DailyTech - Court Orders Intel to Cough Up Destroyed Antitrust Evidence

Submit News

IT Court Orders Intel to Cough Up Destroyed Antitrust Evidence
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - April 10, 2007 9:32 PM

56 comment(s) - last by goatfajitas.. on Apr 21 at 1:03 PM

AMD doubts Intel can deliver important e-mails for a fair case

Last year, AMD alleged that Intel destroyed evidence, particularly employee emails in an anti-trust case involving monetary perks with system integrators and retailers. According to Intel officials however, complicated corporate restructuring lead to an oversight in data retention, and there was no foul play involved.

AMD alleged that because of Intel's anticompetitive practices, evidence was destroyed to cover up paper trails, losing information from more than 300 case-specific Intel employees.

Despite Intel admitting its loss of data, the company is not off the hook. This week, Intel received a court order to explain why it lost e-mail records that could prove its guilt in anticompetitive practices. The court is giving Intel until April 17th of this year to deliver a satisfactory statement on the data loss.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy indicated to reporters that originally Intel was going to issue a statement on April 10th, but some court delays pushed back the deadline. "It took more than a week to draft the order from the special master so the deadline is now April 17th," said Mulloy. Special master Vincent Poppiti wants Intel to deliver an explanation to the loss as well as propose a improved system for data archiving.

AMD however has a grim outlook on the whole process, doubting Intel's ability to deliver the lost information with integrity. "Although Intel has agreed to restore all data captured in the thousands of backup tapes it made and preserved, no one can say with any degree of confidence that this will put Humpty-Dumpty back together again," said AMD in a statement.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

Intel in trouble

By tuteja1986 on 4/10/2007 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 3

I have feeling AMD will get some good amount of settlement $$$. This will help AMD recuperate the Bad Q1/02 07 looses.

I hope AMD bercalona is able beat Intel Quad core. need competition and we need both companies alive to make sure we see some innovation.

RE: Intel in trouble

By TomZ on 4/10/2007 11:26:48 PM , Rating: 1

You can't build a business based on litigation settlement fees (unless you're an attorney). If AMD gets a "revenue pop" from Intel, it doesn't really help them in the long-term. They have to run their business exceptionally well, or else Intel is going to eat their lunch. Competion is going to be especially fierce in the coming years.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By Dactyl on 4/10/2007 11:51:43 PM , Rating: 5

Revenue now won't help them in the long run?

It will if they spend it on R&D.

Intel's monopoly pricing schemes cost AMD a lot of revenue during some of the P4 years when AMD could have used it to move to 65/45nm faster and get Barcelona out the door sooner.

For semiconductor companies, their long-term prospects depend on their R&D and fabs. Both of those cost money here and now.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TomZ on 4/11/07, Rating: 0

RE: Intel in trouble

By Dianoda on 4/11/07, Rating: 0

By Dianoda on 4/11/2007 3:22:26 AM , Rating: 0

AMD is between a rock and hard place right now because of a lack of cash to fund additional anything. AMD (or pretty much any company in the microprocessor biz) cannot afford to cut any R&D or fab funding because standing still equals death in this industry. So it is likely that AMD is maxing out their credit right now just to keep the wheels turning. This will hurt them long term.

And the ATI acquisition has hurt both companies short term. The debt that AMD has stacked up in relation to this acquisition has hurt their credit as well (the more it borrows in the short term, the more they pay long term, because cost of debt increases as the risk of the firm increases).

Even with a large settlement from this case, it will be too late for AMD. By too late I mean that AMD will already have passed this hurdle or fallen face first into the ground (unlikely as that appears right now, it is a possibility if delays occur or products don't perform adequately, consume too much power, or if yields simply suck; plenty could go wrong). The erosion of margins for AMD has compounded this effect as well (AMD’s gross margin was 2.793 bil in 2006, with a net revenue of 5.649 bil), the decrease has cut into R&D operating expenses, which are now being funded from other sources of cash (i.e. debt). I can’t wait to see AMD’s next 10-Q.

The former ATI hasn't exactly been pulling it weight recently, either, especially considering how much AMD overpaid for the firm (Goodwill allocation for acquisition of AMD: $3.207 bil, or more than half of the $5.604 bil AMD shelled out for the firm, pg. 105 of AMD's 2006 annual report). That 'goodwill' is what firms use to describe the portion of the market value of a business entity not directly attributable to their assets and liabilities; in addition, it is the ability of the entity to make a higher profit than would be derived from selling the tangible assets. It is extremely unlikely that all of this goodwill is truly what ATI’s ability to generate higher returns with its tangible assets were and are worth; i.e. they probably overpaid by somewhere in the range of $1.2-$1.7 bil.

In short, this case will not substantially effect AMD financially anytime in the near future (seeing as Intel seems bent on making it last until the end of time). I suppose I could have said that in fewer words, but I got curious about AMD's financial position and decided to apply some of that fine education that I paid too much for (still paying for, in fact; still in school, too, can't wait till I get into this real world I've heard so much about). Well, g'night all and best of luck to AMD. Intel, too.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 8:46:55 AM , Rating: 2

Historically, major antitrust settlements have been bad for the consumer. The classic example is the breakup of Standard Oil, in which oil prices immediately rose, and stayed higher for over a decade afterwards. The action against Alcoa in the 1960s aluminum market is another example...but there are countless others. In each of these cases, government intervention would up costing the consumer greatly in higher prices and/or lower product quality.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 9:18:45 AM , Rating: 4

The prior statement lacks insight into what prices would be like today if the anti-trust lawsuits never occurred.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 2

Its not merely my opinion, but that of many esteemed economists such as Kevin Murphy and Nobel Prize winnner Milton Friedman...perhaps the most influential economist of the 20th century.

But hey, what do they know, right?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/07, Rating: 0

RE: Intel in trouble

By grenableu on 4/11/2007 10:10:51 AM , Rating: 2

shouldn't you be checking your yard for black helicopters about now?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 2

Way to bolster your argument.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 12:19:13 PM , Rating: 2

You honestly believe that claiming you'll be shot for remarks about Dick Cheney bolsters yours?

::boggle::

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 1:04:44 PM , Rating: 3

So because it didn't suit you, you decided to ignore the relevant part of that post.

How Bush-like.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 1:20:39 PM , Rating: 2

Sorry, I didn't see anything relevant in your Dick Cheney post. But if you point it out to me, I'll be happy to respond.

> "How Bush-like..."

Why the continued Republican references? This isn't a political forum....we're discussing Intel, remember? In any case, I'm not a Republican myself, so if you're looking for a sore nerve, you're missing your target.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By rushfan2006 on 4/11/2007 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
So because it didn't suit you, you decided to ignore the relevant part of that post.

Funny you say this...but I just checked and re-checked (to make sure I wasn't mistaken or that I missed something)...but you are making a snide remark about someone ignoring a post, which I totally don't see the relevancy in the post you are crying about being ignored anyway...but moving on......yet YOU didn't have a valid come back when the names of the ecnomists were mentioned to verify the factual basis of masher's post and not that it was mere opinion.

So um.....hypocrit much?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/12/2007 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 2

Yes it's always fun to visit the fairy tail world of theory-land, where greed, crime, and general reality don't exist, and neither do the optimistic scenarios described.

Intel or MS as a monopoly would be an economic disaster.

Pragmatic much?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By mindless1 on 4/12/2007 9:23:15 AM , Rating: 2

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, don't ever think anyone else is obligated to address anything written. Such discussions would never end and it is not up to anyone to constantly counter the rantings of a madman who never ceases (not that you are one necessarily, but it is a good example of a situation in which countering all that was written is not necessary).

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/12/2007 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 2

That didn't sound mindless. Now that's confusing.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By Flunk on 4/11/2007 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 2

Actually some companies entire business plan is based around settlements from litigation. Have you ever heard of a company called SCO?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TomZ on 4/11/2007 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 2

Do you think they'll be successful in the long-term?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By rqle on 4/11/2007 12:12:19 AM , Rating: 2

Very bad business ethics was played by intel, but it gonna be a very tough battle to show intel rebate program is against the law. AMD objective in this case if more PR than anything else.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By Emryse on 4/11/2007 3:08:24 AM , Rating: 2

To be perfectly honest, although I understand the need to create innovation in the business sector, the way in which the EU (and the US when driven by J. Reno) is attempting to ensure this through government oversight is completely the wrong way to go about it. It's bad for capitalism, it's bad for innovation, and it's bad for business.

