AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

Never anonymous Bud wrote:
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.

Well there's your big mistake right there, because you can't base this
on the Microsoft case. In this case Intel has already admitted its guilt
once already. That was during the Japanese FTC ruling against it.
Microsoft never once admitted its guilt like Intel has.

Yousuf Khan

On 28 Jun 2005 09:50:38 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

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.

Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
to be determined.

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... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
optimistic on that.

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

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?

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Yousuf Khan wrote:

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=


Opinions don't matter. What the market discounts as share price does.

RM

George Macdonald wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 09:50:38 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

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.

Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
to be determined.

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... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
optimistic on that.

I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

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?

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

RM

Robert Myers wrote:

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

Still, some of us are seriously disturbed by the comparison.

SCO's case is not an example of "litigation consumes resources" -- it's
more like an obvious case of the ultimate unsubstantiated, idle legal
claims, a huge scam that worked for a while. A grotesque stock market
fraud for which SCO's directive, like all criminals, should be behind
bars.

You see, after a year of the initial lawsuit, when they ran out of
excuses to not show any evidence to sustain their claims, they just
dropped all of the initial charges, and replaced them with new &
improved, ever more ridiculous ones, charges that require that IBM
discloses to SCO all of the code ever written (comical exaggeration
on this last item, yes). And you know, the charges were so trivial
to show: "millions of lines of code copy-n-pasted from our code" --
if the lines were copied, and were made public as part of Linux, why
would they be shy to show them? They wouldn't be showing any trade-
secret (not any more, if what they were saying had been true).

So, the balance: after a few months, SCO shares went from below a
dollar per share to more than 20 -- based *exclusively* on the
litigation; and they simply admit (not explicitly, but still) after
a year that those were all fake charges... I don't know what the
law says, but raw logic tells me that that's criminal behaviour,
stock fraud, for which they should go to prison. (yes, I know that
dropping the charges can be the result of realizing that one is
unable to prove "the truth" in a court of law... But in this case,
c'mon, how naive could one be??)

I don't see AMD planning to put its customers in line and start
suing them one by one as a strategy to bully them into doing
whatever AMD wants. See, *that* would be a serious killer to
AMD's finances... Ask SCO if you need evidence/precedent.

Carlos
--

Carlos Moreno wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

Still, some of us are seriously disturbed by the comparison.

SCO's case is not an example of "litigation consumes resources" -- it's
more like an obvious case of the ultimate unsubstantiated, idle legal
claims, a huge scam that worked for a while. A grotesque stock market
fraud for which SCO's directive, like all criminals, should be behind
bars.

You see, after a year of the initial lawsuit, when they ran out of
excuses to not show any evidence to sustain their claims, they just
dropped all of the initial charges, and replaced them with new &
improved, ever more ridiculous ones, charges that require that IBM
discloses to SCO all of the code ever written (comical exaggeration
on this last item, yes). And you know, the charges were so trivial
to show: "millions of lines of code copy-n-pasted from our code" --
if the lines were copied, and were made public as part of Linux, why
would they be shy to show them? They wouldn't be showing any trade-
secret (not any more, if what they were saying had been true).


I don't know about SCO's wild claims, and, if I'd taken them seriously,
I'd be too embarrassed to litigate for damages.

As much as I dislike SCO and the scummy ambulance-chaser fee agreement
it has with its lawyer, I'll actually be surprised if they come up with
*nothing.* Somewhere along the line, IBM code developed for a
derivative Unix work (AIX) has to have slid into its gifts to Linux.
An accident, I am sure, but if it *didn't* happen, it will be a
miracle.

In general, I don't like lawsuits.

So, the balance: after a few months, SCO shares went from below a
dollar per share to more than 20 -- based *exclusively* on the
litigation; and they simply admit (not explicitly, but still) after
a year that those were all fake charges... I don't know what the
law says, but raw logic tells me that that's criminal behaviour,
stock fraud, for which they should go to prison. (yes, I know that
dropping the charges can be the result of realizing that one is
unable to prove "the truth" in a court of law... But in this case,
c'mon, how naive could one be??)

I don't see AMD planning to put its customers in line and start
suing them one by one as a strategy to bully them into doing
whatever AMD wants. See, *that* would be a serious killer to
AMD's finances... Ask SCO if you need evidence/precedent.

Maybe not. We'll see how AMD's customers react to the subpoenas
they'll be getting. Not well, I'll wager, and I'll bet some of them
are regretting right now that they ever talked to AMD about Intel. As
long as *they* get as good a deal from Intel as everyone else, there is
no reason for them to resent an Intel monopoly. They make their money
no matter whose chips they're selling... unless someone is getting a
better deal from Intel than they are. So the conversation goes:

"I want the same kind of deal Dell gets."

"Dell is one of our very best customers. Only our very best customers
get that kind of deal."

"Okay, what do I have to do to be one of your very best customers?"

[And what follows may or may not be illegal.]

