backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by carage.. on Mar 9 at 12:53 AM

Court documents reveal Intel data slated for retention is permanently lost

In an unpublished statement to the U.S. District Court of Delaware, AMD alleges Intel allowed the destruction of evidence in pending antitrust litigation.

According to the opening letter of the AMD statement, "Through what appears to be a combination of gross communication failures, an ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight by outside counsel, Intel has apparently allowed evidence to be destroyed."

Intel's current email system automatically purges emails sent or received by its employees every 35 days.  Senior executive data is purged every 45 to 60 days.  Additionally, Intel's backup system recycles every other cycle -- immediately overwriting any backup data during tape rotation.

AMD alleges that more than a third of 1,027 case-specific Intel employees did not receive instructions to retain their data after the 2005 case initiation.  Of the individuals who retained data, AMD alleges the majority did not retain "sent" emails.  These employees, dubbed "custodians," are persons of interest in the legal proceedings. 

According to Intel, 217 of these 1,027 custodians have been "identified," and must retain all data as per instruction of the court.  AMD has the right to identify another 254 employees for court scrutiny of data -- to date AMD has already identified 74 of those 254.

Intel admits the data lapse, claiming "Intel does not have weekly back-up tapes for every custodian on the custodian list. Some were inadvertently not migrated to the server in 2005, and some, who were later identified, were not migrated on such identification.  In addition, some weekly back-up tapes appear to have been recycled."

Intel's letter to Judge Joseph Farnan also explains that layoffs and corporate restructuring in 2006 caused some oversight in the data retention.

"In the course of routine work on the case we learned that a small percentage of post-filing e-mail was not being retained in the way we believed it was.  This led to a broader study and the implementation of new procedures," Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy said to DailyTech.  "We are still actively checking the availability of back-up tapes and secondary sources to find every bit of e-mail in question.  We haven't yet finished that effort."

The AMD report counters, "AMD always believed -- and for good reason, still believes -- that the most probative evidence of Intel exclusion would reside in the electronic files and documents Intel created after the lawsuit started, evidence that Intel would be obligated to preserve."

AMD has asked the court to have Intel supply a list documenting a custodian-by-custodian tally of the retention inventory and any salvageable backup tapes.  

Expect the official trial for the proceedings to start in 2009.  Statements made by AMD and Intel in court may be published later this week.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Right Mind
By aurareturn on 3/5/2007 11:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
Any consumer in the right mind would want AMD to win. You can't have competition if your competition is a monopoly.




RE: Right Mind
By deeznuts on 3/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Right Mind
By Dactyl on 3/6/2007 12:11:37 AM , Rating: 1
Monopolistic behavior is possible even with some competition. Intel may have violated rules against monopoly-type behavior. That's what this case is all about.

How does Intel's behavior harm the consumer? If AMD had been making more money during 2000-2004, they would have been able to spend more on R&D, for instance to bring Barcelona out faster.

And it's the threat of CPUs like Barcelona that forces Intel to make such great CPUs like Kentsfield and Tigerton. Wanna bet Intel is adding more floating point power to Tigerton in order to counter Barcelona? Those CPUs are going to make Alan Wake very fun.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 2:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well, more to the point:

1. A monopoly isn't a behavior...I think you mean anti-competitive behavior from a monopoly.

2. It harms the consumer in the following way.
a) Intel sets individually targeted sales rebates for each store or OEM, saying that if 90% of your sales are Intel in the previous month, we will give you $x.xx as a reward.
b) If you've studied retail marketing, you'll know that this rebate always goes to the OEM's profit line and is never passed on to the consumer (how could it be since the amount isn't known until the month is past?).
c) By assuring themselves that OEMs are far less likely to use AMD chips (that rebate was a HUGE part of their profit margin as Dell's little fiasco can attest to), Intel is free to price their chips at a higher amount because competition (free market) is no longer setting the price.