Ultimately, it's worst for the consumer - and that's because we as the consumers are dropping the ball. I don't care how much you hate MS, they've had an excellent game plan. Both long-term and short-term strategies have been efficiently carried out, and that's why they're the success story they are. The late '90s anti-trust case was a nightmare for the future of capitalism; thank God the initial verdict was over-ruled... but it's sad to see that the then-supported line of "socialistic" reasoning is drifting back into the courts in this particular case.

We as the consumers should be dictating what businesses succeed or fail, not the government. But when we fail to do so, whether stemming from ignorance or laziness, the repercussions are experienced not by the business, but by us as the consumers.

If you think AMD will gain some edge by winning a settlement - you're seriously mistaken. If anything, supposing that Intel does lose big:

1.) You'll be paying more because Intel will raise prices, and AMD isn't in a position to do so (even though they did, and now look at their quarter earnings report).

2.) Intel may or may not cut back in R&D, and if that happens it means AMD doesn't have to work quite so hard to compete... which is bad because if anything that's what Intel is forcing them to do right now: be better as a company, and as a product line.

I'm not claiming expertise - it's just my point of view, always welcome to change when better information is presented.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By FNG on 4/11/2007 3:30:18 AM , Rating: 2

I have to say I think that point one is pretty on the spot. However point two has a bit of flawed logic in my opinion. I am not too concerned with helping AMD out in any way.

What I am concerned with is Intel using its vast monetary resources to stifle a competitor and then us falling back into the Netburst days. You say that Intel will have to cut back on R&D because they lost big, why? So the money they could lose to AMD comes back and bites them again?

I believe an Intel loss will not matter to anyone but for AMD at the end of the day. Said anti-competitive practices are probably not still going on in the way they are alleged because AMD is worried about a loss of evidence. I think a good indicator that Intel is not paying add revenue like alleged is that Dell is now distributing AMD products...

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/07, Rating: 0

RE: Intel in trouble

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 9:33:51 AM , Rating: 2

> "Capitalism doesn't work with a monopoly...Economics 101. "

Had you stayed awake in that Econ 101 class, you would have learned that capitalism engenders many so-called "natural monopolies" in which a single dominant firm (though it may have smaller competitors) is the most efficient form of the market, and results in lower prices for the consumer.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 9:42:43 AM , Rating: 2

And they stay honest as well, right? And who says this is a natural monopoly? You? Why would I not believe more competitors would be even better?

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 10:08:25 AM , Rating: 2

> "and who says this is a natural monopoly?"

I was merely disproving your statement that "capitalism doesn't work with a monopoly". The CPU market is not a natural monopoly at present, nor did I say it was.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 11:56:46 AM , Rating: 2

So then you agree your socialism comment was valueless.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By SilthDraeth on 4/11/2007 6:26:10 PM , Rating: 2

Masher2 never made a socialism comment, you did.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/12/2007 11:04:13 AM , Rating: 2

The socialism comment started here:

By Emryse on 4/11/2007 3:08:24 AM , Rating: 2

Wrong person, my mistake.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By Dactyl on 4/13/2007 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
1.) You'll be paying more because Intel will raise prices, and AMD isn't in a position to do so (even though they did, and now look at their quarter earnings report).

2.) Intel may or may not cut back in R&D

Wrong and wrong. Intel has already stopped its monopoly pricing scheme, and CPU prices are at record lows. Further, Intel has plenty of money for R&D. Of course that will go on.

Parent

RE: Intel in trouble

By TheGreek on 4/11/07, Rating: 0

RE: Intel in trouble

By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 1:03:26 PM , Rating: 2

totally agreed.

Parent

So...

By herrdoktor330 on 4/10/2007 11:36:11 PM , Rating: 2

I know that this is a big deal, but what is AMD going to gain from this. It isn't like the hands of time are going to be moved backwards and Athlon chips are going to be placed in Dell and Gateway PCs when AMD was the top performer of the time. Sadly, the only reason they're being used now is because they own the value price point so cheap PCs can be assembled. That's not counting the enthusiast market who builds PCs... but if you're building performance today, you're building with Intel.

Anyway... I think I got off track. What is this going to really do for AMD?

RE: So...

By trex1000 on 4/11/2007 12:56:32 AM , Rating: 2

I will tell you what AMD will gain. Intel will have to change the way they practice business. They will no longer offer kick backs for OEMs using their cpus which will in turn help AMD gain market share in the future. The monies AMD will win if they do win the case is not AMD's main goal. I am sure their attorneys will get a substantial percentage of that money so even though it will help AMD, it will not be as rewarding as preventing Intel from smashing them as they have done with OEMs in the past. THis will in turn allow them to gain some market share in the budget pc market.

