Intel looks to mediation to speed discrimination suits
506762
Intel has become the first Silicon Valley company to form a mediation partnership with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an arrangement designed to speed the resolution of discrimination disputes.
491713
Deleted messages from some senior executives are sought as evidence in AMD's antitrust suit.
617285
New York state launched a formal  investigation on Thursday to determine if Intel Corp ,  the world's biggest chipmaker, violated state and U.S.  antitrust laws to squeeze out rival Applied Micro Devices Inc.
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
478319
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:
380668
This week, chip giant Intel is hosting its twice-a-year Intel Developer Forum, where PC hardware and software developers will hear the company&#39;s plans for future products.
586658
Intel was hit with a lawsuit by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation on Wednesday, alleging that the chipmaker used a WARF invention in its processor architectures, including the popular Core 2 Duo.The patent infringement lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleges that many of Intel&#39;s chips&#160;implement a University of Wisconsin, Madison, invention of a circuit that executes instructions to speed up processor performance.The patent, titled &quot;Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer,&quot; was awarded to four university researchers in 1998.WARF is looking for an undisclosed amount of compensation from Intel and an order for the company to stop selling certain processors, including the Core 2 Duo chip. A court date for legal proceedings has not been set yet, said Janet Kelly, communications director for WARF.WARF is not a part of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, but a private organization that patents and licenses inventions of the university, Kelly said.Intel has refused to enter into a license agreement with WARF related to the patent, a court document said. WARF has made repeated attempts to offer Intel legal licensing opportunities for the technology, WARF said in a statement.Intel did not respond to requests for comment.
70851
European Commission antitrust officials investigating computer chip maker Intel presented what they believe is a watertight argument for prosecuting the firm to an internal panel of so-called devil's advocates on Tuesday, a person familiar with the investigation has said.
749024
Companies plan tools for improving high-end audio for PCs with Intel inside.
390802
Judge Joseph Farnan ruled this afternoon that AMD may seek reconsideration for its claim that Intel's allegedly anti-competitive conduct outside the U.S. directly impacts AMD's business inside the U.S. The claim is key to AMD's case, which alleges that Intel's business practices with international partners harmed its ability to do business here.
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.
555560
(InfoWorld) - South Korean antitrust regulators have issued preliminary allegations against IntelÂ forÂ allegedly undermining competition in its PC microprocessor market, but formal charges won't be made for at least another month. The Korean Fair Trade Commission (FTC) sent a "statement of objection" to Intel, which contained preliminary allegations, said Nick Jacobs, an Intel spokesman in Singapore. The document is not a final decision, nor has it been upheld by a court. "It does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of law," he said. "As such, any conclusions about our business practices are at best premature." A senior deputy director at South Korea's FTC said the investigation against Intel remains ongoing. The next step for the world's largest chip maker is to respond to the letter of objection, after which the FTC will rule on the case. South Korea could become the third place to rule on an Intel antitrust case. In 2005, Japan's Fair Trade Commission helped kick off the recent spate ofÂ investigations against IntelÂ by ruling that the company's Japan unit stifled competition by offering rebates to Japanese PC makers in return for agreements to limit purchases of or not buy rival x86 microprocessors. Earlier this year, the European Commission ruled similarly,Â alleging that Intel violated EU antitrust lawsÂ by giving rebates to customers that enabled the company to win sales from rival Advanced Micro Devices. AMD filed an antitrust suit against IntelÂ in June, 2005 at the U.S. District Court in Delaware, shortly after Japan's FTC revealed its allegations against the company. "Following formal action in Japan and Europe, global scrutiny is increasingly focused on Intel's harm to competition and consumers alike. Governments around the world must enforce antitrust laws to bring fair and open competition that will benefit computer manufacturers and buyers everywhere," said Tom McCoy, AMD's executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer, in an e-mail. (Ben Ames in Boston contributed to this report.)
697502
Judge Joseph Farnan ruled this afternoon that AMD may seek reconsideration for its claim that Intel's allegedly anti-competitive conduct outside the U.S. directly impacts AMD's business inside the U.S. The claim is key to AMD's case against Intel.
674572
(InfoWorld) - Intel should have to share documents that could show it used monopolistic practices to force overseas PC vendors and retailers to shun Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) chips, the special master to a U.S. federal court recommended Friday. Intel is expected to contest the recommendation by Special Master Vincent Poppiti, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, before the matter comes before a judge on Jan. 12 for a final ruling. This is the latest round in aÂ long-running legal battleÂ that is scheduled to be decided in a case court beginning in April 2009. AMD has charged that Intel used its overwhelming 80 percent share of the worldwide microprocessor market to violate antitrust laws through coercive acts such as threatening to withhold incentive payments to PC vendors if they specified AMD chips in their products. In September, Intel got a boost when District Court Judge Joseph FarnanÂ ruled that Intel would not have to share those records, since U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over such actions alleged to have occurred in other countries. In return, AMD argued that foreign actions could also impact sales to U.S. customers, despite the fact that its chips are manufactured in Dresden, Germany, and sold to overseas customers. Poppiti's recommendation agrees with AMD's motion, reasoning that the market for x86 microprocessors is global, so Intel's behavior worldwide could serve as evidence in a U.S. antitrust case. Poppiti was appointed to make recommendations to the court related to the discovery phase of the case in which the sides share documents that can be used as evidence. "We are encouraged that the special master recognizes the importance of obtaining all evidence of Intel's wrongdoing, regardless of where it occurs, to demonstrate the impact it has had on AMD's domestic and export business," AMD spokesman Michael Silverman said in an e-mail. Intel lawyers are still reviewing Poppiti's recommendation, and have not yet decided whether they will file additional arguments by Dec. 27, Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy said in an e-mail. Â
752997
New York state launched a formal investigation on Thursday to determine if Intel Corp, the world's biggest chipmaker, violated state and U.S. antitrust laws to squeeze out rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
220134
New York state launched a formal investigation on Thursday to determine if Intel Corp, the world's biggest chip maker, violated state and U.S. antitrust laws to squeeze out rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
565928
Intel should have to share documents that could show it used monopolistic practices to force overseas PC vendors and retailers to shun Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) chips, the special master to a U.S. federal court recommended Friday.