Intel: Difference between revisions
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
===AMD Antitrust Lawsuit=== | ===AMD Antitrust Lawsuit=== | ||
In 2005, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Intel in the | In 2005, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Intel in the United States District Court of Delaware for allegedly practicing scare and coercion tactics on 38 companies to monopolize the x86 microprocessor industry.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/AMD-files-antitrust-suit-against-Intel---page-2/2100-1001_3-5765844-2.html?tag=mncol AMD files antitrust suit against Intel]</ref> In its complaint, AMD claimed Intel pressured HP's Senior Managers to fire an executive who planned to use AMD chips on the HP Evo computers and that is why HP turned down AMD 's free microprocessors offer to HP. In addition, AMD also claimed that Intel offered to pay 300 million yen per quarter in exchange for caps on purchasing from AMD. The result, AMD's 84% share on NEC's consumer business was completely lost within six months.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/AMDs-case-Market-forces-or-manipulation/2100-1014_3-5766776.html?tag=mncol;txt AMD's case: Market forces or manipulation?]</ref> The company also filed the same charges against Intel with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission and Korea's competition authorities.<ref>[http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000062/Antitrust-Competition.pdf Computer & Communications Industry Association:Antitrust Competition Policy]</ref> | ||
In 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle the anti-trust lawsuit and agreed to refrain conducting the following business practices:<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement]</ref> | In 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle the anti-trust lawsuit and agreed to refrain conducting the following business practices:<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement]</ref> | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
* Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis | * Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis | ||
* Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis | * Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis | ||
* Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above | * Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above | ||
===Transmeta Patent Infringement Case=== | ===Transmeta Patent Infringement Case=== | ||