This is the second of a two-part series discussing the Intel vs. AMD lawsuit.  In the first, I presented a synopsis of AMD?s 48-page complaint vs. Intel.  I kept this first article strictly factual, and focused my efforts on summarizing AMD?s complaint in without sacrificing accuracy.  This second part assumes you have read either AMD?s complaint or my synopsis. The opinions expressed in the following editorial are strictly my own.

Evaluating AMD?s Complaint:

I believe AMD?s complaint against Intel, is generally true.  This should not be read to mean unilaterally true, or as a presumption of Intel?s guilt. Many of the claims AMD has made against Intel could be proven true, yet not ruled to be an illegal abuse of monopoly power or in violation of the relevant California statute, § 17045. 

I further believe that AMD has at least a chance of proving its allegations against the much-larger corporation.  The initial allegations both accuse Intel of predatory pricing and monopolistic behavior, and detail precisely which corporations and market segments Intel is alleged to have controlled and abused.  AMD?s specificity implies the company feels confident in being this detailed, even in the early stages of the case; a company with less evidence would be more likely to make sweeping statements with no names or quotes to back them up. 

My goal here is to explore first the evidence that supports AMD?s position; second, to discuss why winning this lawsuit against Intel could only set AMD up for its own worst failure. 

AMD Accusations Match General Rumor: 

The first reason I?ll mention (and the least important of them all), is that AMD?s allegations generally match what I?ve heard off the record for a number of years.  Sometimes the source of such rumor has had direct ties to AMD, but often it has not.

I can?t prove that such abuses were systemic, and I certainly can?t prove if such behavior is legal or illegal, but I can say that some of AMD?s allegations sound familiar.

next >

---

• Analyzing AMD?s Market Share: 2004 Stands Out. (1 of 6)
• Whither Opteron? The Oddity of Supermicro, Honda, and IBM. (2 of 6)
• OEM Verbiage and Product Placement Raises Further Questions: (3 of 6)
• Mobility, and How the Questions Add Up. (4 of 6)
• Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory. (5 of 6)
• The Necessity of Inspiration, Conclusion. (6 of 6)