RE: Right Mind
By Lakku on 3/6/2007 4:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
Alan Wake will run just fine on a Kentsfield right now, so yes, I would assume future CPUs would be fairly good at the task as well. Kentsfield appears to be their dev CPU and is the target, and it has been what Alan Wake has been shown on thus far. Valve is also using Kentsfields to develop future Source games and engine refinements. You can get a good future CPU right now, but waiting isn't a bad thing either. At any rate, Alan Wake, per the devs, runs best on quad core. They said the physics thread alone takes up 80% of a core, so a dual core would have less to handle everything else and a single core would be almost useless.


RE: Right Mind
By deeznuts on 3/6/2007 6:05:46 AM , Rating: 3
I know what the case is about. But monopolies themselves are not illegal. Trying to make your company a monopoly is not necessarily illegal (it's competition). It's when you engage in anti-competitive or unreasonable practices that is illegal. Regardless if you are trying to become a monopoly or just to compete, it's the practices themselves that concern the government.

If everybody just stopped buying AMD processors tomorrow and everyone started buying Intel, and Intel did nothing wrong but compete, no foul.

The term monopoly is a bit of a red herring. Whether a company is trying to become a monopoly or just wants to compete unfairly, it's the practices, not the intention, that is the heart of any antitrust case.


RE: Right Mind
By ElJefe69 on 3/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Right Mind
By JeffDM on 3/7/2007 10:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why people think that Tigerton is some magical next generation processor, the silicon is exactly the same as Kentsfield except that it will operate in four-socket computers to make a 16 core server. Basically, it's the Xeon MP chip. You won't be playing a video game on a Tigerton-based computer unless you have far more money than sense or you buy one many years from now. It's for servers that cost tens of thousands of dollars.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 2:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is Intel a Monopoly? AMD exists doesn't it?

This is a common misconception...
A legal monopoly doesn't mean that there is only one company, it means that there is only one dominant company. Usually a company with 50% of the market or greater is considered a monopoly...


RE: Right Mind
By cheetah2k on 3/6/2007 3:44:20 AM , Rating: 2
Of course Intel was a monopoly.... I mean, we all know about the threats to DELL and others that they made if they outsourced tech elswhere (eg. AMD).

And funnily enuff (or coincidence), DELL's bottm line is now suffering after it picked up AMD as an OEM.... Makes you wonder what stunt Intel pulled when this happened.. Intel probably hit them with a 25% cost increase in their bulk buy agreements.


RE: Right Mind
By SacredFist on 3/6/2007 4:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Intel like a biopoly?


RE: Right Mind
By RobFDB on 3/6/2007 4:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
The word you're looking for is duopoly, and no, the microprocessor market isn't quite a duopoly as duopoly assumes only 2 producers. A good example would be the american political system, but even that isn't perfect due to the existance of independants.


RE: Right Mind
By jebork on 3/6/2007 10:31:30 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, but you never hear AMD say "Our goal is making a duopoly". Throwing stones at the other guy is soooo much more fun.


RE: Right Mind
By ElJefe69 on 3/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Right Mind
By deeznuts on 3/6/2007 6:12:43 AM , Rating: 1
I think you need to look up the word "legal monopoly." A legal monopoly is one granted by the government and protected by its laws to be a monopoly.

Your definition of a "legal monopoly" .... 50%? did you read this somewhere or did you hear it secondhand? Because you described dozens of industries dominated by what I call "market leaders" "industry leaders" etc.

A monopoly is one seller, no good substitutes, price maker. It's a simple definition and I don't see anywhere where the law deems "de facto" monopolies under any other circumstances. I can see if you go as far as "practically" one seller such as AMD blowing up and VIA now cometing with Intel. But you're talking 2-4% maybe, max.

So it's not a common misconception, it's the definition of monopoly.


RE: Right Mind
By nah on 3/6/2007 7:08:33 AM , Rating: 3
Monopolies in economic theory exist when one firm produces an industry's entire output---the legal definition is 25% of the total output--there is a measurement called the Herfindahl Index which measures the sum of the squared values of the market shares. In perfect competition, with many firms, this index is 0 ( 0squared + 0 squared +....so) where 0 represents each firms market share. In a perfect monopoly the index is 10,000 ( 100squared)---as there is only one firm. In the CPU market the Herfindahl Index would be 75squared + 25squared = 6250.


