As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
against Intel in a Delaware court.

EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=164903291

AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:

> As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
> against Intel in a Delaware court.
>
> EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=164903291
>
> AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>

How to win friends and influence people:

<wsj.com>

The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and
customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek
subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk
alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf.

"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said
Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who
isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the
idea."

Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many
Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the
litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on
the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said.

</wsj.com>

I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
expedition through corporate e-mail.

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, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
looked over SCO's financials before filing?

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
> I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
> expedition through corporate e-mail.
>
> 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, 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.

Yousuf Khan

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.
> >
> > 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, 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?

RM

Robert Myers wrote:
> > 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?

I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even
want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
response to it.

They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
with his hand in the cookie jar could be.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
> silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
> extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
> don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively. They don't even
> want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
> executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
> the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
> about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
> Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
> and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
> response to it.
>
> They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
> with his hand in the cookie jar could be.
>

Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't
think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has
not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not
Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages
for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the
record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only
what they have to say to keep investors informed of material
developments.

You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't
understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has
nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else.
That's just the way the world works.

RM

Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> scribed:


>I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
>silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
>extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
>don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively.

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.




--

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>>>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?
>
>
> I waited all day to read Intel's response to the charges. Intel stayed
> silent until the end of the business day when it came back with an
> extraordinarily weak statement with Otellini saying simply that they
> don't believe that they were acting anti-competitively.

Otellina and other Intel execs are simply a matter of doing what
their expensive lawyers tell them. Par for the course in this
kind of situation. At most I would have expected him to read a
brief statement written by Intel's legal staff. Absent that, a
simple "No comment" or denial is all he really can do right now.

To me, the puzzling thing is that you or anyone else would expect
anything else out of any Intel execs at this point.

> They don't even
> want to appear on tv to explain themselves. I've never seen an Intel
> executive shy away from a tv interview before. Of course that's when
> the tv show is just lobbing softball questions at them, i.e. nothing
> about their business practices. Intel was just as dumbstruck after the
> Japanese ruling too. In the several months between the Japanese verdict
> and this lawsuit, Intel still couldn't come up with any suitable
> response to it.
>
> They're as befuddled for an excuse as a kid who had just been caught
> with his hand in the cookie jar could be.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

On 28 Jun 2005 07:23:00 -0700, "Robert Myers" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>YKhan wrote:
>
>> As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
>> against Intel in a Delaware court.
>>
>> EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
>> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=164903291
>>
>> AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>>
>
>How to win friends and influence people:
>
><wsj.com>
>
>The allegations are based largely on discussions between AMD and
>customers. To document Intel's alleged behavior, AMD plans to seek
>subpoenas to obtain private email from those companies, and risk
>alienating industry executives by asking them to testify on its behalf.
>
>"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said
>Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who
>isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the
>idea."
>
>Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many
>Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the
>litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on
>the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said.
>
></wsj.com>
>
>I'm sure AMD's customers will be just tickled pink to have a fishing
>expedition through corporate e-mail.
>
>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, this is yet another money sink for AMD. I wonder if they
>looked over SCO's financials before filing?
>
>RM

It is a fact of the matter that INTC is a monopoly and behaves as
such. Yet establishing this fact legally is not an easy feat,
otherwise it would've been done a decade earlier. If AMD decided to
go forward with the suit now, it probably means they have obtained
some legal ammunition that was not available before. Or they just
think they have...

Robert Myers wrote:
> Maybe they're just as puzzled at AMD's behavior as I am, but I don't
> think so. I don't think anyone (including me) believes that Intel has
> not used strongarm tactics to keep its vendors in line. Whether or not
> Intel is guilty of anything that AMD can successfully recover damages
> for, no Intel executive is going to want to talk about this on the
> record if they can avoid it. Why should they? Intel will say only
> what they have to say to keep investors informed of material
> developments.

No, but often in the past they'd say that they are studying the lawsuit
and won't have any further comment till later. Not even such an
announcement.

> You seem to think there's something big in this that Wall Stree doesn't
> understand. The odds against that being true are substantial. It has
> nothing to do with my opinion of Intel, or of you, or of anything else.
> That's just the way the world works.

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...otix&referrer=

Yousuf Khan