Intel Strikes Back at AMD Attack
Online staff -- EDN, September 1, 2005
Santa Clara, Calif.-based chip giant Intel Corp. today filed its response to a lawsuit initiated in June by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) regarding Intel's business practices, refuting AMD's claims and maintaining that its business practices are both fair and lawful.
On June 28, AMD filed a 48-page antitrust complaint against Intel in U.S. federal district court, claiming that Intel has maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by coercing customers not to deal with AMD. A few days later, AMD expanded the case to include Intel’s Japan subsidiary.
The 63-page Intel response states that it believes AMD’s claims are factually incorrect and contradictory, and that by AMD allegedly attempting to impede Intel’s ability to lower its prices consumers would be hurt, not helped.
Bruce Sewell, Intel general counsel said in a statement, “Innovation, investment, customer focus and great products have led to Intel’s success over the years. These are the things that have been fundamental to our decision making as we’ve sought to move the industry and the pace of technology forward.”
“Likewise, AMD has made its own business decisions and choices that have determined its position in the marketplace. Yet, with its lawsuit, AMD seeks to instead blame Intel for the many business failures AMD has experienced that are actually a direct result of AMD's own actions or inactions,” Sewell added.
Also in its response filed today with the U.S. District Court in Delaware, Intel described the semiconductor industry business model that has led to its growth and increasing value to customers over the years, based on three fundamental principles: production, product and price.
The Intel said in the response that “AMD’s choices and behaviors with respect to each of these core principles over the period covered by the complaint provide a compelling answer to the allegations it has made in this case.”
Finally, Intel’s response says, “AMD’s complaint presents a case study in legal dissonance. Although AMD has purportedly brought its complaint to promote competition, its true aim is the opposite. Under the cover of competition law, AMD seeks to shield itself from competition.”
“AMD seeks to impede Intel’s ability to lower prices and thereby to allow AMD to charge higher prices. AMD’s colorful language and fanciful claims cannot obscure AMD’s goal of shielding AMD from price competition,” the filing also said.
