AMD's lawyers go ballistic as Intel's e-mails disappear
42795
Save, Delete. Who can tell the difference? AMD vs Intel You say 'tomato.' I say 'troubling and flawed document retention policy.'â¦
140079
A US judge limits an antitrust case launched against chipmaker Intel by AMD, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
207297
Oh no, not another Intel antitrust probe. Doesn't this stuff ever get old?
361512
By Therese Poletti, San Jose Mercury News, Calif.  Jan. 31--An attorney for Advanced Micro Devices, longtime foe of chip giant Intel, said Tuesday that regulators are less aggressive in going after monopolistic practices in the United States in recent years.
768536
(InfoWorld) - AÂ federal judge in Delaware has dismissed portions of a class-action suit that accused Intel Corp. of violating antitrust laws. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Farnan, in a ruling issued Wednesday, said that a U.S. court has no jurisdiction over the foreign conduct claims in a lawsuit that seeks monetary damages for U.S. consumers and businesses who purchased PCs with Intel chips. Those consumers say they were forced to pay too much because Intel used its near-monopoly position to bar computer makers from using Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) chips, thus eliminating competition and keeping prices artificially high. The case has no direct relation to the antitrust suit leveled against Intel in 2005 by AMD, but mirrors the same charges, said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. Farnan is hearing both cases, and in September made the same decision about the AMD version. The ruling means that even if the court found Intel guilty of forcing up prices, the plaintiffs could not calculate the damages they won by including PC sales by foreign vendors like Acer Inc., Sony Corp. and Toshiba Corp., Mulloy said. They would have to base their claim solely on sales by U.S. vendors like Dell Inc., Gateway Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. Still, both AMD and the foreign consumers will continue pressing their cases because Farnan also ruled they could use foreign evidence to build a domestic case against Intel. "AMD and the class [action suit] would need to sue Intel in foreign jurisdictions to recover monetary damages that were incurred outside the U.S.," said AMD spokesman Michael Silverman. "From our perspective -- and I suspect the class would say the same -- the critical piece was to gain access to that foreign discovery. In both cases, the judge has allowed that access." In addition, the class-action suit concerns only the harm caused to domestic customers, said Daniel A. Small, a lawyer for the firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, of Washington, D.C. who argued the plaintiffs' case. "We're pursuing very actively document discovery, both from Intel and from third parties," Small said. However, that effort hit a large hurdle on Monday, whenÂ Intel admitted it had lost many internal e-mail recordsÂ related to the AMD case, making it impossible to collect them as evidence. On Wednesday, the court gave Intel a deadline of April 10 to turn over an explanation of its e-mail preservation plan, a list of correspondence between the people responsible for following it and its plan to restore the lost data. Another challenge for the class-action suit is Intel's motion to dismiss the entire case because it says customers were never harmed by increased prices. Instead, Intel says it used its dominant market position to compete with AMD by decreasing prices, Small said. Farnan said Wednesday he would rule on that motion by the end of March. Â
280692
The special master appointed to hear evidence from both parties in the AMD v. Intel antitrust case has recommended that Intel be compelled to produce documents for evidence that it had previously declined to submit. If Judge Joseph A. Farnan, Jr., agrees, Intel may be asked to produce evidence of what AMD alleges to be "foreign misconduct" on Intel's part.
728330
Intel Developer Forum this week will zero in on upcoming chips. Areas for longer-term growth aren't quite so clear.
651176
To judge by the shift in the headlines, the processor war is nearly over. Who&#39;s in? Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD). Out? Intel (Nasdaq: INTC).
443459
The scuttling of the chip raises the risk that Intel might fall behind AMD in the race to create the fastest processors. Some saw the move as desperate attempt to deal with the fact that
643171
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A federal judge dismissed a major portion of Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s antitrust lawsuit against archrival Intel Corp. , ruling that AMD cannot sue in the United States for Intel's alleged monopolistic tactics overseas.
165219
Antitrust officials are looking for evidence that the chipmaker broke the rules to guarantee its chips would be competitive on the European market. Intel says it is cooperating with the investigation.
687935
U.S. Federal District Judge Joseph A. Farnan has dismissed a key portion of AMD's antitrust lawsuit against Intel, evidently agreeing with Intel's motion stating that many of the claims for which AMD seeks redress take place on foreign soil, outside U.S. jurisdiction.
279706
Concerns over AMD's succession planning come at a difficult time for the company, and revive that old tug-of-war between marketing and engineering.
1585
A federal judge has denied a request by AMD (Quote, Chart) that Intel (Quote, Chart) turn over internal documents, the latest development in a long-running legal battle.
642703
Once more, with feeling: Why is AMD on the lam, and how can it get back up?