To go back to the comparison to SCO: On slashdot, someone commented
that Intel Performance Primitives (apparently) don't work with AMD
processors. Intel has the money for that kind of stuff, and they spend
it. AMD doesn't have the money for that kind of stuff, but they do
have the money for lawyers. Such an ordering of priorities invites
comparison with SCO. You don't like that. Oh, er, you are "seriously
disturbed" by it.

As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.

RM

Robert Myers wrote:

As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

Something off-topic for this group. I have a variety of interests and
prioirities in what I want for me and for the world -- but we deal with
one thing at a time; when I come to this newsgroup, it is to discuss
things related to computers. I'm not trying to diminish the important
of this [what you pointed us to] or the many many many other crimes
against humanity and against individual human beings; I'm just saying
that this is not what we were talking about (and it would be impolite
to continue talking about it in this newsgroup)

You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.

The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
that other things are worse.

If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"

(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)

Carlos
--

Robert Myers wrote:
Maybe not. We'll see how AMD's customers react to the subpoenas
they'll be getting. Not well, I'll wager, and I'll bet some of them
are regretting right now that they ever talked to AMD about Intel.

Or maybe not, according to this Ruiz went ahead with the lawsuit after
asking his customers if he should do it.

"Japan's regulators provided an opening in March when they ruled
against Intel in an antitrust case there. Ruiz said he consulted with
customers and found they wanted AMD to go forward.

``In the end, it was the right thing to do,'' he said. ``The vast
majority of people are thrilled we have put this on the table.''"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/12013657.htm

Yousuf Khan

Robert Myers wrote:
I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

How would you even begin to get a temporary injunction on secret
practices?

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

Actually if Dell were to become an AMD customer in the middle of all of
this, then that would probably hurt AMD's case. :-)

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

PR is an integral part of this battle. It looks like AMD has hired a
media relations firm in addition to an outside law firm for this. The
techniques they're using seem to be reminiscent of the recent American
elections as well as various successful high-profile court cases (e.g.
websites, strategic newspaper ads, etc.).

Also looks like they may be able to bring in some heavy-hitter former
CEOs as their witnesses, such as Carly Fiorina and Michael Capellas.
Neither of them are in any kind of business anymore that's got any
substantial business with Intel. So they can't be intimidated.

Possibly they can even bring in Ted Waite of Gateway since he's retired
now too.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

Well actually for that matter, neither does Microsoft have that kind of
money.

Yousuf Khan

On 29 Jun 2005 02:50:06 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 09:50:38 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

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.

Much of the documentation already exists, from the JP FTC case - whether it
is allowed in a U.S. court, with or wihout direct testimony, is something
to be determined.

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... that is what the accusations are about - it could be legal in
the U.S. and judging by recent FTC rulings it could go either way. Stating
the obvious does not change the fact that AMD has legal counsel which
believes it has a solid case. I'd say the most important point is whether
they can get a temporary injunction established immediately - I'm not too
optimistic on that.

I think a temporary injunction unlikely, but how would I know? If
there is anything here for Intel to be worried about, they're going to
change their style of business, or at least be much more careful.

This change, Intel has promised to enact in Japan... where they are now
under close scrutiny.

If AMD suddenly became a supplier to Dell, that would vindicate AMD.
There's no other obvious example I can think of, but, if it really
matters that much, it should show up as sales, with or without an
injunction. Don't hold your breath.

Hold my breath... for sales? They're already happening, despite all the
ambushes and they'll happen at a higher rate with a free market.

As for Dell, I don't think that's what AMD needs - brand name dilution by
someone who will undoubtedly try to low-ball their superior product as a
cheap alternative.

I don't know what other *example* you are missing - every single system mfr
that AMD has tried to deal with has been warned off, prosecuted by Intel.
Try reading a bit instead of shrugging it off:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...otix&referrer=

As for Intel's response, so far it's idiotic: "excuses & speculation" when
the details are clearly delineated and the JP case is "proven".

There's also the (counter-)PR value: will people continue to buy soiled
goods? No doubt some dirt will stick to Intel here but probably not enough
to make a huge difference... maybe enough for AMD to get more than a
toe-hold though.

The people who will pay attention to and be impressed by whatever is
happening here are already amd customers.

Nope - there's a whole universe of customers out there who prefer not to
have to count fingers after every handshake... some of whom will find on
close examination, to their dismay, that they have already been nibbled.

If nothing else, what this case will reveal to Intel's OEM customers is the
disparity in prices paid for Intel chips and mbrds etc. compared with the
most favored of that group. Those funny blue men are going to get covered
in ****.:-[]

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?

Your comparison of AMD & SCO is incongruous and *cheap*.

Yousuf said this case shouldn't be compared to the FTC case against
Microsoft. He was right about that. AMD doesn't have as much money as
the Federal government. What case, other than SCO, should I refer to
that everyone knows about to illustrate that litigation consumes
resources?

I don't know which case but preferably involving a complainant corp. which
actually makes product and is not just a nest of legal parasites with a
portfolio of nebulous IP.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald