If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD sues Intel (antitrust)
As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
against Intel in a Delaware court. EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=164903291 AMD sues Intel, the monopolist http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236 Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
YKhan wrote:
As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in a Delaware court. EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=164903291 AMD sues Intel, the monopolist http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236 How to win friends and influence people: wsj.com The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf. "They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the idea." Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said. /wsj.com I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing expedition through corporate e-mail. Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel. They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either. The question is whether they are illegal. Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they looked over SCO's financials before filing? RM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing expedition through corporate e-mail. Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel. They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either. The question is whether they are illegal. Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they looked over SCO's financials before filing? Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing expedition through corporate e-mail. Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel. They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either. The question is whether they are illegal. Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they looked over SCO's financials before filing? Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit. Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking? RM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit. Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking? I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable response to it. They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar could be. Yousuf Khan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit. Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking? I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable response to it. They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar could be. Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only what they have to say to keep investors informed of material developments. You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else. That's just the way the world works. RM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "YKhan" scribed:
I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. I REALLY doubt they're worried. Based on the MS anti-trust suit, this will be in the Courts for years, and there won't be nearly enough damages awarded. -- Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
YKhan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: Give it up Robert, this lawsuit has been expected for a long time since the Japanese ruling. If AMD never sued, then Intel wouldn't have believed its extraordinary luck in escaping a sure lawsuit. Give what up, Yousuf? Having an opinion? Thinking? I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. Otellina and other Intel execs are simply a matter of doing what their expensive lawyers tell them. Par for the course in this kind of situation. At most I would have expected him to read a brief statement written by Intel's legal staff. Absent that, a simple "No comment" or denial is all he really can do right now. To me, the puzzling thing is that you or anyone else would expect anything else out of any Intel execs at this point. They don't even want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable response to it. They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar could be. Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 28 Jun 2005 07:23:00 -0700, "Robert Myers"
wrote: YKhan wrote: As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in a Delaware court. EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=164903291 AMD sues Intel, the monopolist http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236 How to win friends and influence people: wsj.com The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf. "They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the idea." Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said. /wsj.com I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing expedition through corporate e-mail. Nothing surprising about the marketing tactics allegedly used by Intel. They sure do look coercive--nothing surprising about that, either. The question is whether they are illegal. Of course, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they looked over SCO's financials before filing? RM It is a fact of the matter that INTC is a monopoly and behaves as such. Yet establishing this fact legally is not an easy feat, otherwise it would've been done a decade earlier. If AMD decided to go forward with the suit now, it probably means they have obtained some legal ammunition that was not available before. Or they just think they have... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Myers wrote:
Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only what they have to say to keep investors informed of material developments. No, but often in the past they'd say that they are studying the lawsuit and won't have any further comment till later. Not even such an announcement. You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else. That's just the way the world works. Actually I never said that, you did. But since you bring it up, Wall Street does seem to understand this one pretty well. From today's action it seems WS is very pleased with the announcement as AMD's stock price climbed over 6% in response to it. Intel's went up as well, but it stayed in line with the rest of the chip group at 2%. There's even some very conservative analysts who would usually wait till a trial begins before beginning to forecast outcomes already forecasting them right now. Wells Fargo, inside Forbes, says it's 75% probable that AMD will come away with a settlement equal to $8/share. So it looks like Wall Street is giving AMD the big thumbs up to go ahead with this lawsuit. 'High Degree Of Likelihood' For AMD Win Against Intel - Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/0...ix&referre r= Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amd-Intel | cathy | General | 1 | June 27th 05 01:44 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Grumble | General | 70 | June 13th 04 07:28 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Robert Myers | Intel | 67 | June 12th 04 07:28 PM |