RE: Right Mind
By Oregonian2 on 3/6/2007 2:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're saying with perfect competition the index is zero, and you say the only way (mathematically) for that to happen if every company has a zero market share (so their squares add up to zero).

So there's a perfect competition ONLY when there are an infinite number of competitors with equal shares (so shares are zero, even though that infinite number of zeros add up to 100) or when the market has zero sales with a finite number of companies that each have zero market share (again so the index can be zero).

Sounds like something a college prof who's never been outside of academia would think up. Herfindahl a college-prof type?

To be fair, the index sounds reasonable so long as one is nowhere
near the low-side of the index scale where the lower boundary
condition is silly in practice (the marketplace for star-trek
enterprise sort of transportation craft is a perfect competition because all companies have a zero marketshare).

There must be an associated chart that gives "grades" to indexes
(even if an academia generated one) and that would be interesting to see in order to evaluate such index numbers. In any case, the CPU market has a lot of other players, so it depends upon how one defines the market as well (the market for "intel inside" computers gives Intel a 100% marketshare). There also are things like the SPARC processors that Sun uses, IBM has a lot of processors that their computers (of all sizes) use that aren't intel or AMD, and the imbedded market probably uses a LOT more non-x86 processors than the x86 market as a whole. Things like the ARM processor line are everywhere, it's just not as visible.


RE: Right Mind
By nah on 3/6/2007 10:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Herfindahl is college prof type--and the index is something only a prof would love--but it is used by the Federal Government to determine whether mergers are acceptable or not--

As for CPU markets you are right--in terms of numbers--non x86 CPUs constitute a majority of CPUs sold--but in terms of value,it's a different ballgame--when I meant the CPU market I was referring to the server, desktop, and laptop one.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 10:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There also are things like the SPARC processors that Sun uses, IBM has a lot of processors that their computers (of all sizes) use that aren't intel or AMD, and the imbedded market probably uses a LOT more non-x86 processors than the x86 market as a whole

True...and that is what Intel has been trying to say in their arguments.
However, the Microsoft case set the precedent for x86 being a market unto itself, so I believe they have abondoned this argument.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your definition of a "legal monopoly" .... 50%? did you read this somewhere or did you hear it secondhand?


http://www.nesl.edu/intljournal/vol3/ideals.htm

III. Dominant Position/ Monopoly Power
The terms "dominant position" and "monopoly power" correlate each other in Article 86 and Section 2 analyses. Dominant positions are found where an undertaking's market power is such that it concentrates on that market and makes it more difficult for competitors to compete. Contemporary monopoly power analysis is more accommodating to higher market shares, and more welcoming to concentration because of the resultant economic advantages


Also indicative of market power is an undertaking's market share. Although a large percentage of the market is necessary for an undertaking to be dominant, in United Brands the Community Court held that possessing forty to forty five percent of the relevant market does not prove dominance automatically; that an undertaking's market share is [also] to be considered relative to the strength and number of its competitors, and their respective shares.(107) The market share held by United Brands, which dwarfed the market share held by its next largest competitor (nine to sixteen percent), led the Community Court to conclude that it hadenough market power to adopt a flexible overall strategy against new competitors

In other words, according to case law, because United Brands had 40-45% marketshare and 9-16% greater market share than the next largest competitor, it was found to be a monopoly because "it had enough market power to adopt a flexible overall strategy against new competitors".


RE: Right Mind
By nah on 3/6/2007 9:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me...where exactly did I say 50 % ? I said 25 %--and that is the legal definition in the U.K.---I am an economist, actually---Tech is a passion--but Eco is my job


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 9:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Excuse me...where exactly did I say 50 % ?

I think he was responding to me...in the US, 50% used to be the guideline given by several Government information brochures...
I see now that it's 30%...

In general, government antitrust officials see a threat of monopoly power when a company gains control of 30 percent of the market for a commodity or service. But that is just a rule of thumb. A lot depends on the size of other competitors in the market. A company can be judged to lack monopolistic power even if it controls more than 30 percent of its market provided other companies have comparable market shares

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap4....


