AMD's top lawyer discusses AMD Intel disputes

[Nemesis 1]

Heres something Intel is watching like a Hawk. When AMD closed Dresden fab 2 now. AMD order alot of stuff. Its going to be interesting how thats carried on GLOFO books.

Heres how I believe its going to work . Intel announced of its 32nm Fab build up in the USA of 8 billion durring American rough times . AMD on the other hand is claiming foul play , When there role was always as back up. Than The EU fines Intel 11/2 billion without showing anthing substancial as to what AMDs problems are . Its not just a question of what Intel did . Its a question of AMDs management. What AMD didn't do to stay in the race.

When it goes into court Intel well have already invested in America . While AMD & an ArAb company get US Citizen dollars to Build Fab . Same in Germany they Pay AMD to play in their yard.

I don't want to see Intel lose this thing for One very Good reason . If Intels loses They will announce a Brand New Monster 16nm Fab . Built in China. Its what I would do.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Straw man again. Legally defined by whom? Intel hasn't been to court.

Huh?
The US Federal Courts determined that x86 is a distinct market, and they've already found that Microsoft is a monopolist of software for that market based on the exact criteria I listed (where do you think the DOJ got it from?). How much more precedent do you want??

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Intel has exceeded two-thirds marketshare for most of it's entire history.

Of the chip market? No.

Of the CPU market? Well they invented it, so for the first few years, yes.

This is the same spurious argument that Microsoft tried to make...the court didn't buy it then either.

The market is x86 (which the courts declared to be the market for Microsoft as well)...it is legally defined.

Straw man again. Legally defined by whom? Intel hasn't been to court.

Dude that's hardly a straw man argument?

It is a good example of legal precedent.

Know your fallacies.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Already a link posted here on those years . I linked it . Not sure which one of these topics . But it says it all.

That doesn't tell me alot, mate...but I can assure you that my numbers are pretty good.
In fact, Fab 30 was able to be pushed to 30,000 wspm for awhile in early 2006.

Why we talking about 2006. Go back to 1 fab on 200 waffer and give numbers. At 130 than 90. OK!

For AMD they made to hugh mistakes to make this lawsuite work . 3 actually not counting ATI.

First one When AMD moved to Dresden they closed home fab . It proved to be AMDs undoing. Second when C2D came out AMD had to much Fab space and Closed the first dresden fab . Than They sold BEFOR it came online with 300 waffer because they were broke. Sell marketing evil intel . AMD screwed pooch when closed the Austin FAB.

If AMD would have just Kept it open not producing . They had a chance at winning case. Closing lost them capicity and capicity in a court of law will decide if damage was infact done.

Ummm...it's the same 1 Fab, and I gave you the numbers...
On a 200mm wafer with an 80mm2 die (~Athlon XP size on .13u), you get ~345 candidate dice per wafer.
If you are turning out even 5000 wafers each week (Fab 30 averaged 5000 in 2001, but ramped up to almost 7000 per week by 2006), that's 1,725,000 candidate CPUs per week from a single Fab at 200mm...if they had an 80% yield (unofficial word was closer to 90%), that's a capacity of 1,380,000 CPUs/week.

To give you some perspective, in 2000 AMD shipped a total of 25 million CPUs for the year...

BTW, the Austin Fab didn't have the capacity to make CPUs past the .18u size...they made chipsets after that.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya and they sold every CPU they could make in 2000 but because of Yield problems they let manufactories down . Reason for there @002 problems is 300waffer intel . Are you sure about the number of waffers per die and 90 % yields. I would like to see that official like . Because without real numbers its mumble jumbo. @001 problem is they let everyone down in 2000 when they sold everthing they could make way short of exspectations. So 2001 OEMS turned back on them . Intel made Just in time delivery contracts with coupons a common used practice. Supply . Just in time inventory was all the rage of japans success. LOL.

 

[Forumpanda]

Nemesis I don't know if you believe that you are genuinely right, just trolling, or some kind of Russian word generating software.

However you simply keep failing to understand the simple concept that the fine against Intel has absolutely nothing to do with AMD, AMDs capacity does not matter, AMDs prices does not matter, AMDs lunch menu at work doesn't matter.

What matters is the way Intel set up their rebate system, it was defined as not legal, and abusive, thats it, end of talk, you can argue that Intel may win the appeal based on certain criteria, but arguing that Intel will win because of anything AMD related wont fly, please stop.


Lets make an analogy, if I break into a store and steal something and later get arrested. Then it doesn't matter if it turns out that what I stole was past its sell by date and should be thrown out anyway.
it doesn't matter if the store was making plenty of money, what matters exclusively is my actions 'breaking and entering'.

