AMD 2005 Annual Report Download - page 24

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 24 of the 2005 AMD annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 154

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154

Table of Contents
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
AMD v. Intel Corporation and Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, Civil Action No. 05-441, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On June 27, 2005, we filed an antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation and Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, collectively “Intel,” in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and
Professions Code. The complaint alleges that Intel has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in anti-competitive
financial and exclusionary business practices that in effect limit Intel’s customers’ ability and/or incentive to deal with AMD. The complaint alleges
anti-competitive business practices, including:
• Forcing major customers into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on
the exclusion of AMD;
• Forcing other major customers into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds on customers’
agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;
• Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying
customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;
• Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively computers with Intel
microprocessors, and thereby artificially limiting consumer choice;
• Forcing PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions;
We have requested the following findings and remedies:
• A finding that Intel is abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the
handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.
• A finding that Intel is wrongfully maintaining its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and treble
damages to AMD in an amount to be proven at trial, pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a);
• A finding that Intel has made secret payments and allowance of rebates and discounts, and that Intel secretly and discriminatorily extended to certain
purchasers special services or privileges, all in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17045, and treble damages for AMD’s resulting
lost profits in an amount to be proven at trial;
• A finding that Intel has intentionally interfered with valuable business relationships of AMD to AMD’s economic detriment and damages to AMD in an
amount to be proven at trial for its resulting losses, as well as punitive damages, as permitted by law;
• Injunctive relief prohibiting Intel from engaging in any further conduct unlawful under Section 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 17045 of the California
Business and Professions Code;
• An award to AMD of such other, further and different relief as may be necessary or appropriate to restore and maintain competitive conditions in the
x86 microprocessor market; and
• An award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Intel filed its answer on September 1, 2005.
19
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, February 27, 2006