RE: Right Mind
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/6/2007 9:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
Hector Ruiz, AMD CEO, has repeatedly said when they've achieved 30% market share, then they have "smashed the monopoloy"


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hector Ruiz, AMD CEO, has repeatedly said when they've achieved 30% market share, then they have "smashed the monopoloy"

Agreed...but I don't think he was intending it from a legal perspective, more from a "longevity" perspective. :)
I think he meant that AMD would acheive long term status with the OEMs once they hit 30%, as opposed to being vulnerable to being dumped by them.


RE: Right Mind
By nah on 3/6/2007 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
30 % isn't going to do it by a long shot


RE: Right Mind
By deeznuts on 3/6/2007 1:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, according to case law, because United Brands had 40-45% marketshare and 9-16% greater market share than the next largest competitor, it was found to be a monopoly because "it had enough market power to adopt a flexible overall strategy against new competitors".

You misquote or mistate your own link. From the actual article:
The Community Court has found a dominant position to exist when an undertaking possesses forty to forty five percent.
That is not a finding of a monopoly but a dominant power. Right above that quote it says the Supreme Court has never affirmed any finding of a defendant of having a monopoly "power" of less then 70%. Way off my mark but more off yours too. Looks like we have to meet in the middle.

But re-read the link you gave. United Brands focused on dominant power (which analyzes market share relative to competitors). Monopoly power focus on market share alone primarily.

Determinations of monopoly power focus on market share alone, as opposed to focusing on market share relative to that of competitors; which was the dominant position analysis seen in United Brands. Although mentioning structural evidence,(111) many United States courts view market share as the primary determinant of monopoly power, and require a market share approaching seventy percent for monopoly power to exist.(112) In Alcoa, the Second Circuit stated that "it is doubtful whether 60 or 64 percent"(113) of the relevant market amounts to monopoly power. </>


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 8:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is not a finding of a monopoly but a dominant power

I think you missed the part where it said:
"The terms "dominant position" and "monopoly power" correlate each other in Article 86 and Section 2 analyses"
You can also reference the article from the US Dept of Information that I listed below that which says:

"In general, government antitrust officials see a threat of monopoly power when a company gains control of 30 percent of the market for a commodity or service. But that is just a rule of thumb. A lot depends on the size of other competitors in the market. A company can be judged to lack monopolistic power even if it controls more than 30 percent of its market provided other companies have comparable market shares"

quote:
Right above that quote it says the Supreme Court has never affirmed any finding of a defendant of having a monopoly "power" of less then 70%

That is only talking about the few cases that have made it to the Supreme Court...remember that you must petition the Supreme Court to have your case heard there, and only a very small percentage of cases are allowed to be heard.
I believe that what they are getting at is that the judgements of the Community Court on the criteria of monopolies at lower than 70% has never been challenged in the Supreme Court...


RE: Right Mind
By Oregonian2 on 3/6/2007 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
One company has 51% and another has 49% makes the 51% company a monopoly? Hogwash!

If so, every quarter that market may have a different monopoly as sales vary. Sounds downright silly. Duopoly maybe, but not a monopoly.

My local power company has a monopoly. They've 100%.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 8:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One company has 51% and another has 49% makes the 51% company a monopoly? Hogwash!

That's not what is being said...the conditions are twofold:
1. A monopoly must the largest marketshare (51% would be a certainty here)
2. The competitors must have significantly less marketshare

(the key phrase being "enough market power to adopt a flexible overall strategy against new competitors")


RE: Right Mind
By Hawkido on 3/8/2007 2:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One company has 51% and another has 49% makes the 51% company a monopoly? Hogwash!