It is the exact same issue here, the ruling states that Intel had set up its rebate system in such a way that it was prohibitive for ANYONE to compete with them, even if AMD did not exist this would still constitute abusive behavior, since they are making it prohibitive for ANYONE to enter the market.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya until I see the EU step on Mc donalds for not giving Pepsi I by it. LOL or IBM paying companies not to buy SUN .I can fill 20 pages of companies all over world doing exclusivies for the right price. LOL.

Time is coming soon where intel says hay we aren't using those X86 decoders anymore. Than what ? Intel can Do same as COKE Pepse . Because now its New world . A world were Intel Has just a Cpu . Like Arm IBM AMD ect ect ect . Than what foul crime shall you makeup. Its coming its plan as day . Haswell. Than Intel can really unleash its fabs. Cut pricies to the bone. While still making Billions of BUCKS. Because they Now only have a CPU . That just not right. X86 isn't really the biggest cpu market now is it . Be honest. Arm is coming to netbooks than notebooks than Desktops . Does AMD sue ARM because its sells more cpus. LOL.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Cnet

"Tom McCoy, AMD's senior vice president of legal affairs, cited two critical junctures in the Intel-AMD rivalry when Intel turned up the heat and, he claims, violated the law"
"They did it when we came to market in 1999 with the Athlon."
"And they did it big time when we came to market in 2003 with the Opteron processor for the server and the Athlon 64 processor,"

In reference to the European Commission decision to fine Intel $1.45 billion he said: "We don't care about the fine. That's simply consumer harm. What's important to us is the injunction. The decision carries with it an immediate injunction. To stop doing things that are illegally foreclosing AMD technology from getting to the market," he said

I am sure Intel used its size to their advantage to some degree, like any other large companies. Whether they violated laws is going to depend on interpretation. We now have EC's interpretation, we will see what other interpretations are.

Having said that, Intel has not "foreclosing AMD technology from getting to the market" by any mean. When AMD got good technology, it sold very well and captured large market share. Just look at AMD market share/stock price during the x2/Opteron era. Most large OEM PC/Laptop makers started carrying AMD when customers demended it. And Opteron helped capture a large server market.

AMD only started to lose market share when they couldn't come up with good product. Barcelona is a complete failure and they had to rely on x2 which is way too old to compete. AMD really don't have any good product for the last 3~4 years until recently with Phenom 2. And that's the reason they lost market share and lost money.

Intel's anti-competitive strategy may have a little to do with AMD's success/failure, but in the end, it all comes down to AMD's ability to come up with a good product.

 

[Schmide]

Yeah I'm going to second the trolling thing. (Nemesis 1) If you actually paid attention to some of the things others are saying and made constructive arguments, but you just ignore half of what people say then rant on about, capacity, other businesses, religion, etc.

I guess I'm saying. If you're going to argue the case do so, but stop distracting and muddying the waters.

 

[Nemesis 1]

My position is stronger than yours . By far. There is nothing he sited . What did intel do in 1999 notice How AMD wades around 2000, In 2003 ya intel did the big baddy they used 300wafers from second half of 2002 . If you don't think 200 waffers vs 300 waffers . Lets see how law views it. Intel could Have sold even cheaper and made money in years your talking about. Intel can dam well prove it also . Intel will also go for the capicity thing but alot better than I can LOL. Until Law rules its none event just AMMO for AMDS hype machine nothing more. Lets see how law interpets intel going to 300 wafers . Was it bad for consumers as EU states. If its notadvancing tech as the EU states. Than why was AMD 3 years late to the party. Everthing the EU states about Hurting consumers and Slowing Tech . Is clearly Alie when you look only at 300 waffers . Cheaper pricies for consummers and a tech leap. So If EU lies about what is clearly visiable . They can't be trusted to give trueth.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Viditor
Cnet

"Tom McCoy, AMD's senior vice president of legal affairs, cited two critical junctures in the Intel-AMD rivalry when Intel turned up the heat and, he claims, violated the law"
"They did it when we came to market in 1999 with the Athlon."
"And they did it big time when we came to market in 2003 with the Opteron processor for the server and the Athlon 64 processor,"

In reference to the European Commission decision to fine Intel $1.45 billion he said: "We don't care about the fine. That's simply consumer harm. What's important to us is the injunction. The decision carries with it an immediate injunction. To stop doing things that are illegally foreclosing AMD technology from getting to the market," he said

I am sure Intel used its size to their advantage to some degree, like any other large companies. Whether they violated laws is going to depend on interpretation. We now have EC's interpretation, we will see what other interpretations are.

Having said that, Intel has not "foreclosing AMD technology from getting to the market" by any mean. When AMD got good technology, it sold very well and captured large market share. Just look at AMD market share/stock price during the x2/Opteron era. Most large OEM PC/Laptop makers started carrying AMD when customers demended it. And Opteron helped capture a large server market.

AMD only started to lose market share when they couldn't come up with good product. Barcelona is a complete failure and they had to rely on x2 which is way too old to compete. AMD really don't have any good product for the last 3~4 years until recently with Phenom 2. And that's the reason they lost market share and lost money.

Intel's anti-competitive strategy may have a little to do with AMD's success/failure, but in the end, it all comes down to AMD's ability to come up with a good product.

I guess you're too young in the field to remember then...
Keep in mind that the period in question for the lawsuit is 2000-2005 (and of course beyond that if appropriate).
When the athlon first launched, it was certainly superior to Intel's offerings...however, the motherboard manufacturers were alledgedly threatened by Intel to not develop for them (Anand even wrote a few blogs about getting this first-hand from the mobo makers).
There is a whole string of things that kept AMD from having enough cash to compete with Intel on a level playing field...hence the one-sided affair we have now.
Don't you think that if AMD had had an extra few Billion in the bank, the Barcelona problems would have been far less??

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Yeah I'm going to second the trolling thing. (Nemesis 1) If you actually paid attention to some of the things others are saying and made constructive arguments, but you just ignore half of what people say then rant on about, capacity, other businesses, religion, etc.

I guess I'm saying. If you're going to argue the case do so, but stop distracting and muddying the waters.

Actually I have stayed the course here all night . Completelyon topic , We just view the real issues here. You ignor the Lies in EU statements . Lies a blind man can see .

Intel hurt consumers . Intel introduces 300waffers . A hugh Plus for consumers.

Intel hurts innovation . Again why was AMD so slow to 300 waffers. Also C2D was pretty good FSB that Stepped on AMDs best . So what innovation are we talking about here . I know its that secret chip AMDs holding back just befor deaths door.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Viditor
Cnet

"Tom McCoy, AMD's senior vice president of legal affairs, cited two critical junctures in the Intel-AMD rivalry when Intel turned up the heat and, he claims, violated the law"
"They did it when we came to market in 1999 with the Athlon."
"And they did it big time when we came to market in 2003 with the Opteron processor for the server and the Athlon 64 processor,"

In reference to the European Commission decision to fine Intel $1.45 billion he said: "We don't care about the fine. That's simply consumer harm. What's important to us is the injunction. The decision carries with it an immediate injunction. To stop doing things that are illegally foreclosing AMD technology from getting to the market," he said

I am sure Intel used its size to their advantage to some degree, like any other large companies. Whether they violated laws is going to depend on interpretation. We now have EC's interpretation, we will see what other interpretations are.

Having said that, Intel has not "foreclosing AMD technology from getting to the market" by any mean. When AMD got good technology, it sold very well and captured large market share. Just look at AMD market share/stock price during the x2/Opteron era. Most large OEM PC/Laptop makers started carrying AMD when customers demended it. And Opteron helped capture a large server market.

AMD only started to lose market share when they couldn't come up with good product. Barcelona is a complete failure and they had to rely on x2 which is way too old to compete. AMD really don't have any good product for the last 3~4 years until recently with Phenom 2. And that's the reason they lost market share and lost money.

Intel's anti-competitive strategy may have a little to do with AMD's success/failure, but in the end, it all comes down to AMD's ability to come up with a good product.

I guess you're too young in the field to remember then...
Keep in mind that the period in question for the lawsuit is 2000-2005 (and of course beyond that if appropriate).
When the athlon first launched, it was certainly superior to Intel's offerings...however, the motherboard manufacturers were alledgedly threatened by Intel to not develop for them (Anand even wrote a few blogs about getting this first-hand from the mobo makers).
There is a whole string of things that kept AMD from having enough cash to compete with Intel on a level playing field...hence the one-sided affair we have now.
Don't you think that if AMD had had an extra few Billion in the bank, the Barcelona problems would have been far less??

Wellactually Viditor Doesn't it go back to the last lawsuite between intel/AMD . As AMD had already filled on the unfair business practicies by intel . They settled that case . So Thats the furthest back court can go . As AMD settled. It seems AMD only wants to go back to 2001. In EU case . Yet AMD Att. Speaks of 1999 . What was it about 2000 that is so damaging to AMD.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide
Yeah I'm going to second the trolling thing. (Nemesis 1) If you actually paid attention to some of the things others are saying and made constructive arguments, but you just ignore half of what people say then rant on about, capacity, other businesses, religion, etc.

I guess I'm saying. If you're going to argue the case do so, but stop distracting and muddying the waters.

Actually I have stayed the course here all night . Completelyon topic , We just view the real issues here. You ignor the Lies in EU statements . Lies a blind man can see .

Intel hurt consumers . Intel introduces 300waffers . A hugh Plus for consumers.

Intel hurts innovation . Again why was AMD so slow to 300 waffers. Also C2D was pretty good FSB that Stepped on AMDs best . So what innovation are we talking about here . I know its that secret chip AMDs holding back just befor deaths door.

I'm sorry no where in the brief was capacity mentioned, yet you are flogging this issue to death. Ok Intel has the best and strongest position in the market. Argument accepted. No one would ever deny that. Ironically this only affirms it's ability to be a monopoly. LoL

Now argue the merits of the judgment.

IP/09/745

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide
Yeah I'm going to second the trolling thing. (Nemesis 1) If you actually paid attention to some of the things others are saying and made constructive arguments, but you just ignore half of what people say then rant on about, capacity, other businesses, religion, etc.

I guess I'm saying. If you're going to argue the case do so, but stop distracting and muddying the waters.

Actually I have stayed the course here all night . Completelyon topic , We just view the real issues here. You ignor the Lies in EU statements . Lies a blind man can see .

Intel hurt consumers . Intel introduces 300waffers . A hugh Plus for consumers.

Intel hurts innovation . Again why was AMD so slow to 300 waffers. Also C2D was pretty good FSB that Stepped on AMDs best . So what innovation are we talking about here . I know its that secret chip AMDs holding back just befor deaths door.

I'm sorry no where in the brief was capacity mentioned, yet you are flogging this issue to death. Ok Intel has the best and strongest position in the market. Argument accepted. No one would ever deny that. Ironically this only affirms it's ability to be a monopoly. LoL

Now argue the merits of the judgment.

IP/09/745

Why would an unjust brief Talk about capcity the thing the Law will use to judge this case . Than the EU LIES of Hurting Consumers and slowing Innovation . Law is going to have a hard time Not seeing 300 waffers as a break for consumers and a leap in tech.

You don't think in a court of Law this case is going to be limited to AMDs charges . No thats not how it works. Intel well show How Reiz ruined the company . Also Motorala Had Reiz lol. Don't think intel isn't going to show exactly how many units amd coould produce because they well . This goes into court about damages AMD is claiming Marketing. Intel doesn't have to defend from that position . They can attack with Math and real numbers that cann't be denied.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Intel was acused in 3 different systems, US veredict is coming. There's a lot of money being spent in those courts, very good lawyers and for the 3rd time Intel was found guilty.

See a trend??? U can argue this and that but it all comes down to what's been happening.

3-0

Maybe if Intel didn't do all of those things we would hava e Phenom III 995BE fighting i7 today hehe

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1


Why would an unjust brief Talk about capcity the thing the Law will use to judge this case . Than the EU LIES of Hurting Consumers and slowing Innovation . Law is going to have a hard time Not seeing 300 waffers as a break for consumers and a leap in tech.

You don't think in a court of Law this case is going to be limited to AMDs charges . No thats not how it works. Intel well show How Reiz ruined the company . Also Motorala Had Reiz lol. Don't think intel isn't going to show exactly how many units amd coould produce because they well . This goes into court about damages AMD is claiming Marketing. Intel doesn't have to defend from that position . They can attack with Math and real numbers that cann't be denied.

The EU is fining Intel for paying off OEMs to not use AMD...that's the case.
Please list why any court would be interested in Intel's processing technology as a defense for that case...

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Why would an unjust brief Talk about capcity the thing the Law will use to judge this case . Than the EU LIES of Hurting Consumers and slowing Innovation . Law is going to have a hard time Not seeing 300 waffers as a break for consumers and a leap in tech.

You don't think in a court of Law this case is going to be limited to AMDs charges . No thats not how it works. Intel well show How Reiz ruined the company . Also Motorala Had Reiz lol. Don't think intel isn't going to show exactly how many units amd coould produce because they well . This goes into court about damages AMD is claiming Marketing. Intel doesn't have to defend from that position . They can attack with Math and real numbers that cann't be denied.