Concerning Barcelona, AMD will have to get moving a little faster if they want to keep up. By the time it comes out, Intel will be moving onto the next generation which may be keeping AMD in the budget sector. AMD has awoken a sleeping dragon (Intel). Lets just hope that AMD will at least be able to keep up with Intel as performance king. I used to get so exicted when Anandtech published the results of the new cpu releases from Intel and AMD during the old A64-P4 days or even the P3-Athalon days. Now I don't really read into the test results as much, other than the overclockability of the C2D, since I already know what the outcome will be.

Sorry for any typos or mispells in advance. I know how critical some readers can be here. I am lazy and it is late.

Parent

RE: So...

By nofumble62 on 4/11/2007 2:38:43 AM , Rating: 2

Kickback is part of doing business, from selling food to airplanes.

Sadly enough, it may include politic and even justice.

Parent

RE: So...

By zombiexl on 4/11/2007 5:02:37 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Sadly enough, it may include politic and even justice.

Did you really type "may include" with a straight face? I don’t think there is any MAY about it, lobbyists wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Parent

RE: So...

By AlexWade on 4/11/2007 7:51:40 AM , Rating: 2

Kickbacks are ok. Kickbacks for not using the competitors products are not ok.

Most businesses give you a discount the more you buy. My price per item is going to be less if I buy 1000 items than if I buy 10. According the AMD brief, Intel would only offer discounts based on volume and percentage of Intel sold. In other words, if the company sold 75% Intel, their price per item is higher than if they sold 90% Intel. That is the anti-competitive and wrong part, not the kickback.

Parent

RE: So...

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 8:51:14 AM , Rating: 3

What Intel had was an exclusive-distribution vertical market arrangement; it is in no way a "kickback". There are countless examples of exclusive distribution arrangements in business, one tiny example of which explains why you can only get Coke products in half the fast-food restaurants in America.

Parent

RE: So...

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 9:24:09 AM , Rating: 2

But those agreements still leave adequate opportunities for the other guy, and have to do with the parent company. It's not a great parallel comparision.

Parent

RE: So...

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 9:38:50 AM , Rating: 3

> "But those agreements still leave adequate opportunities for the other guy"

And so did Intels..which is why AMD's market share grew strongly during this period and in some sectors (desktop retail, for instance) actually surpassed Intels.

Why? Because AMD was still able to sell its products through countless other VARs, distributers, and retailers. AMD wasn't shut out of the market at all, in fact they flourished in it.

The touchstone in antitrust legislation is the mantra, "protect the consumer, not the competition". Was the consumer hurt by this arrangement? Buyers who wanted Intel products could find them at Dell for a lower price as a result. And buyers who wanted AMD had numerous options from other sellers.

Parent

RE: So...

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 9:48:39 AM , Rating: 2

"AMD wasn't shut out of the market at all, in fact they flourished in it."

5 quarters out of how many? Funny how embellishments are only accompanied to make an argument.

Parent

RE: So...

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 10:05:38 AM , Rating: 3

Actually, AMDs revenue (their CPU revenues, that is) increased nearly every quarter under which this Intel-Dell exclusivity arrangement existed. Historically speaking, its also one of the fastest period of new product introductions and price drops for both firms.

The consumer benefitted. They were in no manner hurt by this arrangement.

Parent

RE: So...

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 11:57:51 AM , Rating: 2

If they could have grown more without such an agreement then they were not hurt?

Parent

RE: So...

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 12:29:35 PM , Rating: 2

You keep introducing a new argument as soon as the previous one is squashed. Let me explain again-- antitrust law does not exist to protect other competitors. It exists to protect the consumer.

Exclusive distribution agreements are common in business, and are both ethical and legal. Would PepsiCo have "grown even more" had a customer been able to buy a Pepsi at the tens of thousands of restaurants which have agreed to serve only Coke? Possible...but is the consumer hurt by such an arrangement? Not in the least.

Furthermore, its equally possible that AMD benefitted from the Intel-Dell deal. True, they were barred from working with one reseller. But the resultant lower Intel prices at Dell pulled customers away from HP, IBM, and others...companies which were then more likely to turn to AMD to regain their competitive advantage. Quite possibly, had Intel simply cut prices a bit less, but done so for ALL their vendors regardless of exclusivity, AMD not never have gotten their foot in the door.

