AMD's high profile suit against Intel alleging
anticompetitive practices has been dismissed as "part of a media campaign"
attacking the world's largest chip manufacturer, and should not affect corporate
buying decisions.
"The AMD filing, which is surprisingly readable for a legal document, seems
to have been crafted not only as a legal complaint, but as part of a media
campaign. AMD has also run full-page ads in major newspapers outlining its
position," said Martin Reynolds, vice president and fellow at Gartner Research.
Advertisement
The case will draw intense media attention, according to the analyst, but is
unlikely to have an adverse impact on either companies' operations.
Gartner advised firms to ignore the suit and not make any changes to system
procurement plans. "AMD and Intel will not be distracted from their operations,
" the analyst stated.
The AMD complaint alleges that Intel is a monopoly, and cites examples of
practices that it believes to be illegal for such a monopoly.
AMD alleges that Intel violated US antitrust law by pressuring 38 system
manufacturers, including Dell, HP and Sony, to use its microprocessors.
"Intel could argue in response that its market dominance is due to innovation
and aggressive capital investment rather than to monopolistic behaviour and that
if PC technology did not advance, the market would be dramatically smaller,"
said Reynolds.
"Some of the allegations involve clear threats outside contractual
relationships; the complaint details what it describes as 'old-fashioned
threats, intimidation and knee-capping'.
"If true, these seem serious enough to merit action irrespective of Intel's
status as a possible monopoly."
Reynolds went on to predict that the lawsuit will probably take years to
resolve, but conceded that the pace would be quickened if AMD managed to
interest US federal or state authorities in taking up a parallel antitrust case.
"The battle will begin to heat up when AMD tries to engage in the discovery
process, which Intel can be expected to vigorously oppose. No company wants
lawyers rummaging through its email and other records," he said.
Do you agree?
Have your say on this article