AMD is an undisputed technology and innovation leader.

However, by intimidating the marketplace, imposing exclusive or near-exclusive deals and offering illegal rebates, Intel’s abusive monopolistic behavior has barred AMD from effectively competing in markets around the world.

Worldwide antitrust laws are clear: Abusive conduct to curb competition by a dominant monopoly is improper. That’s why we’ve filed a lawsuit against Intel, to break free from its stranglehold on the PC industry that has artificially restricted competition. Regulators around the globe agree that the abuse of monopoly power to foreclose competition is illegal, harmful to consumers and must be stopped. We believe our action against Intel will unleash a new wave of innovation and provide greater choice for consumers.

Highlights and Recent Activities

A Purported New Class Action Complaint Was Filed in Idaho Shortly After the New York Probe Against Intel Was Announced.

• According to the complaint, Intel engaged in acts that include:
  “…a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the practical and intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD and others.” – Competition Law 360* (Jan. 18, 2008)

New York Attorney General Cuomo Launches Antitrust Investigation of Intel

• On January 10, 2008 Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo served a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents and information on Intel Corporation. Cuomo is investigating whether Intel violated state and federal antitrust laws by coercing customers to exclude its main rival, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), from the worldwide market for x86 computer processing units (CPU).
  
  Source: Press Release, Office of New York State Attorney General, Andrew M. Cuomo
  Read the Press Release

AMD Reacts to New York Attorney General’s Antitrust Investigation of Intel

• New York State's decision, based on its findings to date, to open a formal investigation of Intel's anticompetitive business practices is good news for computer buyers in NY and throughout the United States." — Tom McCoy, AMD’s Executive Vice President, Legal Affairs and Chief Administrative Officer, January 10, 2008



• "The allegations of Intel's anticompetitive conduct have not yet been proven or rejected in a court," Foer noted, "but with worldwide scrutiny growing, the Intel case has become the landmark monopolization case of the twenty-first century. It is significant because the market is global and there are only two competitors, with no anticipation of new entry. We think it awkward, with so much at stake and the two companies involved being American, that the U.S. government has not taken a more active role. But we applaud New York and any states that might join with Attorney General Cuomo for stepping up to the plate for American consumers." — Albert Foer, President, American Antitrust Institute, January 10, 2008



• "It is not surprising that the New York Attorney General’s Office, which in recent years has played a leading role on numerous pro-consumer issues, has decided to turn its attention to competition in the market for computer microprocessors. Its expertise in antitrust was demonstrated by its central role in the Microsoft antitrust case,. Investigations such as this -- and remedies that may result -- protect competition and are of great importance to the computer and communications industry. Our industry innovates more and works best when companies with new and better ideas compete free of antitrust bottlenecks." — Press Release Issued by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Jan 10, 2008



• "Antitrust investigations into Intel are springing up everywhere except Washington. It's high time the FTC woke up and started looking into practices that are harming American consumers and technological innovation. The FTC needs to stop looking the other way on Intel and start getting serious about enforcing antitrust law. The FTC is moving at a mega-hertz pace, in a gigahertz world." — New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, January 10, 2008

Korean Fair Trade Commission Charges Intel with Antitrust Violations

• On September 11, 2007 Intel confirmed that it had received a Statement of Objections from the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), marking the culmination of an investigation by S. Korean competition regulations into Intel's abuse of its monopoly power. KFTC official Kim Sung Man told Bloomberg that "the results [of the investigation] are about suspicions over Intel's abuse of its dominant market power in Korea."



• Read the Bloomberg Article



• "With the Korea Fair Trade Commission action, a third independent antitrust agency has charged Intel with abusing its dominant position in the x86 microprocessor market. Following formal action in Japan and Europe, global scrutiny is increasingly focused on Intel’s harm to competition and consumers alike. Governments around the world must enforce antitrust laws to bring fair and open competition that will benefit computer manufacturers and buyers everywhere." — Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer (Sept. 11, 2007)

European Commission Charges Intel with Antitrust Violations

• BRUSSELS/SUNNYVALE, Calif. — The European Commission (EC) today confirmed that it has charged Intel with violating EU competition laws by abusing its dominant position in the global microprocessor market.
  The Commission said in a press briefing today that "in the short, medium and long-term, we think that the actions of Intel are bad news for competition and consumers."
  http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm



• Read Press Release from European Commission
• Transcript: AMD Responds to Media Inquiries Via Conference Call
• View Worldwide Antitrust Timeline*
• View Worldwide Antitrust Timeline

AMD Supports Korean Fair Trade Commission Dawn Raids as Part of Investigation Into Possible Intel Antitrust Violations

• SUNNYVALE, Calif. – AMD (NYSE: AMD) today released the following statement today regarding the Korean Fair Trade Commission’s (KFTC) dawn raids as part of their investigation into possible violations by Intel Corporation of that country’s Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act:


“Yesterday's dawn raids in Korea make it abundantly clear that competition authorities worldwide are intensifying their investigative efforts into Intel's anticompetitive business practices because they have good reason to believe evidence of illegal monopoly abuse is there to be found,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “Similar dawn raids conducted by competition authorities in Japan revealed evidence of illegal business practices that violated that country's Antimonopoly Act. The JFTC ruled that Intel conditioned deals with Japanese PC OEMs based on excluding competition.  Last year, the European Commission also conducted dawn raids across Europe to gather evidence of Intel monopoly abuse within the European Union. How many raids in how many countries need to happen before Intel accepts responsibility for its anticompetitive actions and ceases its unlawful business practices?”

Tokyo District Court Denies Intel K.K. Argument to Keep Evidence Obtained by JFTC of Illegal Business Practices from the Public Record

• Tokyo, Japan - December 16, 2005 - Tokyo District Court today required the disclosure of evidence collected by the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) during its investigation of Intel K.K. ("Intel") for violating the country's Antimonopoly Act. The evidence, discovered in raids of Intel K.K. offices as well as major Japanese OEM Manufacturers in April, 2004, formed the basis of the JFTC's Recommendatino against Intel. Legal Counsel for AMD Japan intent to use the JFTC's evidence as part of its law suit against Intel in Japan, filed June 30th, 2005 (AMD Japan v. Intel K.K.).

AMD Supports European Commission’s Dawn Intel Raids For Possible Antitrust Violations

• SUNNYVALE, CA – July 12, 2005 -AMD (NYSE: AMD) released the following statement today regarding the European Commission’s dawn Intel raids across Europe:
  
  “Today’s dawn raids should come as good news to consumers across Europe,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “Every computer user has a strong interest in ensuring that the full truth about Intel’s anti-competitive abuses is revealed and corrected. The European Commission dawn raids show that Intel cannot and should not escape the scrutiny of antitrust officials around the world – nor can Intel escape the consequences of its anti-competitive actions, which raise prices, threaten innovation and harm consumers.”

• SUNNYVALE, CA – July 3, 2005 - AMD (NYSE: AMD) announced today that its Motion for Leave to Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas filed on July 1st 2005 as part of the litigation AMD v. Intel* was granted by the United States District Court of Delaware shortly after it was filed.


The motion sought a judicial order permitting AMD to move forward to preserve relevant evidence that is in the possession of specified third-parties. In light of the judicial order, AMD’s counsel will engage in discussions with 30 third-parties in an effort to implement the order so as to preserve evidence while imposing on them as little an administrative burden as possible.


• AMD’s Motion for Leave to Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas*



• Affidavit from Charles P. Diamond*



• Affidavit from Kelly J. Kuchta*

AMD Japan Files Claim for Damages Arising from Violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act

• TOKYO, Japan – June 30, 2005 -AMD Japan today filed two lawsuits against Intel Corporation’s Japanese subsidiary, Intel K.K., in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court for damages arising from violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act.

AMD Files Antitrust Complaint Against Intel in U.S. Federal District Court

• On June 27, 2005, AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corporation in U.S. federal district court for the district of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, as well as the California Business and Professions Code. Intel Corporation has unlawfully maintained its x86 microprocessor market monopoly by engaging in a worldwide coercion of customers to refrain from dealing with AMD.



• AMD’s complaint against Intel Corporation*



• Summary of AMD’s complaint against Intel Corporation*



• Litigation history between AMD and Intel*

Overview of Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) Recommendation against Intel for violating Japan’s Antimonopoly Act

• Japanese (original) Version*



• English Translation *

The Fair Trade Commission of Japan found in 2005 that Intel Japan K.K. (“Intel”) violated Japan’s Antimonopoly Act by engaging in anticompetitive business practices. The following are AMD’s statements regarding Intel’s antitrust violations in Japan:

March 31, 2005  

AMD Responds to Intel’s “Acceptance” of The Fair Trade Commission Of Japan’s Ruling that Intel Violated Antimonopoly Act

Intel's Refusal to Acknowledge JFTC Facts and Harm Caused to Competitors and Consumers is Disturbing

"It is unfortunate that even when presented with specific - and very disturbing - findings of deliberate and systematic anti-competitive behavior, Intel refuses to face the facts and admit the harm it has caused to competitors and consumers," said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer.

AMD Supports Fair Trade Commission Of Japan’s (JFTC) Decision To Stop Illegal Business Practices By Intel

Intel’s Unlawful Business Practices in Japan Limit Consumers’ Freedom to Choose Worldwide

The JFTC found that Intel illegally manipulated the market to exclude competition, hurting PC users around the world,” said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. “Using market power illegally to limit innovation and, more importantly, consumers’ freedom to choose, cannot be tolerated. We encourage governments around the globe to ensure that their markets are not being harmed as well.”

What the Media is Saying

*viewing pdf requires Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater. To download the latest version of Adobe Acrobat click here.