Intel in total denial over AMD antitrust claim

CHIPZILLA (Intel) issued chapter and verse about Cheapzilla's (AMD) claim Intel breached antitrust rules. Intel went further than AMD did, and as far as we read the legal filing, denied things it had never ever been accused of.

Said Tweedledum (Intel: tick INTC), Tweedledee (AMD: tick AMD) didn't have a leg to stand on.

Intel may well have hired hacks in its 63 page filing rebutting AMD's 48 page filing, although this is, of course, sheer speculation. AMD's original filing was certainly far more entertaining.

The language was not nearly as colourful as AMD's original, filed late in June. It was all about denial, or cognitive dissonance, as we smokers dub denial.

But the filing had faults, because Intel claimed it invented the microprocessor in 1971, which is moot.

It went on and on about how it delivered innovation since 1971, but as all sensible folks know, the brain of a computer has a chequered career.

After a lengthy and painful to read introduction, Intel got deep into the AMD allegations.

Points one to ten in its filings said that Intel was better than AMD, so it's a case of the old cocks on the old dunghill.

When Intel gets to point 38 in its rebuttal, it starts talking about Dell. AMD, said Intel, denies Kevin Rollins said any such thing. But Intel admitted Dell "elected not to purchase [buy, Ed.]" AMD processors.

Intel also denies it made multi million payments to Sony to ensure exclusivity. Sony chose Intel because it was fabtastic.

Intel said it didn't pay lots of money to Toshiba either, in point 41. Toshiba chose Intel because of the "innovativeness" [is that a word? Ed.] of Intel's offerings.

Intel said NEC wasn't its particular partner in point 42.

Intel said Fujitsu wasn't its partner either, exclusively, in point 43.

Intel said Hitachi wasn't its exclusive partner, either in point 44. Hitachi "chose to consolidate its microprocessor purchases [buys] with Intel based on price, performance, quality, reliability and innovativeness."

Intel denied it offered loads of money to Gateway to just use its chips.

Intel said it didn't know anything about "the state of mind" of Supermicro. Supermicro "didn't fear Intel".

Intel claimed it had never bullied HP. Intel claimed it knew nothing about IBM. Intel lacked sufficient information about Fujitsu Siemens.

In short, Intel denies everything. We think it doth protest too much.

Paragraph 82 of Intel's total denial affects the INQUIRER. Intel is denying that Mike Magee and Charlie Demerjian, both of whom work for the INQ, knew anything at all about Intel threatening AMD at its Opteron launch in 2002. Intel denies the allegation. It lacks "sufficient information". But if either Tweedledee or Tweedledum attempt to subpoena journalists at "a computer industry trade journal" - that's us - we think they'll find they'll have more on their plate than either of them can contemplate.

And is Intel calling Charlie and me liars? If that's so, I think Intel will find it's bitten off more than it can chew. µ

* YOU CAN find Intel's rebuttal at Hermit's Cave. Thread title Intel PDF up and coming