AMD's top lawyer discusses AMD Intel disputes

[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

 

[magreen]

Thanks for the article Viditor. It was interesting, but it was such a tease! Nothing substantive, unfortunately, just claims and accusations without any details or backing. (Note, I'm not saying they're untrue, just that I'd like to get more details!)

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Viditor


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 support AMD for this statement. I hope they do get the imediate injunction.

However, the fines intel pays will only be paid by US when we buy the chips at a more expensive price because of the fines. :\

 

[Idontcare]

It's odd for a lawyer, especially the VP of legal affairs, to make public allegations of a competitor violating the law outside of a court of law or legal document.

Seems like it would actually be a risk, a needless one, in opening the door for Intel's lawyers to sue for libel.

 

[aigomorla]

Meh all this cross suing is causing havok on technology stock.

They should all just get along...

 

[brblx]

libel has to be false, and the court has already ruled against intel's practices. i doubt it's an issue.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: brblx
libel has to be false, and the court has already ruled against intel's practices. i doubt it's an issue.

True but burden of proof falls to the accuser, and to my knowledge their has been no courts involved in the fines leveled against Intel thus far. The EU fine was by a committee, and actually goes to court now (finally) as a matter of appeal.

And in the US no such verdict has been determined. Not too mention all that has been entertained to date relates to post-2000 activities whereas AMD specifically mentions the initial Athlon launch.

So again, open to libel, but the question then is why bother? A lawyer should know better than to create liability like that, I'm just astounded its the VP of their legal dept doing it no less.

 

[OCGuy]

Seems like this is just a battle for public opinion, which AMD has never really had a chance of winning. Be it marketing, product, or shady practices by competitors.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: brblx
libel has to be false, and the court has already ruled against intel's practices. i doubt it's an issue.

True but burden of proof falls to the accuser, and to my knowledge their has been no courts involved in the fines leveled against Intel thus far. The EU fine was by a committee, and actually goes to court now (finally) as a matter of appeal.

And in the US no such verdict has been determined. Not too mention all that has been entertained to date relates to post-2000 activities whereas AMD specifically mentions the initial Athlon launch.

So again, open to libel, but the question then is why bother? A lawyer should know better than to create liability like that, I'm just astounded its the VP of their legal dept doing it no less.

Everything he stated is already a matter of public record in AMD's lawsuit. I think that the reason the AMD lawyer is turning up the heat is to remind Intel that their reputation is on the line as well as their wallet.
I strongly doubt that even Intel expects to prevail in their antitrust suit here, so the question is how much should the settlement be and what are the terms. Negotiating those terms can't be done in a vaccuum, so I expect to keep seeing statements and issues from both companies this year (eg Intel's press releases about Global Foundries not being allowed to produce x86).
This is sort of a witching year for AMD and Intel...early next year they have both the cross licensing agreement and the antitrust case to settle, and those are each huge milestones (possibly the largest) for each company.

 

[Phynaz]

early next year they have both the cross licensing agreement and the antitrust case to settle,

If you think the case will be settled next year then you know very little about the American legal system.

It may be settled next decade.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

early next year they have both the cross licensing agreement and the antitrust case to settle,

If you think the case will be settled next year then you know very little about the American legal system.

It may be settled next decade.

Ummm...I did say settled. That doesn't involve the legal system per se (though I do know quite a bit about it, IANAL). That means that Intel and AMD will reach a settlement...
If Intel is actually foolish enough to let it go to court (I highly doubt that), then:

1. a good portion of the discovery AMD has dug up will be released to the public making Intel vulnerable to other lawsuits

2. The chances of US legal action (from the Justice Dept) increases dramatically

3. There are only 2 levels of appeal, and one of them is the Supreme Court. They rarely allow cases to be seen unless there's a matter of Constitutional Law to adress. Therefore we are talking less than 5 years.

Edit...BTW, next year IS next decade. 🙂

 

[fire400]

It will be settled when AMD goes broke.

And their tears will convince the public to give them bail to keep ATI going until Intel releases it's graphics processor demon to finish them off.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: fire400
It will be settled when AMD goes broke.

And their tears will convince the public to give them bail to keep ATI going until Intel releases it's graphics processor demon to finish them off.

Damn that's just brutal.

AMD should do alright now that they are a fabless design house. Costs scale as headcount now, no massive capex bills to pay for. And globalfoundries has a ton of cash (7B+) committed, so this could go on for a while.