But in the final analysis, its doesn't matter whether AMD was hurt or not. Companies are supposed to hurt each other in a competitive market. What matters is the effect on the consumer. The Dell deal didn't hurt the consumer in the least. If anything, it benefitted them.

Parent

RE: So...

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 1:06:52 PM , Rating: 2

My comment addressed yours. You decided to ignore that.

Why?

Parent

RE: So...

By tutelar on 4/11/2007 1:47:45 PM , Rating: 2

Seems like he answered it very well. Maybe you should go back and read masher2s post again.

Parent

RE: So...

By TheGreek on 4/12/2007 11:11:29 AM , Rating: 2

The facts that things improved economically does not prove that things would not have been ever better without such agreements, which would be even more of a benefit to society.

Parent

Data Loss

By wallijonn on 4/11/2007 4:28:46 PM , Rating: 2

There is no such thing as 'data loss' in Intel's or the government's case, they all have backup tapes from which emails can be retrieved. There is no way on God's Green Earth that a corporation like Intel does not do data backups nightly, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, with Son/Father/Grandfather rotations, just as there is no way that all the emails were stored on just one server, on just one disc.

RE: Data Loss

By TomZ on 4/11/2007 6:07:21 PM , Rating: 2

Many companies have data retention policies that require old data to be purged. Obviously one of the reasons is to reduce the information that can be found during discovery in a lawsuit. So I wouldn't be so sure about your idea that all companies keep endless backups as you suggest.

Remember the old saying, "it's only illegal if you get caught." I'll bet that kind of thinking entered into the "accidental" data loss at Intel.

Parent

RE: Data Loss

By masher2

(blog) on 4/11/2007 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 2

I've worked for companies larger than Intel, and I can tell you data does get lost accidently. The number of ways clueless sysadmins can screw up is endless. And even the best system of backups doesn't protect you if you don't notice the loss for a lengthy period, as all your backups are missing it as well.

Parent

This is not right

By CollegeTechGuy on 4/11/2007 11:02:36 AM , Rating: 2

So the courts are making Intel somehow get the data back, and also explain why they data was lost in the first place. AND they want Intel to propose a better way for them to store e-mail data. How can they make them change their system? What gives the court the right to tell Intel how they should run their computer systems. They have not been convicted of a crime yet, AMD has just made allegations. Remember, this is the USA, suppose to be innocent until proven guilty.

And in the last article on this topic Intel already explained, maybe not to the courts, that their system will automatically delete stored e-mail data because they only have so much storage space. We are all human, and the guys running the company that deal with the legal stuff probly don't have any idea how the e-mail system works. So they probly didn't even know to tell the IT guys to save the data. I don't think the courts should have the right to force the company to spend money to upgrade their e-mail system. Especially if anything like what AMD is saying they did, I don't think they would be stupid enough to use the company e-mail system to send and recieve those type of e-mails.

Intel has a better CPU out right now, no one can argue otherwise. I have seen reviews where the Core 2 Duo has out performed AMD in all kinds of tests. AMD is sour about this and they are just trying to find some way to say why their sales are down. They need to stop spending money on lawyers and start puting that money towards their next CPU to try and be better than Intel's next CPU.

RE: This is not right

By TheGreek on 4/11/2007 11:59:59 AM , Rating: 1

"What gives the court the right to tell Intel how they should run their computer systems."

More like Intel doesn't have the right to ignore due process and the law. Only Cheney has that right.

Parent

RE: This is not right

By bldckstark on 4/11/2007 12:14:15 PM , Rating: 2

There are about a billion laws out there that states how long you have to keep documents on hand. If they are electronic, they law basically tells you how to run your systems. This is basic business stuff. Heck, I have forms at work that I have to keep for two years. It is the law.

Parent

wont matter

By fifthlake on 4/11/2007 1:14:29 PM , Rating: 2

It wont make any difference if Intel is ordered to pay a fine anyway. If they loose, they will file an immediate appeal requiring more litigation and a parade of lawyers. 10 years from now after they have lost all their appeals, they will just pay the fine out of their 'kick-back' budget and move on.

RE: wont matter

By mars777 on 4/11/2007 1:51:11 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, that is sad about america.
A free country where everybody is free but somebody is just a bit more free because he has mone to appeal :)

Parent

"This is about the Internet. Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis