1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel ordered to produce documents in antitrust suit

Discussion in 'News' started by Jimmy 2004, Dec 29, 2006.

  1. Jimmy 2004

    Jimmy 2004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491 (1.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Location:
    England
    AMD today announced a significant legal victory in its ongoing antitrust suit against Intel Corporation. In an order effective yesterday, the Federal District Court in Delaware overruled Intel’s objections and ordered it to produce documents and other evidence bearing upon Intel’s exclusionary conduct outside of U.S. borders.

    AMD believes that the production of this foreign discovery will contain evidence of anticompetitive business practices that show clear violations of not only the Sherman Antitrust Act but also generally accepted anti-monopoly laws worldwide.

    "Intel's acquiescence to the Special Master's findings is a big win for AMD,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “This case remains firmly focused on the worldwide misbehavior of a global monopolist. This ruling also removes any basis for Intel or its foreign customers to withhold evidence of Intel's exclusion, regardless of where it occurred. We will proceed vigorously to prove that Intel abuses its global monopoly power by limiting or excluding competition, which ultimately hurts consumers worldwide.”

    Yesterday’s order resulted from Intel’s decision to accept Special Master Vincent Poppiti’s findings of December 15th, which recommended to presiding Judge Joseph Farnan that "as the undisputed geographic market is global, and approximately 68% of the total worldwide production of computers powered by x86 microprocessors are sold to non-U.S. customers evidence of foreign exclusionary conduct is essential for AMD to demonstrate" that Intel has violated U.S. antitrust laws. Judge Farnan appointed Special Master Poppiti to preside over all discovery disputes in the case.

    Source: AMD
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2006
  2. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,797 (3.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    546
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Big win, perhaps. But, I mean, Intel has been around alot longer, cant blame them for antitrust or monopolizing (After all AMD, you took a big share away from them and even outsold them a couple of times) On the other hand, WTG AMD. AMD FTW!!!
     
  3. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    wow go AMD
     
  4. bornfree New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    101 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Actually AMD has been around almost as long as Intel - over 30 years for AMD. In fact AMD produced Intel chips under contract in the early days. I think Intel is roughly only five years or so older than AMD.

    As far as I am concerned, Intel not only created an illegal monopoly - which will be proven in court, they also severely exploited consumers and stifled production of superior products by competitors, as in AMD and others. Intel has a history of crime including multiple convictions for tax fraud so no matter what you think of their products, they have proven themselves to be an unscrupulous company willing to violate law in their lust for financial profits.

    I doubt that anyone will be able to refute AMD's claims once the evidence is presented. The real question is, does the DOJ and the judicial system in the U.S. have the balls to hold Intel accountable for their crimes or will Intel just laugh in the face of justice as MICROSUCKS has done with their many violations of U.S. anti-trust laws? MICROSUCKS has demonstrated that spending a few million a year on PACT contribution can literally Buy Capitol Hill and prevent any penalty for crime - which demonstrates how easily the U.S. judicial system can be bought.
     
  5. AthlonX2

    AthlonX2 HyperVtX™

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,185 (2.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,668
    very true

    [​IMG]
     
  6. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    This is getting way out of hand... I mean, AMD Began with rebadged CPUs, whats up???
     
  7. jocksteeluk

    jocksteeluk New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,457 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Location:
    The 13th room on the 13th floor of the 13th buildi
    how on earth can amd sue intel in america for deals conducted in other countries out of US jurisdiction
     
  8. Zubasa

    Zubasa

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,980 (1.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    457
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    I guess they just managed to do so lol.
     
  9. wazzledoozle

    wazzledoozle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,414 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    161
    Location:
    Seattle
    Because it affects business in the US.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page