In the antitrust dispute between microprocessor rivals Intel and AMD, the companies have recently filed preliminary pretrial briefs, as ordered by US District Court Special Master Vincent Poppiti.

Intel and AMD have concluded their exchange of documents in this case, with Intel delivering 150 million pages of documents to AMD, according to Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. Further, the companies have been in discussions as to how to handle depositions; Intel has requested approximately 75 depositions per side, whereas AMD is asking for a total of 486 depositions, he noted.

With that amount of disparity, Poppiti had asked for clarification on the cases, leading to the filings by both companies on May 1. The judge has now given the companies until May 12 to respond to their opponents' filing in yet another brief, this time limited to 40 pages.

In its May 1 brief, AMD said it has new evidence of alleged Intel antitrust activities including payments for exclusivity, payments for sector and channel exclusion, payments to cancel or delay AMD-based platforms, quantity-forcing all-or-nothing discounts, and predatory bid-pricing.

According to AMD's 108-page brief, Intel made "payments for exclusivity" to customers like Dell to boycott AMD. "At various times, Intel also paid Gateway, Acer, the major Japanese OEMs, and various system builders and distributors to close their doors to AMD," the filing reads.

In addition, AMD purports that where Intel couldn't buy company-wide exclusivity, it focused its payments on foreclosing AMD from specific sectors of the market critical to AMD's success. "Intel has deployed this weapon most successfully to keep AMD-based computers away from large business customers."

Another favoured Intel tactic, according to AMD, was to pay off customers to abandon development of a particular AMD computer model they had decided to launch. "Intel typically made these payments to cripple new product announcements essential to the successful launch of a new line of AMD processors, or to nip in the bud AMD inroads into sectors Intel viewed as critical," AMD's filing says.

Further, AMD said, Intel regularly employs a discount scheme that is designed to make it uneconomic for AMD to compete for a customer's available business through quantity-forcing, all-or-nothing discounts. "Key to this practice is Intel's ability to leverage the large share of its customers' requirements that they must obtain from Intel in any event. Intel is an unavoidable trading partner for all OEMs and most other microprocessor customers."

Other AMD claims against Intel include predatory bid-pricing and threats of retaliation against OEMs.

In its own preliminary pretrial statement, Intel makes the point that "AMD brought its monopolization lawsuit in an intensely competitive industry, in which competition has unquestionably brought enormous benefits to consumers. Competition in the microprocessor industry has given consumers the benefits of lower prices and higher quality and performance-the exact opposite of a market plagued by a stagnant monopoly."

The Intel brief points out that according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, microprocessor prices have fallen more rapidly than prices in each of the other 1,200 product categories tracked by the Bureau. "Nothing about the microprocessor industry suggests that it is hobbled by a monopolist that is reaping monopoly profits and stalling the development of new and better products," Intel said.

"AMD filed this lawsuit in the midst of a run of more than three years during which it enjoyed unprecedented success in increasing its market share, its range of products, and its profits," the chip leader continued in its brief. "More recently, its fortunes have sagged as the result of poor business execution with new key products, like its Barcelona microprocessor for servers. AMD's lawsuit is part of a larger strategy to secure greater success by deterring Intel from aggressive competition."

And, Intel said, "AMD's position runs headlong into a series of Supreme Court decisions spanning more than twenty years that treat above-cost price competition as 'per se' lawful-the antitrust equivalent of free speech under First Amendment jurisprudence."

Intel reminded that it has compiled "an impressive record of continuing product innovation and a willingness to make risky multibillion-dollar investments, even in periods of business downturns, to develop more advanced manufacturing technology and build the manufacturing capacity to supply its customers' complete needs. AMD, in contrast, has often floundered, introducing products that often failed to live up to expectations, even after embarrassing delays."

The companies are set to appear on June 5 at a hearing in the US District Court in Delaware to make their arguments to the judge in the case.

By Ann Steffora Mutschler, Senior Editor - Electronic News

See also: Electronics Weekly's focus on microprocessors, a roundup of content related to x86 microprocessor technologies and developments.