Intel gets the antitrust treatment

AMD has filed a 48-page document with the US District Court in Delaware claiming Intel engaged in scare tactics and coercion with 38 companies, including large-scale computer makers, small system builders, wholesale distributors and retailers. It wants to bring the case to court by about late next year.

Intel has denied -- in general terms -- the allegations, saying it will save the specifics of its defence for the courts. "We strongly disagree with AMD's complaints about the business practices of Intel and Intel's customers," a statement issued by the chip heavyweight said. "Intel believes in competing fairly and believes consumers are benefiting from this vigorous competition. AMD has chosen, once again, to complain to a court about Intel's success, with a legal case full of excuses and speculation".

The antitrust suit is of course hardly the first legal battle between Intel and AMD. The two have squared off several times, most recently in Japan in March, when Intel accepted recommendations from the country's antitrust authorities to stop such actions as offering favourable prices to companies that agreed not to use, or to limit their use of, other chipmakers' processors. While Intel accepted the recommendations, it disagreed with findings of fact underlying the authorities' claims and the application of law in the recommendations.

AMD has heavily referenced the Japanese finding in its US lawsuit.

The processor business has from time to time been characterised by odd behaviour. ZDNet Australia  sister print publication, Technology & Business, noted a deep -- and unexplained -- reluctance by some notebook vendors whose products run both Intel and AMD processors to supply review products with AMD chips. T&B Editor Natalie Hambly writes "the difficulty we experienced forced RMIT Labs Manager Steve Turvey to conclude that Australian vendors don't stock an adequate amount of high-performance AMD-based notebooks".

It is obviously up to the US court system to determine whether or not Intel engages in anticompetitive, monopolistic behaviour and if so, direct remedies and award damages. If the courts rule in favour of Intel, it will at least go a long way towards dispelling any clouds that have gathered over the way it does business.

Is AMD justified in launching antitrust action against Intel? E-mail us at edit@zdnet.com.au and let us know.