, Intel says, "your management should have planned for the material damages from our illegal activities" and AMD should very much answer "damages are damages, it may not have been really good business to not account well for them, but that doesn't dimish your responsibility for the damage".

And as for "waiting for the facts to come out", this is a court room. I'm sure any facts involved will be mangled beyond all recognition once they finally "come out".