See this is where Herfindahl's Index comes into play. Run your 51%-49% example through the formula. You get 5002, almost perfect equalibrium. When you pointed out the "Perfect Competition" scenario you would come up with "Empty Set" because without an edge there is no competition. That's like saying the "Perfect Foot Race" everyone runs at the same speed. Economically this is the equivalent of Socialism. Everyone is a competitor, no one has an advantage and everyone has the same market share of ZERO. Nothing happens. There is no competition, because there are no competitors, therefore the situation does not fit the formula. The formula for calculating annual rainfall being applied to Mars, just because you get an invalid answer because there is no rain on Mars doesn't make the formula wrong. The person trying to apply the formula to Mars is wrong. It is wrong to try and measure the non-existant.

quote:
Monopolies in economic theory exist when one firm produces an industry's entire output---the legal definition is 25% of the total output--there is a measurement called the Herfindahl Index which measures the sum of the squared values of the market shares. In perfect competition, with many firms, this index is 0 ( 0squared + 0 squared +....so) where 0 represents each firms market share. In a perfect monopoly the index is 10,000 ( 100squared)---as there is only one firm. In the CPU market the Herfindahl Index would be 75squared + 25squared = 6250.


RE: Right Mind
By encryptkeeper on 3/7/2007 9:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
Usually a company with 50% of the market or greater is considered a monopoly...

You can't generalize it like that. When a company solely provides a good or service, that is a monopoly. Generally if you develop something and are the first to market it, you wouldn't be considered a monopoly if you try not to stop other companies from making something similar. A real monopoly would control an entire supply of a particular item with no substitutes available from other companies, therefore when they begin manipulating the price of the item that is when people will begin crying monopoly. Monopolies are illegal so that that doesn't happen, and so that competition stays in the market.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/7/2007 9:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
A few corrections there...
quote:
When a company solely provides a good or service, that is a monopoly

True, but it's not the only (or even the most common) monopoly.
quote:
Generally if you develop something and are the first to market it, you wouldn't be considered a monopoly if you try not to stop other companies from making something similar

You are talking about 2 different issues...
1. Monopolistic Power
2. Creating "Barriers to Entry" in violation of the anti-trust laws.
quote:
Monopolies are illegal

Monopolies are absolutely NOT illegal...
Microsoft was ruled a monopoly by a Federal Judge, but it was only their anti-competitive behavior that was ruled illegal.


RE: Right Mind
By carage on 3/9/2007 12:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
Monopolies are not illegal. In certain markets especially those with high entrance costs and requirements, it is very possible to have a natural monopoly. In the case of public utilities, a lot of times it is the local governments that sponsor or create very legal monopolies all in the name for public benefit.
What is illegal is to engage in anti-competitive behavior such as threats, bundles, or some bizzare and discriminative pricing schemes. Anti-competitive behavior is often directly correlated to monopoly status, because if you are not a monopoly, you might not have enough market power to enforce your rules. It is kind of hard to discourage competitors and/or business partners when they know you are just bluffing.
There is nothing wrong or illegal to create a product that absolutely kills competition and becomes a monopoly or insanely market dominator by natural market forces. Nor is it wrong or illegal to be the only player in a market simply because others are too poor to play or cannot meet strict government regulations.
What the law is interested is how the company uses its market power.


RE: Right Mind
By leidegre on 3/6/2007 7:50:24 AM , Rating: 1
If Intel grows large enough, they can simply put AMD out of business buy lowering thier prices. It has happened before, and it's not about monopoly, it's about the amount of money, which in the coprate world equals power.

AS long as AMD and Intel continues to compete at such a scale, we will have products which continues to improve.

This can even be applied to human sprinters, e.g. if you face an equally good oponent, you would genereally preform better, than you would facing a lesser or no oponent at all.


RE: Right Mind
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 9:16:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If Intel grows large enough, they can simply put AMD out of business buy lowering thier prices

As long as they don't get caught...:)
This is covered under the "Predatory Pricing" sections of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.


RE: Right Mind
By rcc on 3/6/2007 12:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
That would presume that they were losing money. Selling at a loss to kill a competitor is different than selling at a fair price which is lower than that which the competitor can match.

And, had Intel wanted AMD gone, and thought they could get away with this, they've been big enough since before AMD was born.


RE: Right Mind
By raven3x7 on 3/6/2007 5:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Intel is only a couple of years older than AMD. And they would never be as big as they are today hadnt IBM picked them as the primary supplier for their PCs. Coincidentally(or not...) the secondary supplier for IBM PCs was AMD. Since AMD now operates in markets Intel has no presence in, it is unlikely that Intel could kill them through pricing without taking a loss. Right now i doubt it is even feasible for Intel to do this because they'd be short on cash which could mean that their stock could drop a lot.


