This isn’t a new complaint by AMD. I also expected this from AMD at some point because they don’t want to go the way of others who didn’t fight. This alleged illegal behavior from Intel isn’t new or has it been directed solely at AMD. AMD is merely continuing a long-standing argument that they’ve made at least since 2000. Intel hasn’t had to pay monetarily for their past actions even when they’ve been cited for illegal behavior. AMD has complained in the past but here are some reasons why I think it’s a different situation this time:
The JFTC has already found Intel guilty of unfair business practices. The Japanese have taken the leadership position on this issue instead of the Europeans and I expect the Europeans to pretty much follow suit. During the course of the JFTC investigation they raided 3 Intel offices and the offices of NEC, Sony, Fujitsu, and Toshiba. In all likelihood there is much documented evidence to support AMD's claims. (This is in contrast to an earlier request by AMD for documents provided to the courts in which AMDs request was ultimately denied because they are an interested party.) In this case Intel has not been asked to provide damning documents but I expect that a request will eventually be made. The documents which the JFTC seized, or the information contained within, are in all probability in the hands of AMD now. These documents will provide the business interrelationships to other markets in question.
Once the testimony of the OEMs becomes public then the floodgates will open and AMD will have no trouble providing a preponderance of evidence to the US courts. Testimony should be very interesting with people from all over the world testifying to the alleged charges. The Taiwanese in particular.
After the JFTC announcement, Intel requested an extension to respond to the charges. Ultimately Intel decided it would comply with the JFTC directives. It can be assumed that Intel carefully looked at the situation and decided that they couldn't have beaten the charges in court. The tactic of 'respectfully disagreeing' in a public statement is a smoke screen and has been used by Intel successfully in the past.
The European investigation is currently underway. It is a well known fact that the investigators from Europe and Japan have collaborated and that much of the information available to the Japanese investigators is also available to the Europeans. It has already been shown that there have been ‘Intel only’ guidelines for systems purchases in several member states.
The JFTC ruling is what makes this lawsuit different from the others. The collaboration of the Europeans with the Japanese investigators makes this lawsuit different from the others. The ultimate collaboration of US investigators with the Japanese and Europeans is what is different than in the past. The alleged continued illegal behaviors and the mounting documented evidence of them is also different in that there is more information available now. There is also a high likelihood that there is much more undiscovered documented evidence such as e-mail, telephone records, and financial records. Ultimately, the likelihood of a jury trial and monetary award for AMD is also much greater than in the past.
Edit: AMD has filed a lawsuit against Intel in Japan. As of this moment Intel is between a rock and a hard place. If I was an Intel employee or investor I’d be very concerned about these allegations and I’d demand openness and transparency. I will be extremely interested in how this plays out and I’ll periodically visit to read some of your views.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
