Some relevant snippets from WSJ on AMD antitrust filing:
"They need to sustain their complaint by customer testimony," said Eleanor Fox, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who isn't involved in the case. "Customers may not be so friendly to the idea."
Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, said it has consulted with many Intel customers and partners, whom he expects to help in the litigation. "To a person, they are going to be glad that we put this on the table, though they may not come out and say so," he said. ...
Ms. Fox, the antitrust expert, predicted the case will turn on whether Intel can show that its marketing practices benefit consumers, often a powerful argument in antitrust cases. But one court ruling could help AMD, she noted.
In 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with LePages Inc. in an antitrust case against 3M Co. over private-label transparent tape. The judges ruled against 3M's "bundled rebates," which offered incentives to customers who purchased 3M product lines in addition to its tape. Charles Diamond, an attorney for AMD at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, said its allegations are very similar to LePage's, noting that the same appeals court could be the final arbiter of AMD's case.
The case could go to trial in late 2006, Mr. McCoy said.
online.wsj.com
Regards,
Rink
Regards,
Rink |