RE: Right Mind
By Targon on 3/6/2007 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 1
You need to look at past behaviors from when AMD was NOT seen as competition, and then into and through the era of competition between Intel and AMD.

AMD made their first efforts to compete back in the days of the Pentium, when AMD released the K5. There wasn't much of a reason for people to side with AMD in those days since the K5 had a number of problems. In the K6 vs. Pentium 2 days, there was still a number of reasons why people would choose Intel over AMD.

Now, it was really the original Athlon(and later Athlon XP) days vs. Pentium 3 fight where AMD was able to release a processor that was a true competitor to anything Intel had at the time. So, figure any investigation SHOULD begin, because AMD had products that could not only compete well against the Intel processors, but were also good for the price. At that time, Intel really DID use anti-competitive tactics while being seen as a monopoly. A company that wanted to sell computers or parts could NOT survive without a supply of Intel products, and Intel was known or had the reputation for cutting supplies to companies that would consider selling AMD based products.

The Asus K7M as I recall was initially shipped in a plain white box because Asus was concerned that they would have supplies of chipsets reduced or intentionally delayed if Asus made too big a deal out of their AMD based motherboard. Things like that could be seen as a monopoly using anti-competitive tactics if the rumors were true.

So, from those days, to when the Athlon 64 was released, there were more and more reports like that, about Intel threats about supplies causing problems for AMD. Even then, there were continued stories about Intel penalizing companies, not based on how many Intel machines/products were sold, but based on how many AMD machines/products were sold.

The general rule about anti-competitive behaviors have NOTHING to do with providing benefits for volume of sales or purchases, but instead focus on benefits for NOT selling products based on a competitor's products. Intel is NOT allowed to provide special discounts for not using AMD products. They can provide incentives for volume though. If Intel says that a company may not sell more than a certain percentage of AMD based products in order to qualify for special Intel deals, that is not allowed. By the same token, AMD would not be allowed to require a company to limit the sale of Intel products in order to get certain deals.

So, there is "monopoly", and there is "dominant force using unfair business practices". The AMD lawsuit is about Intel using "force" against companies to keep them from selling or pushing AMD products, even when the AMD products were better(Athlon 64/Opteron vs. Pentium 4/Xeon). If a company like Best Buy were to be threatened by the loss of supplies if too many AMD based machines were shown on shelves compared to Intel systems, that would be an example of unfair business practices, and these are the sorts of things that e-mail evidence would be useful in proving.

From this, I am sure that you can understand why e-mail evidence might be VERY important to the case, and why Intel execs would want them destroyed. AMD is doing well NOW, but if Intel had used ONLY fair business practices in the Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4 era, AMD might have a 30-40 percent marketshare these days, not the 20-25 percent they have now.


RE: Right Mind
By Samus on 3/7/2007 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
AMD IS a better company to work for, more environmentally friendly, and has historically made better products for the majority of possible consumers (2001-2005 era) but because of Intel's strongarm and monopolistic nature they were unable to succeed like they should have. Instead, they couldn't even lock 20% market share and couldn't secure a Dell contract until this whole scene surfaced.


Surprised?
By James Holden on 3/5/2007 10:07:42 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone surprised?




RE: Surprised?
By Viditor on 3/5/2007 10:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone surprised?

I am actually...that's going to be a very costly mistake.
Judges get really pissed when this happens, and it's usually not done without severe penalties to your case.
It happened with Rambus, and it cost them a Fraud indictment.


RE: Surprised?
By bbomb on 3/5/2007 11:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
Its Intel I doubt that the judge will do anything about it. And if the supposed evidence that Intel "lost" would have hurt Intel then AMD consequently loses the case, so they are probably thinking that the consequences are worth it.


RE: Surprised?
By verndewd on 3/6/2007 12:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
obstruction of justice if it can be proven.


