AMD omits to mention Microsoft, IBM in antitrust suit

UNVERSED AS WE are in American legalese, we nevertheless couldn't help notice that in its 48 page docket accusing Intel of being antitrusting, AMD decided to kick off by citing Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum (sic) as examples of monopolies, bracketing those two firms with Chipzilla.

See AMD sues Intel, the monopolist.

AMD could have mentioned Microsoft and IBM, both convicted of antitrust practices, but perhaps AMD felt this was a little bit too near to the bone.

In fact, in paragraph one of the 48 page allegation, it does mention Microsoft Windows but it mentions Linux too and not in connection with any antitrust "affaire".

We've always thought AMD and Microsoft were a tad too cosy. For example, WJ Sanders III appeared as a witness for Microsoft in the Department of Justice (DoJ) case. At the launch of its Opterons, AMD found a Microsoft man to speak up in favour of AMD64 too.

Paragraph Two starts: "Just like Standard Oil and Alcoa before it, for over a decade Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with AMD."

According to this web site, a judge called, rather incredibly, Learned Hand, indicted Alcoa for being too good a company, too competent in its management, and too competitive.

Standard Oil, according to the same site, was "punished" for dropping the price of oil by more than half and by buying up competitors.

Intel, so far, hasn't reacted to this latest antitrust suit. But we are sure it will. And when the DEC case was settled all those years back, we discovered that the Intel chaps are so bright and so well populated by bright lawyers, that they completely anticipated antitrust arguments, unlike our little friends at Microsoft, the rebellious souls, who battled and continue to battle against overwhelming evidence.

So we suspect that INTC has always anticipated that AMD would irritate the heck out of it on the antitrust front, and already has an answer to the case in its voluminous briefs.

The real question is whether AMD will manage to get some or any of the companies it names in the docket to break cover and speak frankly about any alleged pressures mentioned in the book it's throwing at Chipzilla. On past experience, we suspect not. Young Charlie Demerjian managed to get a few vendors to speak off the record at the launch of the Opteron in NYC a few years ago, but they were frit as only PC vendors can be. For frit, read spineless and gutless.

Complaint number 82 relates to this launch. AMD calls the INQ a computer industry journal, which is probably the nicest thing we've ever been called since we launched. That article is here.

As one unnamed distributor of both AMD and Intel products said to us a few weeks ago, the smaller chip firm has often behaved like a pussycat when it should have behaved like a big cat. But as our old mate Jamie Minotto of Tandon told one of our reporters many years ago, "no one steps on the tail of a tiger" with impunity. The tiger, being of course, Intel. µ

See Also
2000 metre steam hole delivers 10 megawatts