Mannerisms

The New York evidence includes:

An internal e-mail from IBM executive in January 2005: "I understand the point about the accounts wanting a full AMD portfolio. The question is, can we afford to accept the wrath of Intel...?"'

Internal e-mail from HP executive in June 2004 after HP defied Intel and launched an AMD product: "Intel has told us that HP's announcement on Opteron [AMD's server chip] has cost them several $B [Billions] and they plan to 'punish' HP for doing this."'

Internal e-mail from HP executive in September 2004 regarding the consequences of marketing products from an Intel competitor: "If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high. Without the money we do not make it financially."'

Internal Dell document from February 2003 in which it was assumed that "aggressive" purchases by Dell from Intel's competitors could result in: "[r]etaliatory [rebate] reductions [by Intel that] could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs [lines of business]."'

Internal Dell e-mail in February 2004 regarding the possibility of Dell ending its exclusive relationship with Intel: "PSO/CRB [Intel CEO Paul Otellini and Intel Chairman Craig Barrett] are prepared for jihad if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We [will] get ZERO [rebates] for at least one quarter while Intel 'investigates the details' - there's no legal/moral/threatening means for us to apply and avoid this."'

Internal e-mail from an Intel negotiator in September 2006 attempting to make sure that the company's internal e-mails did not reveal Intel's antitrust violations: "Could you just take the mss [market share] references off and just leave everything at volume targets. Our counsel is very picky on that stuff and I don't want to infer we had conversations about anything other than volume targets or relative volume targets . . ."

Internal e-mail from Intel executive in April 2006: "Let's talk more on the phone as it's so difficult for me to write or explain without considering anti-trust issue."

Internal e-mail from Dell CEO Michael Dell to Intel CEO Paul Otellini in November 2005: "We have lost the performance leadership and it's seriously impacting our business in several areas." Otellini replied: "There is nothing new here. Our product roadmap is what it is. It is improving rapidly daily. It will deliver increasingly leadership products... Additionally, we are transferring over $1B [Billion] per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues."'

The evidence published by the European Commission includes:

In an October 2004 e-mail from Dell to Intel, a Dell executive stated that "AMD is a great threat to our business. Intel is increasingly uncompetitive to AMD which results in Dell being uncompetitive to [Dell competitors]. We have slower, hotter products that cost more across the board in the enterprise with no hope of closing the performance gap for 1-2 years".'

Internal Dell presentation of February 2003, where Dell noted that should Dell switch any part of its CPU supplies from Intel to its competitor AMD, Intel retaliation "could be severe and prolonged with impact to all LOBs (Lines of Business)".'

The EC evidence quotes an HP submission that: "Intel granted the credits subject to the following unwritten requirements: a) that HP should purchase at least 95% of its business desktop system from Intel."

 HP stated that it: "Can confirm that Intel's inducements were a material factor in determining HP's agreement to the unwritten conditions. As a result HP  stayed at least 95% aligned to Intel."

In an e-mail written in July 2002 an HP executive wrote: "PLEASE DO NOT... communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5% AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement".'

In a May 2002 e-mail, an NEC executive specified that " NEC will increase Intel market share to 80%. Intel will give NEC an aggressive price".'

In a December 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive stated: "Late last week Lenovo cut a lucrative deal with Intel. As a result of this, we will not be introducing AMD based products in 2007 for our Notebook products".'

In an internal September 2004 HP e-mail, an HP executive stated: "You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high ".'

'In a September 2003 email, an Intel executive reported: "good news just came from [Acer Senior Executive] that Acer decides to drop AMD K8 (a notebook) throughout 2003 around the world.'

In a June 2006 e-mail, a Lenovo executive reported that: "[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (...). [...] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us the deal is base [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (...) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD".'

'In a submission to the Commission, Dell stated that " there is no written agreement between Intel and Dell concerning the MCP discount, rather, the discount is the subject of constant oral negotiations and agreement".

In a submission to the Commission, HP stated that the "unwritten conditions (...) were stated to be part of the HPA1 agreement by [Intel executive] , [Intel executive] and [Intel senior executive] in meetings with HP during the negotiations".'

.