RE: Surprised?
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 9:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
obstruction of justice if it can be proven

True, but I believe that intent must be proven as well for that to stick...


bunch a PC crap
By walk2k on 3/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: bunch a PC crap
By Targon on 3/6/2007 2:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Extortion is considered illegal by most people, and a company that forces customers NOT to sell products made by another company is breaking a number of laws. That's what this is all about, and if you don't understand the difference between FAIR competition and unfair business practices, then you may want to read up on the subject.


RE: bunch a PC crap
By walk2k on 3/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: bunch a PC crap
By Targon on 3/7/2007 8:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
And what defines that the computer industry as a whole has been a level playing field?

Intel became the dominant force in the computer industry in large part because IBM went with them for the original IBM/PC and stuck with their chips. From that time on, and because of the "clone" market, there was Intel, and AMD was taken on to help with manufacturing of chips, but wasn't competition. So, Intel was really the only source of processors for the entire x86 market since AMD was NOT a competitor, but instead was a supplier.

You had Apple, you had Commodore, and a few others that didn't make as big an impact, like Texas Instruments. But when it comes to the x86 market, Intel was THE monopoly player, and there was ZERO competition. As the dominance of x86 grew, that monopoly standing became more obvious.

In the days of the 80386, AMD started to break free from being a simple supplier of processors. Intel had the 33 and 66MHz chips while AMD had the 40 and 80MHz chips, but otherwise there was no difference between Intel and AMD chips, and so, FINALLY there was some competition in the x86 market. From that time on, fair competition SHOULD have been the rule from Intel(being a monopoly player).

Now, if a monopoly player uses threats against resellers, distributors, and other hardware manufacturers in order to maintain their monopoly position, that isn't "socialist crap". It also wouldn't be noticed if the competition had what most would call an inferior product, and is at the heart of this issue.

It really took until the Athlon came out for AMD to have a product that everyone could agree was a real competitor to what Intel had. A price war would be acceptable, but threatening customers with delayed shipping, or to charge higher prices if that company sold AMD based products isn't a level playing field when Intel had a monopoly in the x86 market.

You also look at this as if AMD started the lawsuit NOW, and not years ago when AMD had the clearly superior products but had problems because of Intel threats. AMD can compete now, but the damage done years ago shouldn't be ignored or forgotten. Intel violated a number of rules when it comes to "fair competition", which is the "level playing field" you feel should be played on.


RE: bunch a PC crap
By senbassador on 3/7/2007 5:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
If I am not mistaken, Adam Smith himself was in favor of government regulation as a means of breaking up monopolies. We live in a capitalist free market, but you still have to work within some legal framework. There are boundaries as to what you can and cannot do.

Intel crossed the line when they told they will put financial incentives to their customers to not carry a particular competitors product. It is ILLEGAL to provide carrots and sticks to deter a customer from buying from a target competitor.


Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance
By eppenoire on 3/6/2007 3:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
If this is true, then Intel isn't complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements to archive all e-mail and coorespondence for 7 years. Nor, has the CEO or CFO been truthful when filing their Section 302 reports. This could be a major fine for Intel and one that the Fed actively pursues, so other businesses will take Sarbanes-Oxley compliance more serious.




RE: Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/7/2007 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
SOX only applies to the executive level though.


RE: Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance
By Viditor on 3/8/2007 8:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SOX only applies to the executive level though

I believe it also applies to the "Custodians" that Intel assigned to insure compliance as well...and most of them didn't even get the memo.


In my honest opinion
By ScythedBlade on 3/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: In my honest opinion
By JonMooring on 3/6/2007 12:22:01 AM , Rating: 4
I can't begin to tell you just how pointless that post was.


RE: In my honest opinion
By phusg on 3/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: In my honest opinion
By SacredFist on 3/6/2007 10:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, aren't anandtech forum people idiots ... Opinions should only be downgraded if false ... well ...that's why its anandtech and not xtremesystems ...


Delaware District Court - Intel Defense Lawyer ...
By xphile on 3/6/2007 6:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
Your honour, I demand this case be dropped forthwith... every body knows Intel is a PROCESSOR manufacturer - not a STORAGE manufacturer. Intel did its part and moved the data. Actually it moved the data incredibly quickly - far faster than required by statute. So fast in fact it appears the Seagate storage medium wasnt capable of capturing it in time and it was lost.

If AMD is so unhappy that this data has been lost then it should sue Seagate for not being able to manage to keep up and store it.

Your honour Intel rightly feels this is a simple case of sour grapes in that AMD has data they desperately wish THEY could lose in a similar way but cant create processors fast enough to do so. Motion for a dismissal your honour on the grounds AMD cant justfiably blame Intel for its own inability to find new and inovative ways to destroy sensitive content :-)




By CollegeTechGuy on 3/6/2007 12:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
"[Ah ha ha ha ha, I drop all charges against Intel based on this testimony I have just heard]" -Judge


By Roy2001 on 3/6/2007 6:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
File a lawsuit and then moan on newspaper's ads is baby's style




By rcc on 3/6/2007 12:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, that makes sense.

Begone Troll.


By CollegeTechGuy on 3/6/2007 12:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, just wow...this is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. First off you don't know what happend to those documents, maybe they were just forgotten about and the system deleted it on its own...like its programmed to. Not to mention if you fine a company 400 billion dollors for some stupid stuff your taking away their money which advances the worlds technology...not just intel...see the above comments about competitive business.

And just wow how you talk about the American Judicial System when EU is sueing Microsoft for not making a easy to use tool to program in windows. Thats just ludacris.


By walk2k on 3/6/2007 7:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
EU is a bunch of socialist pussies.

OH we can't compete on a level playing field so let's SUE everyone.


Humbug
By CollegeTechGuy on 3/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Humbug
By Viditor on 3/6/2007 10:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD should be thanking Intel for getting a start in the CPU world, even though they essentially stole their designs

Are you kidding? They paid through the nose for them!
Remember also that the founders of both Intel and AMD all used to work together at Fairchild...


RE: Humbug
By zsouthboy on 3/6/2007 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
Oh noes!11

If it weren't for AMD existing, where would processor power be?

If intel didn't have a reason to compete, do you think you'd have kick ass Core 2 Duos in 2007(now)?

No, we'd be using Pentium IIIs, priced at $1500 a piece.


RE: Humbug
By ghost101 on 3/6/2007 11:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well i doubt itd be $1500, but your point does stand. take for example the frocious price cutting recently. Do people think they would be happening if there was only a sole prodicer?


More evidence that Intel is a criminal
By cornfedone on 3/7/07, Rating: -1
By Tom Tom on 3/8/2007 11:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, if you look at how the Govt went after Corps like Tyco, whos behavior imo pales in comparison to Intels it has to make you wonder.


One way to win
By AntDX316 on 3/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: One way to win
By Dactyl on 3/6/2007 4:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
If Intel makes a fast processor and sells it very cheaply, it will be foregoing massive profits, and setting itself up for a major anti-monopoly lawsuit. So it will lose a bunch of money, and then get sued for it.

Business wars (competition) is what drives innovation. Compare American, European, and modern Chinese innovation to the USSR/Communist China. You don't want competition? You want everyone to cooperate? That doesn't work in the real world. Who would make the decisions about what types of CPUs to make? The government? That's just silly. Do you want Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney telling you what kind of CPU you should have?

The monopoly lawsuit isn't because Intel has the best, most affordable CPUs. In fact, this lawsuit is about the period of time when AMD's Athlons were much better than Intel's Pentium IVs.

Intel will not be "forced to close," no matter what the outcome of this lawsuit.

Watt for watt, Barcelona will at least come close to Core 2 Quad, if not exceeding it.

Aside from that, though, great post.


RE: One way to win
By knowom on 3/6/2007 4:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the good laugh I hate to break it to you, but Barcelona should be better than core 2 duo watt for watt with relative ease and be fairly competitive performance wise as well in the quad core segment it might not perform as efficiently at tasks that aren't multi threaded possibly, but even that remains to be seen.


RE: One way to win
By ghost101 on 3/6/2007 11:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
You have a crystal ball or something?


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki