EU has published some of their evidence in the Intel case

[Viditor]

Digital Daily

Here's some of the e-mails...

From a series of 2006 Lenovo e-mails:
?As you know I have been negotiating a special deal with Intel. The net is that Intel has made us a very attractive offer that we will end up taking. Our part of this deal is that we will award all business of shipments for the rest of this calendar year to Intel. In exchange, Intel will give us a special deal for both [geographical area] and [geographical area]. The deal is worth millions of dollars.?

?[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (?). [?] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (?) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (?) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD.?

From a 2002 HP e-mail concerning the company?s negotiation of a rebate agreement with Intel:
?PLEASE DO NOT? communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement.?

From a 2004 HP e-mail:
?You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. ?If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high.?

From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
?[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ?investigates the details? (?) We?ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."


Another interesting article:
Reuters

"The European Commission said Intel and clients generally did not write anti-competitive terms into agreements: "Intel generally sought to conceal the conditions in its arrangements with PC manufacturers." The Commission said Dell said there was no written agreement but that the agreement was instead the subject "of constant oral negotiations and agreement."

The Commission said there was a written agreement with HP, but "the relevant conditions remained unwritten"

 

[tokie]

It seems like a shut and dry case of predatory pricing. With all these problems in the past few years with memory cartels, monopoly pricing, etc I hope the tech sector can get its act together and compete properly based on R&D and manufacturing.

 

[Idontcare]

Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

"The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements," Intel said. "At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue."

Intel continued: "Also, the Commission consistently construed ambiguous documents in a manner adverse to Intel, while overlooking or dismissing authoritative documents as 'insufficiently clear' when they contradicted the Commission's case. This pattern occurred across the board with respect to documents and statements submitted not only by Intel but also by third parties. The result was that the Commission dismissed or ignored extensive exculpatory evidence."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10356876-64.html

I'm sure most of us in the professional fields can attest to having experienced that annoying co-worker or two who, in a outside of work environment, likes to think he is an authority on some subject matter related to their employer's line of business but really the guy only knows about 10% more than the janitor does and the rest of his BS is just that...

Basically Intel is saying the EU stopped their investigative duties upon getting testimony from that guy...and went no farther to corroborate that guy's claims regarding his employer, like actually asking the people who were in the room during the meetings, etc.

Just because the EU found some emails from people who like to talk out of their ass while on payroll doesn't mean what came from their ass actually had any basis in reality.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Basically Intel is saying the EU stopped their investigative duties upon getting testimony from that guy...and went no farther to corroborate that guy's claims regarding his employer, like actually asking the people who were in the room during the meetings, etc.

Umm.. I doubt that's what Intel would be saying. lol. That'd be like saying Intel wants to be fined more than they've already gotten.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

"The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements," Intel said. "At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue."

Intel continued: "Also, the Commission consistently construed ambiguous documents in a manner adverse to Intel, while overlooking or dismissing authoritative documents as 'insufficiently clear' when they contradicted the Commission's case. This pattern occurred across the board with respect to documents and statements submitted not only by Intel but also by third parties. The result was that the Commission dismissed or ignored extensive exculpatory evidence."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10356876-64.html

I'm sure most of us in the professional fields can attest to having experienced that annoying co-worker or two who, in a outside of work environment, likes to think he is an authority on some subject matter related to their employer's line of business but really the guy only knows about 10% more than the janitor does and the rest of his BS is just that...

Basically Intel is saying the EU stopped their investigative duties upon getting testimony from that guy...and went no farther to corroborate that guy's claims regarding his employer, like actually asking the people who were in the room during the meetings, etc.

Just because the EU found some emails from people who like to talk out of their ass while on payroll doesn't mean what came from their ass actually had any basis in reality.

These were division sales guys (not your average co-workers). What Intel is saying is that there are no contracts to offer as proof...but while Intel was careful not to put into writing that they were breaking the law, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, NEC, etc., all had to spread the word to their employees.
Deliberately refusing to put things in writing is the sign that Intel knew what it was doing was wrong. And it's a lot easier for me to believe many people all telling the same story than for me to believe the one company insisting it broke no laws and it's all misinterpretation.
As to how it will play in court, remember that this is a civil case (no jail time for anyone), and the burden of proof is much lower for such cases...

BTW, the EU conducted 3,900 depositions from 141 companies for this case...

Also, you should reread those e-mails...
1. They are from executives about executives
2. They aren't speculative (as Intel has stated), but rather they are authoratative as to what was said.
"When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (?) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform"
That's pretty black and white...

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

"The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements," Intel said. "At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue."

Intel continued: "Also, the Commission consistently construed ambiguous documents in a manner adverse to Intel, while overlooking or dismissing authoritative documents as 'insufficiently clear' when they contradicted the Commission's case. This pattern occurred across the board with respect to documents and statements submitted not only by Intel but also by third parties. The result was that the Commission dismissed or ignored extensive exculpatory evidence."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10356876-64.html

I'm sure most of us in the professional fields can attest to having experienced that annoying co-worker or two who, in a outside of work environment, likes to think he is an authority on some subject matter related to their employer's line of business but really the guy only knows about 10% more than the janitor does and the rest of his BS is just that...

Basically Intel is saying the EU stopped their investigative duties upon getting testimony from that guy...and went no farther to corroborate that guy's claims regarding his employer, like actually asking the people who were in the room during the meetings, etc.

Just because the EU found some emails from people who like to talk out of their ass while on payroll doesn't mean what came from their ass actually had any basis in reality.

lol, so you are basically saying that the lawyers got it wrong because they didn't go to the HP CEO and say "Hey, did you break the law?"

What do you think the negotiations guys are going to say? "Why yes, we decided to price-fix with intel. It sounded like a great idea!"

 

[AdamK47]

None of what I read comes as a suprise. As a simple hardware enthusiast during 2004 I, and most other enthusiasts, found it odd the stance many major PC builders had against AMD. This email snippet from Dell put a smile on my face.

From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
?[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus.

Intel had a clearly inferior product with their Prescott core P4 CPUs. AMDs Athlon 64 was a far better solution across the board. It's nice to finally see Intel cut down and exposed. The tactics they used are horrible and many enthusiasts had the gut feeling something fishy was going on behind the scenes.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Basically Intel is saying the EU stopped their investigative duties upon getting testimony from that guy...and went no farther to corroborate that guy's claims regarding his employer, like actually asking the people who were in the room during the meetings, etc.

Umm.. I doubt that's what Intel would be saying. lol. That'd be like saying Intel wants to be fined more than they've already gotten.

I don't follow how you get to your statement from mine.

Originally posted by: Viditor
Deliberately refusing to put things in writing is the sign that Intel knew what it was doing was wrong. And it's a lot easier for me to believe many people all telling the same story than for me to believe the one company insisting it broke no laws and it's all misinterpretation.

Sounds like a recipe ripe with opportunity for false accusation and prosecution.

Prosecutor: Why didn't you document your illegal activities!?

Defendant: Uhhh, there were no illegal activities, so what would I be documenting exactly?

Prosecutor: Riiiiight, likely excuse, your honor clearly the defendant is guilty, and now they are just willfully obstructing this investigation by not agreeing to say they are guilty so we can wrap this up before lunch.

Originally posted by: Cogman
lol, so you are basically saying that the lawyers got it wrong because they didn't go to the HP CEO and say "Hey, did you break the law?"

What do you think the negotiations guys are going to say? "Why yes, we decided to price-fix with intel. It sounded like a great idea!"

If you setup your courts to require less than substantial evidence from the actual people you claim broke the law then what exactly is the basis for prosecution in your courts? Hearsay by someone who wore a badge issued by the same employer and took home a paycheck from them?

Justice isn't supposed to be "catch/prosecute all bad guys at any cost"...there are safeguards in the process to reduce the false prosecution rate.

I'm not here to defend Intel, I am merely engaging this thread to voice my concerns over the possibility of certain aspects of this Intel case setting precedent that really goes on to mean things that are kinda ludicrous if/when they get applied to the next unlucky business owner who has some arrogant and disgruntled employees deciding to boast of their employer's illegal going ons.

This isn't the first time it has happened, but usually those kinds of "easy to see thru" situations get stamped out well before the process gets to the point that a $1.5B fee is levied. What concerns me is that folks seem to want this kind of relaxed evidence requirements to be applied in this case without considering the ramifications of the court precedent it would set.

I for one do not want to get fined because I failed to document activity that actually never occurred in the first place but I am required to prove otherwise or else pay the fine. That is wonky on my mind to even write, let alone contemplate.

 

[Phynaz]

Never mind

 

[IlllI]

i think most people knew something was going on with intel. i still remember those millions of dollars in 'advertisement bonuses' (or whatever they were called) that dell used to get from intel. funny how dell also coincidentally was exclusively intel for all those years as well.

but i wonder if amd is actually going to get any compensation from all of this or if eu will just pocket all the money. in other words, how will this ruling benefit amd in the long run?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: IlllI
i think most people knew something was going on with intel. i still remember those millions of dollars in 'advertisement bonuses' (or whatever they were called) that dell used to get from intel. funny how dell also coincidentally was exclusively intel for all those years as well.

but i wonder if amd is actually going to get any compensation from all of this or if eu will just pocket all the money. in other words, how will this ruling benefit amd in the long run?

I don't think AMD gets anything from the EU.

What I foresee in the US is an AMD-Intel 'undisclosed cash settlement', no admission of guilt, a gag order, and new agreements on the x86 license & the process for new instruction set integration (giving AMD better advanced access).

The majority of the emails that Intel 'lost' will never see the light of day ---- but I suspect one or two incriminating 'leaks' to pop out in succeeding years.

 

[OCGuy]

AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

I can't believe you believe and are arguing Intel's case. Besides it being obvious to most enthusiasts, Intel had been found guilty by the EU, Japan, and Korea.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

I can't believe you believe and are arguing Intel's case. Besides it being obvious to most enthusiasts, Intel had been found guilty by the EU, Japan, and Korea.

In all the locations you just mentioned, to be found "guilty" of something requires a court verdict, none of which has been issued against Intel.

 

[drizek]

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

High performance and low price don't go together. If their products had been high performance then they would have been high priced.

 

[drizek]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

High performance and low price don't go together. If their products had been high performance then they would have been high priced.

Athlon32 and 64 were generally faster and cheaper than the Pentium 4. By the time the Prescott came out, the Pentium 4 was basically a joke.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

High performance and low price don't go together. If their products had been high performance then they would have been high priced.

Athlon32 and 64 were generally faster and cheaper than the Pentium 4. By the time the Prescott came out, the Pentium 4 was basically a joke.

In that case AMD got exactly what they deserved for pricing a superior product at an inferior price.

Of course to say the Northwoods were slower than the Athlon of the day or a "joke" makes your entire train of reasoning and argument invalid.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

I can't believe you believe and are arguing Intel's case.

I thought I had gone to great lengths to be quite explicit in my reasoning for discussing the merits of Intel's argument.

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Viditor
Deliberately refusing to put things in writing is the sign that Intel knew what it was doing was wrong. And it's a lot easier for me to believe many people all telling the same story than for me to believe the one company insisting it broke no laws and it's all misinterpretation.

Sounds like a recipe ripe with opportunity for false accusation and prosecution.

Prosecutor: Why didn't you document your illegal activities!?

Defendant: Uhhh, there were no illegal activities, so what would I be documenting exactly?

Prosecutor: Riiiiight, likely excuse, your honor clearly the defendant is guilty, and now they are just willfully obstructing this investigation by not agreeing to say they are guilty so we can wrap this up before lunch.

Originally posted by: Cogman
lol, so you are basically saying that the lawyers got it wrong because they didn't go to the HP CEO and say "Hey, did you break the law?"

What do you think the negotiations guys are going to say? "Why yes, we decided to price-fix with intel. It sounded like a great idea!"

