AMD and Intel fight will get dirty, fast

THE AMD AND INTEL lawsuits are creating an amazing amount of buzz in the hardware world, and that should come as little shock to anyone following the companies. But there are some elements that are engaging too little attention, as most conversations degrade into pseudo-legal flame wars in just nanoseconds.

Most people appear to have a "Judge Judy" definition of law and how it works, and even less of an idea about what the terms involved really mean.

Just for the record, we're hosting the AMD versus Intel filing on our site, in PDF form, here.

What's immediately obvious is that this is going to be a public fight, a very nasty public fight. AMD's complaint reads like a TV 'news' show itself - very entertaining with only enough legalese to satisfy the requirements. The opening salvo is meant to reach a wide audience through accessibility, and I think it succeeded. The newspaper advert and the Japanese legal action are meant to keep the headlines rolling. It wouldn't surprise me to see a few more filed in the near future when interest starts to wane.

That brings us to terms. You probably think you know what a monopoly is, other than the board game. Law.com has this definition of the word, and it is very useful to keep this in mind when people toss it around, because that is the one the courts care about. It must be said that as far as I am aware, Intel has never been declared a monopoly in the US.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Intel is indeed a monopoly. There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly, ask your cable or electric company. Both are most likely monopolies, and hate them though you may for other reasons, that's not in itself illegal. But being a monopoly raises the bar on what you can and can not do, and your behaviour is limited.

In the complaint, AMD alleges that Intel is a monopoly and it is abusing that position. AMD has to prove that both are true because one or the other is not enough. AMD in the complaint, mentions a lot of allegations, but as of yet has proved nothing, and shown absolutely no evidence. Rest assured that evidence will be shown from both parties, and AMD will attempt to prove these allegations.

These allegations and others that may emerge soon are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg when the trial starts. Prepare yourself for a flood of documents, witnesses and hand waving, mostly in front of the press. Look for this to get ugly quickly, and ambulance chasing rumour mongers like us to have a field day.

But, curiously, the Japanese suit is probably the most important case to watch. AMD is suing for $50 million, a relative drop in the bucket. In this case, the money claimed is not that important.

What is important is that Intel has already been investigated and so there is already a lot of paperwork relating to its alleged behaviour in Japan. This has not escaped AMD's attention.

AMD appears to believe that it is doing more than putting the boot into Intel gratuitously half a world away, but that it has a vulnerable point in that country.

If it can win its case against Intel in Japan, AMD can use this as a lever in the US case. Meanwhile the EU antitrust case continues.

To sum up, nothing is proven, there is no public evidence, and we have nothing concrete to go on. Nothing has been decided, no evidence has been presented, and it will probably be at least a year before anything substantial happens. µ