AMD, Intel Wage Evidence War Before Antitrust Trial

[god_43]

Intel and AMD have begun asking for sanctions against the other as part of the runup for their antitrust battle, set to go to court in early 2010.

Both requests concern the practices of document retention, or the apparent lack of it. In the overarching case, AMD has charged Intel with antitrust violations. The charges mirror cases in South Korea, Japan, and the EU, which fined Intel the equivalent of $1.45 billion and recently released some supporting documents in its case.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2354231,00.asp

.....interesting?

[Jamesrt2004]

this is silly now, It would only make sense for amd to carry on if they got the money, which they dont. so it's kinda lame, sure intel was bad and should be punished.. but would be nicer if they got the money as apposed to the countries =/!

ahh well.

[Manicdan]

that 1.45b would account for 30% of AMDs debt, i bet they would love to have it.

[Jamesrt2004]

i bet they would but the money wont go to them it just goes to like the EU in that case etc.. which is stupid.. seeming it was amd that "lost out" but meh

[marten_larsson]

this is silly now, It would only make sense for amd to carry on if they got the money, which they dont. so it's kinda lame, sure intel was bad and should be punished.. but would be nicer if they got the money as apposed to the countries =/!

ahh well.

Why? So that Intel can continue it's illegal behaviour?

[Manicdan]

i bet they would but the money wont go to them it just goes to like the EU in that case etc.. which is stupid.. seeming it was amd that "lost out" but meh

it is kinda weird how the EU can sue a company, and keep the winnings, as if they were the ones hurt. seems a little biased to me.

i remember an article a decade ago, where an anti spam filter would work by charging someone 1c for every spam they sent. sure if your friends tried to hurt you by calling your emails spam you might owe a dollar or two. but real spam wouldnt be able to do anything without being charged a fortune. but at the end the question was, who gets all the money?

[Motiv]

it is kinda weird how the EU can sue a company, and keep the winnings, as if they were the ones hurt. seems a little biased to me.

i remember an article a decade ago, where an anti spam filter would work by charging someone 1c for every spam they sent. sure if your friends tried to hurt you by calling your emails spam you might owe a dollar or two. but real spam wouldnt be able to do anything without being charged a fortune. but at the end the question was, who gets all the money?

Well if you think about it, the EU has fined Intel because the EU residents have had to pay more for their goods (in theory).

So the money paid by Intel, you could say is the extra revenue they should never of received.

Also, a lot of subsidies are paid to AMD for setting up plants at places like Dresden.

[Manicdan]

Well if you think about it, the EU has fined Intel because the EU residents have had to pay more for their goods (in theory).

So the money paid by Intel, you could say is the extra revenue they should never of received.

Also, a lot of subsidies are paid to AMD for setting up plants at places like Dresden.

intel was offering discounts to manufacturers for not selling the competition. i dont think that raises prices since cost was lower and profit margins were better.

[highoctane]

Also, a lot of subsidies are paid to AMD for setting up plants at places like Dresden.

Well corporate tax breaks and incentives are given in the states as well to attract big companies to build facilities at different locations which brings jobs and tax paying people to the region, this happens everywhere.

[v0dka]

intel was offering discounts to manufacturers for not selling the competition. i dont think that raises prices since cost was lower and profit margins were better.

lol... here we go again. You even believe that we got better from these practices?

I would suggest looking up a recent publication from the US antitrust agency (it was posted in antoher thread on this subject too). That article explains this subject really well, in laymens terms, and gives a really clear conclusion about Intel hurting the consumer.

Don't fool yourself.

[Manicdan]

lol... here we go again. You even believe that we got better from these practices?

I would suggest looking up a recent publication from the US antitrust agency (it was posted in antoher thread on this subject too). That article explains this subject really well, in laymens terms, and gives a really clear conclusion about Intel hurting the consumer.

Don't fool yourself.

you shouldnt try and tell me what i believe, i didnt state facts or an opinion, just questioning theories. and i cant even figure out what you mean by "we got better"

[god_43]

well civil suits follow after the anti trust violations trial, i heard that amd could sue for damages anywhere in the neighborhood of 12-30bln(whether they would get it is a different story)!

[Helloworld_98]

well civil suits follow after the anti trust violations trial, i heard that amd could sue for damages anywhere in the neighborhood of 12-30bln(whether they would get it is a different story)!

30Bln? can they post money they get from damages as profit?

[LesGrossman]

this is silly now, It would only make sense for amd to carry on if they got the money, which they dont. so it's kinda lame, sure intel was bad and should be punished.. but would be nicer if they got the money as apposed to the countries =/!

ahh well.

Hmmm, no. One thing is Antitrust commissions in EU, US, Korea etc, other is court. If Intel is find guilty this time around, Intel will not be fined, intel will have to pay AMD. IF FTC also fines Intel, no way a judge will rule against AMD when the two antitrust commissions of the two major markets of the world fined Intel for wrongdoing, so AMD as a good chance of seeing a really nice chunk of money.

[wiak]

intel was offering discounts to manufacturers for not selling the competition. i dont think that raises prices since cost was lower and profit margins were better.

in 2003, most people bought Pentium 4s even when Athlon 64 was superior
why?, many big oems got paid by intel to NOT sell or limit AMD to only 10% and 90% intel etc

[Serra]

In its brief, however, Intel claims that AMD did not take the same care [in restoring/providing case-relevant information], providing only a "snapshot" of data for the court, but continuing to delete relevant documents and archived Outlook .PST files. [After discovery had closed], the brief claims, AMD admitted to a "secret" data restoration project, and produced 200,000 relevant documents after the close of discovery, with more to come.

Win or lose AMD at least seems to know how to really drag it on and frustrate Intel. I feel like a child with soon-to-be divorced parents watching mommy and daddy fight.

[Manicdan]

Win or lose AMD at least seems to know how to really drag it on and frustrate Intel. I feel like a child with soon-to-be divorced parents watching mommy and daddy fight.

so mommy and daddy are fighting to get you to pick which one to live with after the divorce? (not like they were ever together to begin with)

[kl0012]

in 2003, most people bought Pentium 4s even when Athlon 64 was superior
why?, many big oems got paid by intel to NOT sell or limit AMD to only 10% and 90% intel etc

Wasn't that because the cheapest Athlon64 processor cost >$300 then? Can it be that AMD with its the only plant could not supply the demand? Why are people buying Phenom now even when Core i7/i5 is superior? Incidentally, in those days, AMD's market share has grown by leaps and bounds, but foolish to expect a sharp increase in market share without increasing production capacity.

[AbelJemka]

Wasn't that because the cheapest Athlon64 processor cost >$300 then? Can it be that AMD with its the only plant could not supply the demand? Why are people buying Phenom now even when Core i7/i5 is superior? Incidentally, in those days, AMD's market share has grown by leaps and bounds, but foolish to expect a sharp increase in market share without increasing production capacity.

It's very easy to justify Intel's act by saying that EVEN IF they did nothing to prevent AMD sales, AMD could not produce enough CPU to substain the demand

[kl0012]

It's very easy to justify Intel's act by saying that EVEN IF they did nothing to prevent AMD sales, AMD could not produce enough CPU to substain the demand

This is part of Intel's line of defense. Will it justify Intel in court is yet to be seen.

[Calmatory]

Its the action, not the results which should define the outcome.

[randomizer]

It's very easy to justify Intel's act by saying that EVEN IF they did nothing to prevent AMD sales, AMD could not produce enough CPU to substain the demand

Can you justify a murder by saying that person would have died anyway? Ok, not exactly the same situation

[AbelJemka]

Can you justify a murder by saying that person would have died anyway? Ok, not exactly the same situation

I search for a correct example and you're perfectly find it!
You have a cookie

[JumpingJack]

Can you justify a murder by saying that person would have died anyway? Ok, not exactly the same situation

One of AMD's rationale that Intel behaved in an illegal manner is that when they were ahead with K8 they should have done 'better'. When K8 launched, AMD recorded 14 quarters straight of market share gains, but AMD reasons that it wasn't enough given their performance lead.

Intel simply counters this saying AMD remained capacity limited and they couldn't have done better not because of illegal trust behavior but because AMD couldn't make enough. There is certainly evidence to suggest this is true.

AMD then counters, well if it weren't for your illegal behavior then the capacity would have been built out.

Yada yada yada... it is a never ending circle.

Who is right? Who knows, those details will certainly come out eventually ... both in the civil case as well as all the outstanding appeals. I sincerely doubt that in AMD's complaints to the EU/Korea/JTFC they made mention that they were running full out and looking for extra capacity.

[v0dka]

Intel simply counters this saying AMD remained capacity limited and they couldn't have done better not because of illegal trust behavior but because AMD couldn't make enough. There is certainly evidence to suggest this is true.

What you describe seems not as important for an antitrust case, because those laws simply prohibit cartel like structures etc. I believe the damages are calculated based on a certain percentage of income, so estimating any real damage on AMD's side is probably irrelevant for that. Not for a civil case though.

you shouldnt try and tell me what i believe, i didnt state facts or an opinion, just questioning theories. and i cant even figure out what you mean by "we got better"

What the hell? You can't read your own posts? There is a very clear opinion in there and it is wrong. But hey, if you want to go on believing that we (the consumer) get better (cheaper products) when practices like these occur that's fine with me.