Queue lawyer - Objection Relevancy

repeat.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You must remember how are system works .

AMD brings Charges They Put people on witness stand and grill them . When AMD getts ANS they want Intel Laywers will ask if any other vendors do same deals they say Ya . Thats Bad. for AMD. Harddrives M/B s GPU memory power supplies. AMD is going to take whipping under oath. No matter who good AMD attornies do . INTEL defends last. Buy the time intel is done jury won't recall AMDs case. Instead they be wondering whos been proping AMD up at 20%

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Why would an unjust brief Talk about capcity the thing the Law will use to judge this case . Than the EU LIES of Hurting Consumers and slowing Innovation . Law is going to have a hard time Not seeing 300 waffers as a break for consumers and a leap in tech.

You don't think in a court of Law this case is going to be limited to AMDs charges . No thats not how it works. Intel well show How Reiz ruined the company . Also Motorala Had Reiz lol. Don't think intel isn't going to show exactly how many units amd coould produce because they well . This goes into court about damages AMD is claiming Marketing. Intel doesn't have to defend from that position . They can attack with Math and real numbers that cann't be denied.

Queue lawyer - Objection Relevancy

repeat.

No it is relevent to the Health of AMD as a company. Its relevent any can see that.

Intel will simply show That they could have lowered pricies more but instead had to keep pricies were AMD could stay in the Game . Intel has this power we all know it. But when Juries decide they will see that Intel actually kept AMD in the Game . Math will show this to be the case. The jury will be given those facts.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Why would an unjust brief Talk about capcity the thing the Law will use to judge this case . Than the EU LIES of Hurting Consumers and slowing Innovation . Law is going to have a hard time Not seeing 300 waffers as a break for consumers and a leap in tech.

You don't think in a court of Law this case is going to be limited to AMDs charges . No thats not how it works. Intel well show How Reiz ruined the company . Also Motorala Had Reiz lol. Don't think intel isn't going to show exactly how many units amd coould produce because they well . This goes into court about damages AMD is claiming Marketing. Intel doesn't have to defend from that position . They can attack with Math and real numbers that cann't be denied.

Queue lawyer - Objection Relevancy

repeat.

No it is relevent to the Health of AMD as a company. Its relevent any can see that.

Queue Lawyer - Objection -The health, capacity, technology, etc are not on trial here. We do not know the motivation or reason why Intel perpetrated these acts. If it pleases the court we will agree that Intel did and continues to have the ability to out produce AMD by a far margin. You may enter that in the record. Is this argument going anywhere?

If that is all Intel is going to argue. I believe they will loose their appeal.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Amds gets to present their case . Intel gets to defend its case . You can't not leave out critical facts based on fantacy. Intel has to ans the charges , Intel claims will be made AMD has to ans said claims its matter of LAW. You think relevency leaves out the fact intel kept them from selling more . Amd has to back those claims with cold hard numbers. Margins good dies . Dies per month ect ect ect . AMD claims intel stopped sells . AMD has to show how many sells were talking about . I want to see AMD duck waggle this one.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

No it is relevent to the Health of AMD as a company. Its relevent any can see that.

Intel will simply show That they could have lowered pricies more but instead had to keep pricies were AMD could stay in the Game . Intel has this power we all know it. But when Juries decide they will see that Intel actually kept AMD in the Game . Math will show this to be the case. The jury will be given those facts.

Apparently you've never been on a Jury. There are certain things you can and cannot take into account when arguing guilt or innocence. What you believe as relevant, may or may not be acceptable during deliberations. They can even go as far as to declare certain subjects off limits or stricken from the record.

Again, if all Intel argues is prices and math. I believe they will loose.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Amds gets to present their case . Intel gets to defend its case . You can't not leave out critical facts based on fantacy. Intel has to ans the charges , Intel claims will be made AMD has to ans said claims its matter of LAW. You think relevency leaves out the fact intel kept them from selling more . Amd has to back those claims with cold hard numbers. Margins good dies . Dies per month ect ect ect . AMD claims intel stopped sells . AMD has to show how many sells were talking about . I want to see AMD duck waggle this one.

BTW AMD will not be arguing this case. This is the EU vs Intel. AMD may be called to testify, but the direction of the case will be made by the commission.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Micheal Dell Kill AMD on witness stand But Dell won't be the dagger to amd heart. When HP tells Why it didn't sell more AMd 64s and AMD X2. This will be AMDs death call . A friendly company that plainly says AMD didn't have capicity to sell more . Thats how its going to go down . Why because its the trueth that can be proven threw math and waffer starts.