Intel Ordered to Produce Foreign Discovery in AMD Antitrust Suit
By Ann Steffora Mutschler -- EDN, December 28, 2006
In an order effective Wednesday, the Federal District Court in Delaware overruled chip giant Intel Corp.'s objections and ordered it to produce documents and other evidence bearing upon Intel's exclusionary conduct outside of U.S. borders, according to a statement by Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).
AMD said it 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.
This current battle between the microprocessor rivals goes back to June 2005, when a lawsuit filed by AMD accused Intel of monopolizing the x86 microprocessor market by coercing customers not to deal with AMD.
Yesterday's order resulted from Intel's decision to accept Special Master Vincent Poppiti's findings of December 15, which recommended to presiding Judge Joseph Farnan that "as the undisputed geographic market is global, and approximately 68 percent 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 had appointed Special Master Poppiti to preside over all discovery disputes in the case.
In a letter to Judge Joseph Farnan dated Wednesday from Intel's outside legal counsel Richard L. Horwitz, Intel said it does not intend to file an Objection with the Court directed to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation issued December 15.
"While Intel obviously had hoped for a different outcome regarding discovery, Intel of course will comply with the Special Master's decision and will respond to discovery as the Special Master directs," the letter states. "Inasmuch as the Special Master determined that it was not appropriate for him to address Intel's substantive arguments concerning AMD's export commerce claim, Intel does wish to focus its attention on the facts underlying that claim, and would hope to raise any jurisdictional issues arising out of that discovery with the Court at the earliest appropriate opportunity," the letter continues. "We also note that the Special Master expressly stated that he was not making any decision about the admissibility of any evidence. Intel will plan to raise evidentiary issues with the Court at a later date as appropriate," the letter concluded. Interestingly, in September, Judge Farnan granted a motion from Intel to dismiss a large portion of AMD’s antitrust claims against the company, saying that U.S. law does not cover many of AMD's claims.
Then in October, Intel moved closer to facing antitrust charges by the European Commission, according to reports.
Still, AMD considers this action a “big win,” according to Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive VP for 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.”