471108
Tuesday&#39;s&#160;raid on Intel&#39;s Munich office&#160;by European Commission investigators marks the latest development in one of several antitrust cases that have dogged the world&#39;s largest chip maker for years. Here&#39;s a rundown of Intel&#39;s brushes with antitrust investigators and lawsuits around the world since 1990:1990Dec. 19: Microprocessor maker Cyrix filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. &quot;Intel has engaged in a campaign of unlawful exclusionary practices to protect its coprocessor monopoly from competition by Cyrix,&quot; the company said in a statement.1991June 29: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) informed Intel that it was investigating the company&#39;s business practices.Aug. 20: Advanced Micro Devices brought a $2 billion antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging that Intel &quot;engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.&quot;Dec. 19: U.S. District Court Judge James Ware dismissed part of AMD&#39;s antitrust lawsuit against Intel because a four-year statute of limitations had passed for some actions listed in AMD&#39;s complaint. AMD declared its intention to press forward with the lawsuit anyway.1992May 28: Processor maker Chips and Technologies sued Intel for antitrust violations in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The claims were a response to a Feb. 1992 patent lawsuit filed by Intel.1993Feb. 4: Chips and Technologies agreed to dismiss its 1992 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a settlement to resolve a patent dispute between the two companies.July 15: The FTC completed its investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices, saying no evidence was found to support charges of anticompetitive behavior.1994Feb. 4: Cyrix dismissed its 1990 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a patent-dispute settlement between the two companies.1995Jan. 11: AMD and Intel announced a broad legal settlement that ended several court cases between the two companies, including the 1991 antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD.1997Aug. 27: The FTC requested additional information from Intel concerning its plans to acquire Chips and Technologies, citing antitrust laws. At the time, Chips and Technologies was a major supplier of graphics chips.Sept. 25: The FTC began a second antitrust investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices. This investigation was conducted separately from the review of Intel&#39;s offer to acquire Chips and Technologies.1998Jan. 13: The FTC decided not to seek an injunction against Intel&#39;s acquisition of Chips and Technologies but announced plans to &quot;continue the investigation into the lawfulness of the acquisition.&quot;April 23: The FTC ruled that an October 1997 legal settlement between Intel and Digital Equipment that included the sale of Digital Equipment&#39;s semiconductor division, including its Alpha processor, to Intel would violate U.S. antitrust law if completed. As a result, the FTC required Digital Equipment to offer licenses for its Alpha processor to both AMD and Samsung Electronics as part of the deal.June 8: The FTC issued an antitrust ruling against Intel. The FTC found that Intel stopped providing important technical information about its products to Digital Equipment, Compaq Computer, and Intergraph after the three companies took legal action against Intel to enforce microprocessor patents they held. Intel also threatened to stop selling microprocessors to those companies, the FTC said.1999March 17: The FTC accepted a settlement with Intel over the 1998 antitrust ruling. The agreement required Intel to refrain from withholding technical information from customers involved in intellectual-property litigation with the company, but did not constitute an admission of guilt on the chip maker&#39;s part.2000Sept. 26: The FTC ended its second investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices and decided to take no further action against the company.2004Apr. 8: The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) raided the offices of Intel&#39;s Japanese subsidiary and several Japanese computer companies as part of an investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices.2005March 8: JFTC ruled that Intel violated Japanese antitrust laws and hurt competition in the country&#39;s processor market.March 31:&#160;Intel disputed the JFTC&#39;s findings, but did not contest them and agreed to refrain from certain business practices.June 27: AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit detailed allegations of anticompetitive behavior by Intel in the U.S., Asia and Europe.June 30:&#160;AMD sued Intel&#160;in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court, seeking more than $50 million in damages arising from the chip maker&#39;s anticompetitive actions in Japan.July 12: European Commission investigators raided the offices of Intel and PC manufacturers in several countries as part of an antitrust investigation.2006Feb. 9: Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) officials&#160;raided Intel offices in South Korea.July 17: AMD filed a complaint against Intel with Germany&#39;s Federal Cartel Office, claiming that a deal betwen Intel and retailer Media Markt blocked the sale of computers based on AMD processors at hundreds of retail outlets.Sept. 11: European Commission antitrust officials announced plans to investigate the complaint filed in Germany by AMD against Intel and Media Markt.2007July 27: The European Commission&#160;charged Intel with antitrust violations. It accused Intel of offering rebates to PC manufacturers that buy the majority of their processors from Intel, paying PC manufacturers to delay or cancel products based on AMD processors, and selling processors below cost when bidding against AMD for contracts with server makers.Sept. 12: The KFTC issued preliminary antitrust charges against Intel while continuing its investigation into the company&#39;s business practices in South Korea.2008Jan. 10: The New York State Attorney General launched an antitrust investigation of Intel. The chip maker was served with a subpoena seeking information on its pricing practices and &quot;possible attempts to exclude competitors through market domination.&quot;Feb. 12: European Commission investigators raided Intel&#39;s office in Munich. The offices of retailers Media Markt and DSG International were also raided by investigators.
74496
Intel&#39;s decision to cancel the 4-GHz Pentium 4 580J shifts the bragging rights for the fastest desktop processors into AMD&#39;s hands for some time.