AMD 2007 Annual Report Download - page 46

Table of Contents
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. On September 26, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the motion of
Intel Corporation to dismiss foreign conduct claims. The effect of that decision was clarified by the Court’s January 12, 2007 adoption of the Special Master’s
decision on our motion to compel foreign conduct discovery. As a result of these two decisions, we will be permitted to introduce evidence of Intel’s
exclusionary practices wherever they occur, including practices foreclosing AMD from foreign customers or in foreign market segments. However, the court’s
ruling limits our damages to lost sales in the United States and lost sales abroad that would have originated from the United States. The Court also set an
immovable trial date of April 27, 2009. The discovery process is ongoing.
Other Related Proceedings
On June 30, 2005, our Japanese subsidiary, AMD Japan K.K., or AMD Japan, filed an action in Japan against Intel Corporation’s Japanese subsidiary,
Intel Kabushiki Kaisha, or Intel K.K., in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court for damages arising from violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act.
Through its suit in the Tokyo High Court, AMD Japan seeks $50 million in damages, following on the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s (JFTC) findings in
its March 8, 2005 Recommendation, or the JFTC Recommendation, that Intel K.K. committed violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. The JFTC
Recommendation concluded that Intel K.K. interfered with AMD Japan’s business activities by providing large amounts of funds to five Japanese PC
manufacturers (NEC, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Sony, and Hitachi) on the condition that they refuse to purchase AMD’s microprocessors. The suit alleges that as a result
of these illegal acts, AMD Japan suffered serious damages, losing all of its sales of microprocessors to Toshiba, Sony, and Hitachi, while sales of
microprocessors to NEC and Fujitsu also fell precipitously.
Through its suit in the Tokyo District Court, AMD Japan seeks $55 million in damages for various anticompetitive acts in addition to those covered in the
scope of the JFTC Recommendation. The suit alleges that these anticompetitive acts also had the effect of interfering with AMD Japan’s right to engage in
normal business and marketing activities.
U.S. Consumer Class Action Lawsuits
In February and March 2006, two consumer class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against ATI
and three of its subsidiaries. The complaints allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics cards as being “HDCP ready” when they were not, and on that basis
alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. On April 18,
2006, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions. On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging violations of California’s
consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class action that was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in May 2006
41
Source: ADVANCED MICRO DEVIC, 10-K, February 26, 2008