SENIOR BOARD members and executives of the Intel Corporation have received a writ in a Delaware district court, accusing them of breaches of fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and care, and of gross mismanagement.
Evan Tobias named Craig Barrett, Paul Otellini, Charlene Barshefsky, Carol Bartz, Susan Decker, James Guzy, Reed Hundt, James Plummer, David Pottruck, Jane Shaw, John Thornton and David Yoffie in the complaint.
He alleges that the company has engaged in monopolistic conduct in the CPU market by “threatening, coercing, and bribing customers to refrain from dealing with Intel’s major competitor, Advanced Micro Devices”.
This has resulted in numerous prosecutions by different countries and in a number of civil suits.
These, it’s alleged, “have already cost Intel millions of dollars in damages, and will likely result in additional legal fees and expenses.” Yeah, well this one adds to those, doesn’t it?
Evan Tobias is an Intel shareholder.
The writ refers to a case settled in 1992 after five years of legal argy-bargy, in which AMD pocketed $10 million and a “permanent, non-exclusive and royalty free licence to any Intel intellectual property embodied in AMD’s own microprocessor, including the x86 instruction set.”
The writ alleges that in 2003, Intel “copied AMD’s technology for its own 64-bit offererings – an event that poignantly marked AMD’s technological emergence”.
Intel is also alleged to have paid IBM millions of soft marketing money in 2000 if it would become Chipzilla’s sole supplier and ditched talking to AMD.
Tobias also alleges that Intel has threatened OEMs and claims Mike “Curly” Capellas, when he was presiding over Compaq, admitted Intel didn’t ship chips he needed for his tin because the firm had ordered AMD chips. Capellas told an AMD suit he “had a gun to his head”.
The writ also alleges that when AMD launched its Athlon 64 chip in September 2003, then CEO Craig Barrett talked to Acer’s CEO and said the firm “would suffer sever consequences” if it supported AMD’s launch.
The writ also contains passages from articles in the INQUIRER at the time of the launch of the Opteron. There are a number of allegations relating to pressure allegedly put on distributors and shops selling kit.
The plaintiff wants monetary damages, injunctive remedies and other forms of equitable relief. µ
Won Ton Destruction
Laptops, TVs and gadgets could face some stiff competition
But other than that, it's hardly any different