"In a letter to FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras, AAI noted the investigations of the European Commission, Japan, and Korea of Intel's alleged monopolization of microchips and suggested that the US government should reclaim its traditional role as the leading antitrust enforcer, especially when it is two U.S. corporations that are involved and the rest of the industrialized world is so concerned." — Albert A. Foer, President (Aug. 29, 2007)
Read more at www.antitrustinstitute.org

"Intel extracted monopoly profits from the sale of microprocessors of approximately $60 billion in the period 1996 - 2006." - Dr. Michael Williams, former U.S. Department of Justice economist (Aug. 2, 2007)

“David Balto, a former policy director at the Federal Trade Commission who investigated Intel's tactics during the 1990s, said the evidence that Intel's incentives get passed on to consumers is "very dubious." In the long run, he added, they prevent AMD from substantially improving its market position and providing competition that helps consumers.” – The Wall Street Journal (Jul. 27, 2007)

"You don't bring a statement of objections against Intel without it being World War III," said Robert Lande, a director at the American Antitrust Institute and a professor at the University of Baltimore. "It's of the utmost importance." – The San Jose Mercury News (Jul. 27, 2007)

"The rebates offered by Intel were of such a quantity and such an amount that an efficient competitor would be forced to price below cost," European Commission spokesman Ton Van Lierop said. "We think that would be bad for competition and bad for consumers." – Reuters (Jul. 27, 2007)

“Intel could face fines worth up to 10 per cent of its annual global revenues. The company, under chief executive Paul Otellini, reported sales of $35.4bn in 2006, which would equate to a possible fine of more than $3.5bn.” – Financial Times (Jul. 27, 2007)

“[Caris & Co. analyst Rick] Whittington says he’s convinced that Intel manipulated the market to its favor. ‘Whether that was illegal or not is not my decision. That’s for the courts to decide,’ he said. ‘But Intel did adopt heavy-handed tactics.’” — Investor’s Business Daily (Jan. 2, 2007)

“You may have noticed…that microprocessor maker Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) had won some sort of sketchily described victory in its federal antitrust case against industry-leader Intel (INTC). Well, it did, and the court ruling was a big one. It basically ensures that AMD will be able to require Intel (and dozens of third party computer makers, distributors, and retailers) to turn over documents relating to Intel's business practices outside this country, which is where most of the computers containing the parties' chips are now sold. AMD's securing that right was crucial to its ability to prove its case…” — Fortune.com Legal Pad "AMD Wins Crucial Discovery Ruling in its Antitrust Case Against Intel" (Jan. 1, 2007)

“It may rub some people the wrong way to give a single vendor credit for anything, but without AMD there would be no price pressure on Intel, dual-core processors would still be a year away and the low-cost powerful desktops and servers from Sun, IBM and HP that are on the market today would still be on Intel’s 2007 product road map.” – eWeek “10 Thankful Things in IT for 2006” (Nov. 22, 2006)

"[Germany] knows very well that fair competition is one of [AMD’s] success factors. We will do everything to eliminate discrimination in public tenders and have, most recently, established a special program to support fair competition. We are committed to fair competition." — Dr. Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Germany (Oct. 24, 2006)

“Among the short answers given by Otellini in response to questions that he would rather not have answered at the Core Duo launch was an inquiry from one reporter about whether or not Intel had plans to integrate graphics functionality into its processors the way AMD is clearly planning to do now that it has acquired ATI…"Since your main competitor [AMD] has just announced it is acquiring ATI Technologies and said it intends to put graphics functionality right in the processor, will this mean that Intel will also put graphics in its chips?"…Otellini glared and said: "The short answer is 'yes.' That's the only answer I'm giving. Next question." – David Berlind’s “Between the Lines” Blog titled ‘Otellini Confirms Intel to Follow AMD’s lead on Integrating Graphics Into Processor’ (Aug. 2, 2006)