Although one could easily poke holes in my optimism by bringing up the history of past attempts of IDM's to go fabless (Lucent -> Agere, Moto -> Freescale, AMD -> Spansion, Siemens -> Qimonda...OK I'll stop now, depressing myself!)

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

early next year they have both the cross licensing agreement and the antitrust case to settle,

If you think the case will be settled next year then you know very little about the American legal system.

It may be settled next decade.

Ummm...I did say settled. That doesn't involve the legal system per se (though I do know quite a bit about it, IANAL). That means that Intel and AMD will reach a settlement...
If Intel is actually foolish enough to let it go to court (I highly doubt that), then:

1. a good portion of the discovery AMD has dug up will be released to the public making Intel vulnerable to other lawsuits

2. The chances of US legal action (from the Justice Dept) increases dramatically

3. There are only 2 levels of appeal, and one of them is the Supreme Court. They rarely allow cases to be seen unless there's a matter of Constitutional Law to adress. Therefore we are talking less than 5 years.

Edit...BTW, next year IS next decade. 🙂

We'll see, I don't think Intel will be giving AMD any kind of significant monetary settlement.

If you are so sure AMD would win the case please provide the evidence that AMD would use (not hearsay and accusations) so we can all learn.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

We'll see, I don't think Intel will be giving AMD any kind of significant monetary settlement.

If you are so sure AMD would win the case please provide the evidence that AMD would use (not hearsay and accusations) so we can all learn.

You mean give you AMD's discovery in a post? Hmmm...don't think that will happen. Even in 2006, the list for discovery if printed out was 137 miles long...it's far more today.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

We'll see, I don't think Intel will be giving AMD any kind of significant monetary settlement.

If you are so sure AMD would win the case please provide the evidence that AMD would use (not hearsay and accusations) so we can all learn.

You mean give you AMD's discovery in a post? Hmmm...don't think that will happen. Even in 2006, the list for discovery if printed out was 137 miles long...it's far more today.

You're implying you have access to the discovery documents.

So, you have nothing to share?

 

[Nemesis 1]

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

Pur BS . Read AMDs 2001 results. LOL. Than In 2003 Intel went to 300 wafers. Twist this all you want Viditor. The REAL courts will LOOK at Fab Capicity . It will end there. Ya have to have Chickens befor ya scramble eggs.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: brblx
libel has to be false, and the court has already ruled against intel's practices. i doubt it's an issue.

FALSE statement NO court has ruled only criminals haver made rulings .

Actually Intel announced 300wafers in 2002. Amd in 2005 do you suppose the courts will see this as no small thing LOL? AMD couldn't compete its that simple . All kinds of proof says they couldn't . AMD has to deal with this first in REAL court of LAW. Until AMD can explain Fab short comings courts will turn deth ear to marketing.

 

[Nemesis 1]

2001 amd sold every chip they could make. They failed to deliver on promises. Read about it . Than in 2002 Intel goes to 300 wafers. , Intel has more fabs . AMDs misque in 2001 made PC makers nervious read about its old news . That all over net . Intels laywers will shred AMDs defense. ON supply side capicity and cost per waffer .

 

[Schmide]

Nemesis 1 - Please stop returning to this capacity argument. You can still act like a monopoly while your competition sells all its product. One act does not exclude the other and is in fact irrelevant.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Nemesis 1 - Please stop returning to this capacity argument. You can still act like a monopoly while your competition sells all its product. One act does not exclude the other and is in fact irrelevant.

Hay lets see if real courts dismiss the fact AMD couldn't sell anymore CPUs. You act like that doesn't matter . We'll see.

Intels cost per wafer is a big deal . Once you remove R&D budget Intels Margins are Hugh .

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide
Nemesis 1 - Please stop returning to this capacity argument. You can still act like a monopoly while your competition sells all its product. One act does not exclude the other and is in fact irrelevant.

Hay lets see if real courts dismiss the fact AMD couldn't sell anymore CPUs. You act like that doesn't matter . We'll see.

That is a fair statement.

Maybe AMD was prevented from selling in certain markets by Intel and was forced to dump it's product on less profitable markets. The totality of your argument ignores the specifics of the case.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Your missing it This was not court of law . If you read befor . the EU decision Intel asked for Real evidence of Wrong doing EU refused to give Intel said Info . This isn't law its a witch hunt.

 

[Schmide]

It is no different than the FTC levying fines. Regulatory agencies can penalize you first then leave the courts to rescind said fines.

 

[Schmide]

BTW - they do get there day in court. They just have to place the funds in an account if they wish to appeal the fine. Or they could just pay.