If you setup your courts to require less than substantial evidence from the actual people you claim broke the law then what exactly is the basis for prosecution in your courts? Hearsay by someone who wore a badge issued by the same employer and took home a paycheck from them?

Justice isn't supposed to be "catch/prosecute all bad guys at any cost"...there are safeguards in the process to reduce the false prosecution rate.

I'm not here to defend Intel, I am merely engaging this thread to voice my concerns over the possibility of certain aspects of this Intel case setting precedent that really goes on to mean things that are kinda ludicrous if/when they get applied to the next unlucky business owner who has some arrogant and disgruntled employees deciding to boast of their employer's illegal going ons.

This isn't the first time it has happened, but usually those kinds of "easy to see thru" situations get stamped out well before the process gets to the point that a $1.5B fee is levied. What concerns me is that folks seem to want this kind of relaxed evidence requirements to be applied in this case without considering the ramifications of the court precedent it would set.

I for one do not want to get fined because I failed to document activity that actually never occurred in the first place but I am required to prove otherwise or else pay the fine. That is wonky on my mind to even write, let alone contemplate.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

High performance and low price don't go together. If their products had been high performance then they would have been high priced.

Athlon32 and 64 were generally faster and cheaper than the Pentium 4. By the time the Prescott came out, the Pentium 4 was basically a joke.

Nonsense.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Intel's response though is not something to be dismissed lightly.

I can't believe you believe and are arguing Intel's case.

I thought I had gone to great lengths to be quite explicit in my reasoning for discussing the merits of Intel's argument.

Merits? We don't need any stinking merits!

We just need accusations in the court of public opinion.

 

[drizek]

The Prescott was a joke because it was not only delayed, but it ended up being slower than Northwood. Intel said that it could reach higher clockspeeds than Northwood, but it got so hot that it wasn't practical. At this point AMD simply had a better product.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Sounds like a recipe ripe with opportunity for false accusation and prosecution.

Prosecutor: Why didn't you document your illegal activities!?

Defendant: Uhhh, there were no illegal activities, so what would I be documenting exactly?

Prosecutor: Riiiiight, likely excuse, your honor clearly the defendant is guilty, and now they are just willfully obstructing this investigation by not agreeing to say they are guilty so we can wrap this up before lunch.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

That made my day IDC....

Sounds like my average phone call with another companies compliance department.

 

[drizek]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

High performance and low price don't go together. If their products had been high performance then they would have been high priced.

Athlon32 and 64 were generally faster and cheaper than the Pentium 4. By the time the Prescott came out, the Pentium 4 was basically a joke.

Nonsense.

The Athlon 32 was a good overclocker and a great gaming CPU. You could buy a Barton 2500+ and were almost guaranteed to be able to overclock it to 3200+ speeds. This was a huge enthusiast CPU, especially for gamers.

IIRC, it cost less than a hundred dollars.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: drizek

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD needs to start concentrating on making a product that people will buy instead of crying to the EU.

Their GPU division figured out that right performance + right price, relative to your competition = sales.

Their CPU division has been delivering high performance and low priced products for years, and they haven't gotten anywhere. These emails help explain why that is.

High performance and low price don't go together. If their products had been high performance then they would have been high priced.

Athlon32 and 64 were generally faster and cheaper than the Pentium 4. By the time the Prescott came out, the Pentium 4 was basically a joke.

Nonsense.

The Athlon 32 was a good overclocker and a great gaming CPU. You could buy a Barton 2500+ and were almost guaranteed to be able to overclock it to 3200+ speeds. This was a huge enthusiast CPU, especially for gamers.

IIRC, it cost less than a hundred dollars.

P4 2.4C was the Barton 2500+ competitor.
Same price segment, performed better and overclocked better.
I know because I own both rigs.

Athlon XP 2500+ Barton @ 2.2GHz
Asus A7N8X Deluxe NF2 Ultra 400

Intel P4 2.4C GHz@3.42GHz with stock HSF 1.55v
Asus P4P800 Deluxe