Elmer re evidence
you wrote:
Which is none. We have accusations. Don't confuse the two. While some of the accusations correlate to actual events there are plenty of other explanations to account for them that do not require strongarming, bullying, intimidation or anything illegal. Tough competition can feel unfair to the loser, that doesn't make it unfair and it certainly doesn't make it illegal. It does make for good whining though. You have expressed a view that has already drawn a conclusion without seeing the facts. That is prejudice by definition.
The AMD complaint is full of quite specific allegations of "strongarming, bullying, intimidation" While these constitute hearsay and are legally inadmissible in a court of law, they do represent evidence that we can use to shape our expectations about the course of the litigation. I suppose that you could argue that AMD just made up quotes from OEMs about Intel behaviour, but that seems very unlikely to me. I really can't imagine AMD claiming that they were told by the CEO of firm X that y happened unless they were in fact so informed, and I expect that most of those claims will be repeated under oath. I can't imagine why OEMs would make such representations to AMD unless they were true, so I view the specific claims made by AMD as strong evidence that the described behavior occured. I have seen no specific denials from Intel that lead me to question that view.
I have some personal expertise on the question of whether the alleged behavior is in fact illegal, and I am quite sure that it is. Indeed as we start to see legal precedent for the AMDs claims (did you see the 3M tape case someone referenced?) it will become clear just how laughable Intel defenders' claims about tough but fair competition are. While some objectionable marketing strategies (like Intel Inside) keep within hailing distance of legal behavior, if Intel pricing works the way AMD claims it represents per se (illegal regardless of intent) violations of antitrust law, and the actual threats and retaliation alleged are just stunning. Real corporations don't do that stuff (at least they haven't for nearly 100 years), and so legal analysts are gonna take awhile to get their heads around it.
At the moment the obvious implications of this suit are just so extraordinary that I think most reasonable people are simply in denial. Based on the claims made by AMD, Intel engaged in the most egregious and systematic abuse of monopoly power in the last 50 years (nothing else even comes close) and the potential damages are just ridiculous (I keep coming up with something between $5-8 billion actual, to be tripled). Since it just can't be that AMD has a slam dunk case that will result in a $15 billion award we need something so you see folks claiming that Intel is just a tough competitor and AMD might have trouble substantiating its charges because OEMs will be afraid of retaliation, all in one report. I especially loved the UBS report that claimed that AMD was overpriced because Intel was locking them out of the markets they needed to justify fab 36 (basically endorsing AMDs claims), but then dismissed any prospect of recovery from the suit because "it is out of our time horizon". |
