AMD vs. Intel: Intel CEO Addresses AMD Lawsuit

[Steve]

Intel's CEO, Paul Atellini has responded to AMD's lawsuit accusing Intel of anti-competitive behaviour and coercing companies into not buying AMD chips.

"Intel has always respected the laws of the countries in which we operate," Otellini said. "We compete aggressively and fairly to deliver the best value to consumers. This will not change.

"Over the years, Intel has been involved in other antitrust suits and faced similar issues. Every one of those matters has been resolved to our satisfaction. We unequivocally disagree with AMD’s claims and firmly believe this latest suit will be resolved favorably, like the others."

What's the message being sent here? Intel have been through lawsuits like this before and come out on top and they intend to do the same this time? Intel are not going to budge on this, but neither are AMD. They're going to pile on the pressure because even if they don't win, this whole affair is going to provide them with lots of publicity.

[Grey M@a]

Reading some of the claims from AMD I can't see what the lawsuit is actually trying to get from Intel. How can they claim that manufacturers are not using AMD chips because Intel are supplying them. Surely at the end of the day if the price is right for the Manufacturer they go for it. At the end of the day the surrent crop of CPU's both from Intel and AMD are both sitting in the premium price ranges. I think AMD are starting to witness the affects of once being the cheap CPU route to follow now competing in the same price bracket as the Intel equivilant. Time will tell though with the case.

[nichomach]

That's not what they're alleging; if they were losing on a level playing field then that would be one thing, but what they're alleging is that Intel is leveraging its 90% market share with big OEMs in order to freeze them out of competition by offering illegal subsidies to manufacturers, and preferential pricing and supply to those who refuse to carry AMD products. In other words, Intel goes to OEM and says "Look...you use our chips exclusively, and we guarantee your supply and we give you VERY nice prices. If you sell any of a certain other company's chips...well, supply chains have problems all the time, and as for those prices...you understand I'm sure.". That distorts the playing field, keeps competitors out of markets that on price/performance criteria they could win and deprives the customer of choice. Or at least that's what AMD allege, roughly.

[Grey M@a]

Is AMD not doing the same with the server market and supercomputer markets at the minute which the polls are showing, AMD is starting to lower the levels of intel servers out there due to their cheap cost. We will see though. Should be a good un to watch it unfold.

[nichomach]

No, they aren't, since they are not in a dominant position in the market; they have no leverage to turn around and say "don't ship Intel chips". Intel, who still have about 90% of the market are. Why else do you think Dell don't ship a Poweredge with Opterons in it. And the wins for the Opteron aren't really to do with cost, they're to do with the fact that they regularly spank Xeons. The distinction is between competing on the basis of having the better or cheaper product or "competing" by using a monopoly position to freeze out alternate suppliers. The first is fine, the second isn't.

[Stoo]

pretty much nail on head Nicomach..