Print 110 comment(s) - last by uibo.. on Nov 7 at 5:35 AM

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo  (Source: Groll/AP)
“We intend to stop them" -- New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo

Intel is no stranger to lawsuits. The company was slapped with a $1.45B USD fine by the EU in May of this year for anticompetitive practices. The charges leveled against Intel mainly focused on illegal methods Intel used to keep AMD from gaining in traction in the marketplace.

At the time, EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes noted that, "[Intel used] used illegal anticompetitive practices to exclude its only competitor and reduce consumers’ choice — and the whole story is about consumers."

The Santa Clara, CA-based company later appealed the ruling with Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy saying, "Our position is that the decision was wrong and we said that from the day it was announced. It was wrong on many levels."

Now it appears that Intel is facing another lawsuit -- this time on its own home soil according to the New York Times. New York attorney general Andrew M. Cuomo is going after Intel this time with a federal antitrust lawsuit. Like the aforementioned EU case, Cuomo asserts that Intel used illegal tactics to stifle AMD.

“Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market,” said Cuomo. “Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices.”

The NYT adds that the state of NY's action against Intel could mean that the FTC could step in as well with charges of its own. "These are separate investigations, but it would be very surprising for New York State to go off on its own without being fairly confident the FTC would pursue Intel as well," a person familiar with the situation told the NYT.

Comments     Threshold

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

By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2009 4:52:18 PM , Rating: 0
Remember, because AMD's is a civil suit they only have to convince a jury Intel was even partially cuplable for AMD's struggles

Gonna be kinda hard to claim that when now we know that due to the insider trading scandal that someone within AMD bled the company for years and god knows how many millions.

Also, I have to point out AGAIN, that AMD could barely meet the manufacturing demands they already had on them at the time. Even IF they got the OEM contracts, how were they going to fill them ? You don't think the OEM's knew about AMD's manufacturing capacity struggles ?

Rule #1, get the product to the customer. This whole conflict seems like a moot point to me because AMD couldn't do that. Now, years later, keep looking for someone to blame.

By monomer on 11/4/2009 7:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Hector did not "bleed the company for millions." He allegedly let an analyst know about the ATI acquisition before the details became public and is now facing the consequences.

How are these two cases even related?

RE: The First Real Evidence for Anti-trust Violations
By Regs on 11/4/2009 10:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was the spin-off of their fabs into the new Global Foundries?

By monomer on 11/5/2009 12:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
Ooops, you're right, Ruiz was implicated for tipping off the analyst about the GloFo spin-off.

What year is it again?

By aj28 on 11/5/2009 8:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ruiz predicted that AMD's stock price would soar after news of the spin-off reached the public. In case you missed that period of history, it didn't happen, and nobody bled anybody for any money.

That said, where is your citation of these manufacturing demands they were supposedly experiencing? If you read the article, a lot of this is about planned products being canceled, particularly in the server realm. AMD likely already had the chips lined up, and as evidenced by current stocks of old Opteron chips, I'd be willing to bet they did.

Rule number one isn't getting the product to the customer. First off, the rule is convincing people to invest in your ideas. Money comes before product or even development. You can't build up a microprocessor design and manufacturing company without meaningful investments, and who is going to invest in a company which is clearly the victim of underhanded market tactics on the part of a huge and influential competitor like Intel?

Furthermore, AMD's products were indeed getting to their customers, but mostly in the retail channel where Intel's bribery wasn't as rampant. The vast majority of revenue comes through the OEM channels, and if the manufacturers advertising and delivering the end product to consumers are being bribed to use a competitor's product, how can you fight that? Only in court, but as we've seen the past few years now, that isn't likely to work, much less in a timely enough fashion to save your company.

By JarredWalton on 11/6/2009 5:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Manufacturing capacity is fixed by building more fabs, which you build because you are utilizing all of your current capacity and selling all of the product. Intel blocked AMD from selling more product, thereby preventing them from gaining the resources to build new fabs that cost BILLIONS each. It's a cycle either way: Intel builds more fabs because they sell more processors. Of course AMD couldn't have supplied all of the CPUs needed by the whole industry with two fabs, but they would have been building additional fabs (and contracting to other companies on parts that didn't need as much precision -- i.e. Sempron) until they had the capacity.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki