AMD 2007 Annual Report Download - page 45

Table of Contents
We are also in the process of building a new campus for design and administrative functions on approximately 58 acres in Austin, Texas. The campus will
consist of approximately 825,000 square feet and is concentrated to approximately 33 of the available 58 acres. We expect that the new Austin campus will be
fully occupied by mid-2008.
We currently do not anticipate difficulty in either retaining occupancy of any of our facilities through lease renewals prior to expiration or through
month-to-month occupancy, or replacing them with equivalent facilities. We believe that our existing facilities are suitable and adequate for our present purposes,
and that, except as discussed above, the productive capacity of such facilities is substantially being utilized or we have plans to utilize it.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In addition to ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, AMD or its indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary, ATI, were party to the following
material legal proceedings. The outcome of any litigation is uncertain and should any of these actions or proceedings against us be successful, we may be subject
to significant damages awards which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
AMD and AMDISS 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, AMD 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; and
• Forcing PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches or promotions.
AMD has 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
40
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, February 26, 2008