“…for all his moves, Intel hasn’t leapt anywhere since [Intel CEO Paul] Otellini took the helm.” – CBS MarketWatch (June 12, 2006)

“[Intel] has spent billions of dollars on ill-fated forays in both computing and communications…Its predicament is so serious that it is cutting $1 billion in costs and may sell unprofitable parts of its business.” – The San Jose Mercury News (June 11, 2006)

“An energized AMD management team showed us its plans for the upcoming year yesterday – we can’t recall ever seeing AMD sound so upbeat. Certainly the company’s competitive edge in the high-end server market remains unassailable, and even taking some of Intel’s newer products into account it looks like AMD is still highly competitive.” – Merrill Lynch research report (June 2, 2006)

“Since Paul Otellini took over as chief executive a year ago this month—the first boss from sales, not engineering—the company has been chastised for placing marketing ahead of technology.” – The Economist (May 25, 2006)

“Dell's decision to begin buying from AMD thus seems to be the result of pressure from customers anxious to achieve the power savings and performance improvements that Opterons offer over Intel's less efficient chips in the MP segment.” – Financial Times (May 22, 2006)

“AMD is clearly a different animal than it was 5 or 10 years ago. The company is no longer limited by capacity and only focused on supplying the low-end of the desktop market. AMD's portfolio is broad, arguably superior in the server and desktop markets, and for the first time ever, competitive in the notebook area.” – Mark Lipacis, Prudential Securities semiconductor analyst (April 27, 2006)

“Considering that AMD was the first with 64-bit memory addressing in the desktop, the first with a true dual-core product, and the first with an integrated memory controller hub, it appears that AMD is beating Intel to the innovation punch. Intel’s massive manufacturing muscle, on which it leaned so heavily in the past, is not as big of a differentiator anymore.” – Mark Lipacis, Prudential Securities semiconductor analyst (April 27, 2006)

“Around the world, Intel is increasingly facing antitrust investigations and lawsuits. Its legal squabbles seem certain to grow.” – The Economist (April 12, 2006)

“Intel's critics are heartened by a European Union antitrust ruling last month, where a firm that placed bottle-deposit machines in retail outlets was fined for striking exclusivity agreements. ‘Rebates and discounts cannot be used by a dominant company as part of a strategy to exclude actual and potential competitors,' stated Neelie Kroes, the EU's Competition Commissioner. Intel will not take much comfort from that.” – The Economist (April 12, 2006)

“AMD’s Opteron, Athlon FX, Turion, and Athlon X2 CPUs own the high performance mantle; Intel will not recover it, and it knows that.” – InfoWorld (March 22, 2006)

“Intel is stacking up very poorly against Advanced Micro,” said Rick Whittington, research director at Caris & Co. “Intel has been sleeping for about seven years now and they thought they had AMD on the ropes.'' – Bloomberg (March 3, 2006)

“A company [Intel] that once held the unchallenged technological lead in the industry is now behind AMD in a number of critical markets, such as high-end servers. And those mistakes will not be corrected so soon.” – TheStreet.com (January 20, 2006)

“As we have amply documented, Intel’s roadmap is likely to be inferior to Advanced Micro Devices’ throughout 2006 and 2007 (if not longer), which leaves us with the distinct impression that Apple’s marriage to Intel comes with ‘hidden’ benefits that outweigh the relative competitive disadvantages.” – Caris & Co. research report (January 19, 2006)

“Can Apple afford not to use AMD – given their superior products?” – Caris & Co. research report (January 19, 2006)

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen competitive momentum shift like this.” – Joe Osha, Merrill Lynch semiconductor analyst (January 18, 2006)

“Sunnyvale (Calif.)-based AMD is shipping processors at about twice the industry growth rate. It expects to continue the trend through 2006, as it makes more gains in the business sector and focuses on high-end sales in emerging markets such as China and India. Says Roger Kay, president of computer market-intelligence firm Endpoint Technologies: "[AMD is] executing on all fronts, winning on both value and performance.” - BusinessWeek Online (November 16, 2005)

“Let me explain how the unthinkable happened here -- how David has given Goliath a run for his money, this time around…You see, it's entirely about character. It's about management. And AMD's management is wiping the floor with Intel.” - Jim Cramer, Mad Money (November 14, 2005)

“AMD, right now, executes better than Intel. The Intel guys have been struggling to bring their new chipsets to market on time. That’s an execution problem. That’s a management problem.” - Jim Cramer, Mad Money (November 14, 2005)

“Maybe AMD’s suit will force Intel to step back, allow its competitors breathing room, and thereby open up a new avenue for someone to attack it.” - San Jose Mercury News (November 6, 2005)

“Intel will struggle to match Opteron in the next 18 months but instead of rolling out Opteron killers in 2007, Intel will introduce more processors tied down by its aging architecture dependencies. The company does not have a realistic chance of besting Opteron on typical server benchmarks until the new chips arrive in 2009. By that time, AMD will have new four-core designs of its own and who knows what other innovations.” - The Register (October 29, 2005)

"...right now Intel is looking like a boring tech giant that needs to prove it can still innovate. If Intel fails to do that, AMD will take even more market share and investor dollars from Intel." - TheStreet.com (October 20, 2005)

"To date, and to the detriment of its shareholders, Dell has exclusively used Intel chips...But now that Dell has moved into high-priced gaming PCs, a move likely prompted by the success of independent gaming PC makers Alienware and VoodooPC, it is completely illogical for Dell not to offer AMD chips. PC gamers are an extremely discriminating bunch and aren't swayed by the "Intel Inside" logo." - TheStreet.com (October 20, 2005)

“The uncomfortable truth is that AMD has taken on the role of innovator and forced its rival into mistakes.” - Motley Fool (October 13, 2005)

“Buoyed by the smashing success of its innovative new products that have left Intel (INTC) scrambling to catch up, AMD is in a strong position to rack up impressive growth in microprocessors as far as the investment eye can see.” – Barron’s (September 24, 2005)

“Despite being vastly outspent, AMD has outfoxed and outmaneuvered its archrival Intel, not simply matching the latter's technical prowess, but outgunning it. Indeed, AMD has determinedly transformed itself from a dowdy also-ran in cloning chips for desktops into a technological powerhouse in designing state-of-the-art chips for servers, taking dead aim at one of the most lucrative markets in all of techdom, a market where Intel once ruled supreme.” – Barron’s (September 24, 2005)

“Intel made a serious U-turn from being a successful, innovative CPU manufacturer to a company that seems to have lost their way…” – VoodoPC President Rahul Sood (September 14, 2005)

“[Intel has] engaged in blaming the victim,” said David Balto, a former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission. “They said, ‘We’re not going to talk about whether we’ve engaged in antitrust activities, but AMD’s a stinky firm,’ something like what children say. But under the antitrust law, that rarely carries a lot of weight.” - The Los Angeles Times (September 2, 2005)

"In his report, [Wells Fargo securities analyst Tad] LaFountain wrote: “We believe that the exclusivity that Intel sought with the actions described in AMD’s complaint became a drug, and that substituting potentially dubious/questionable/illegal marketing actions for market-expanding product development eviscerated Intel’s corporate soul.” – The Sunday Times (July 17, 2005)

"AMD lost market share to Intel between 2001 and 2004 — a time when, in the view of many experts, AMD’s microprocessors had established a technological lead over Intel. AMD blames the financial incentives that Intel allegedly offered to computer makers and retailers, causing it to lose business it should have won.” – The Sunday Times (July 17, 2005)

"[AMD’s] Opteron, Turion, and Athlon lines are not only driving the sort of technological innovation on the desktop that Intel used to provide, but also turning in record sales amounts and growing the company's operating profits.” - Motley Fool (July 15, 2005)

"Dell’s decision to use only Intel chips puts the firm at a serious disadvantage to rivals using chips from Advanced Micro Devices, says Mark Stahlman, an analyst at Caris & Co. AMD took the lead in 64-bit chips and dual-core processors. “Every corporation in the world is asking for AMD products,” Stahlman said. “The customers are going nuts for AMD servers. Intel servers are crummy in comparison.” – Investor’s Business Daily (July 14, 2005)

"…Intel's luck may have run its course." – BusinessWeek (July 14, 2005)

"It's not a foregone conclusion that the EC [European Commission] will bring charges against Intel. But the dawn raids suggest that a case is fairly likely. That's bound to send shivers through the halls of Santa Clara, Calif., where Intel is based." – BusinessWeek (July 14, 2005)

"Just keep in mind that throttling the pace of technological advancement is itself an insidious form of market control." – InfoWorld (July 13, 2005)

"As one can see from reading [AMD's complaint against Intel], Intel seems quite threatened by AMD's Athlon, Opteron and Turion lines and appears desperate to thwart with muscle what it has been unable to overcome with technology. I have long believed that Intel is essentially a marketing (muscle?) machine, not a technological powerhouse." - Bill Fleckenstein's MSN Money column (July 11, 2005)

"Wherever the courts come out, from the point of view of buyers, more choice is almost always better. When large companies push out smaller competitors, customers may be denied access to top-notch technologies – and I believe the industry as a whole loses.” – InfoWorld (July 4, 2005)

“A top-level executive at a major PC maker, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to risk angering Intel, says his experience with the chipmaker matches some of what is alleged in the lawsuit. Among other things, he cites instances when Intel told his company that if it refrained from building machines with AMD parts, Intel would reward it with money in the form of marketing subsidies and grants. It's too early to say if he would testify. “I'm just surprised AMD did not sue them before now,” he says.” – Fortune (June 30, 2005)

“Numerous analysts last week agreed with Hector Ruiz, chairman and chief executive of AMD,that something seems fishy about AMD's relative lack of growth in microprocessor revenue share over the past few years while it was arguably beating the pants off Intel on the innovation front.” – InformationWeek (June 30, 2005)

“David Balto, a former FTC policy director now at the law firm Robbins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, said AMD's case raises "very serious allegations." As a company in a dominant position, Intel will have to prove that its discounts and other practices reflect economic efficiencies and benefits to consumers.” – The Wall Street Journal (June 29, 2005)

"For the last 18 months, I don't think there's been a period where AMD wasn't winning many more benchmark tests than it was losing," says Nathan Brookwood, head of chip market research firm Insight64, based in Saratoga, Calif. "This is what makes AMD's argument all the more compelling." – Forbes.com (June 29, 2005)

“AMD's move against Intel in the U.S. comes as the European Commission is working on its own antitrust case against the world's biggest chipmaker…A spokesman for the Commission said yesterday: ‘We are actively pursuing our investigation into possible violations of EU competition rules by Intel, particularly as regards its policies on rebates.'” – The Financial Times (June 29, 2005)

“Phil Hester, a veteran computer industry executive in Austin, says Intel has used its economic clout to influence computer makers for many years. “Every time you put an ‘Intel Inside' logo on one of those machines, Intel will pay you money,” said Hester, a former IBM Corp. executive who once headed Big Blue's PC business... “With profit margins being very limited right now in the PC industry, if you are not participating (with Intel) the same as the others, you are at a major disadvantage.” – Austin American-Statesman (June 29, 2005)

“Had Intel let the market decide, as Intel claims the market is already free to do, then perhaps it would already be done with AMD. Yet I am certain, and livid, that we have lost three years of computing progress to Intel. Let's not lose any more.” –InfoWorld (June 29, 2005)

“…Kevin Krewell, a long-time semiconductor analyst at the industry research firm Instat/MDR, said AMD might have something to its claim. “ AMD's products over the last two years have been the best in the industry in many ways, yet AMD hasn't been able to leverage those advantages and gain larger market share. You just wonder if there is something else going on there," he said.” – The San Francisco Chronicle (June 29, 2005)

“…consumers always benefit from healthy competition -- even if you buy an Intel-based computer, you benefit from AMD's existence, since Intel must price its processors to compete with Athlons. And since Transmeta has exited the processor business and Apple is dropping Power PC chips in favor of Intel ones, it's vital that AMD has a fair shot at getting its share of the world's CPU business. (If success was based purely on technical excellence and reasonable prices, it would surely claim far more of the market than it does.)” – PC World (June 28, 2005)

"The Opteron has stolen the spotlight from Intel's Itanium, a more expensive chip that the Santa Clara company spent $1 billion and nearly a decade developing.” — San Jose Mercury News (April 24, 2005)

"Intel's claim of technological parity with AMD is an easily penetrated smoke screen." — InfoWorld (April 21, 2005)

"AMD's approach will let server makers switch from their current single-core chips without paying additional costs for new motherboard and chipsets. That could tip the balance for spend-thrift businesses." — BusinessWeek (April 19, 2005)

"AMD says its processors have been designed from the beginning with dual-core capabilities in mind, which should result in massive performance gains. It argues that Intel rushed out dual-core chips that are jerry-rigged single-core processors." — BusinessWeek (April 19, 2005)

"Intel is no stranger to big profits. Analysts estimate the Intel CPU costs more than a comparable product from rival Advanced Micro Devices. What about the added charge? Think of it as an Intel tax on each PC." — Wall Street Journal (March 8, 2004)

"Of late, some experts believe AMD has secured a technological edge over Intel with its Athlon and Opteron processors. Yet in Britain and much of Europe, sales of AMD-powered systems to government and big business remain modest. Why?" — The Sunday Times (March 20, 2005)

"Prior to the 2003 launch of the AMD Opteron and AMD Athlon 64 processors, some industry observers questioned whether it was logical or possible to develop an ecosystem around a 64-bit architecture compatible with the 32-bit x86 industry standard. Two years and more than 1,000 software packages later, the industry has embraced 64-bit computing based on AMD64 technology and it’s now obvious those earlier doubts were ill-founded. With AMD64 technology’s innovative Direct Connect Architecture, the company has clearly established itself as a technological powerhouse and a formidable competitor. Based on currently published roadmaps, it appears likely AMD will be the first supplier to deliver multi-core 64-bit x86 processors to enterprise server and workstation customers whose application workloads are poised to exploit this new technology.” — Insight 64 principal analyst Nathan Brookwood (March 2, 2005)

"In the past few years, AMD has touted ideas such as 64-bit computing and faster input-output links first, putting Intel in the uncomfortable position of a follower.” — C-Net News.com (February 25, 2005)

“[AMD’s] striking success raises the possibility of a profound shift in the technology industry…And since microprocessors are the brains of all things digital, the benefits could spread to everything from computers to flat-panel televisions…” — BusinessWeek (September 20, 2004)

“AMD has become known as the company that kept Intel honest, the Linux of the semiconductor world. Competition from AMD has reversed the trend of rising prices and stagnant innovation that characterize a controlled market. AMD is responsible for $500 desktops, $1,200 rack servers, and multigigahertz mainstream microprocessors, despite the fact that most of them have Intel’s logo on them.” — InfoWorld (August 27, 2004)

“Suffice it to say, the mood over at AMD these days is decidedly upbeat. Long dismissed as the me-too No. 2 to industry leader Intel, the much smaller computer chip company is having its day in the sun. The company that was long derided for cloning Intel chips, is again challenging, and at times, leading the way in chip technology. … ” — The San Jose Mercury News (June 16, 2004)

“AMD's debut [of the AMD Opteron] is arguably the biggest processor development in roughly 10 years, when the industry first moved from 16- to 32-bit architecture.” — CNN Money (September 29, 2003)