IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARESTATE OF NEW YORK, BY ATTORNEYGENERAL ANDREW M. CUOMO,Plaintiff,v.INTEL CORPORATION, a Delawarecorporation,Defendant.Case No. ______________________
Trial By Jury DemandedCOMPLAINT
ANDREW M. CUOMOAttorney General of the State of New York ERIC CORNGOLDExecutive Deputy Attorney GeneralFor Economic JusticeMICHAEL BERLINDeputy Attorney GeneralFor Economic JusticeRICHARD L. SCHWARTZJEREMY R. KASHAJAMES YOONSAAMI ZAINAssistant Attorneys General120 Broadway, 26th FloorNew York, New York 10271-0332Tel: (212) 416-8262/Fax: (212) 416-6015
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York
i
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.............................................................................3III. PARTIES .........................................................................................................4IV. INTEL’S ANTICOMPETITIVE CAMPAIGN......................................................4A. THE MARKET...........................................................................................41. x86 Microprocessor Technology....................................................42. The x86 Microprocessor Market.....................................................63. Intel’s Monopoly Power.................................................................74. The Threat From AMD’s New Products......................................105. AMD Begins To Gain OEM And Customer Approval................11B. INTEL’S EXERTION OF MONOPOLY POWER..................................131. Intel Seeks To Limit AMD’s Advances.......................................132. Intel’s Antitrust Compliance Program..........................................183. OEMS’ Reasons For Collaborating With Intel.............................204. Harm To Consumers, Competition, And Innovation....................23C. INTEL’S EXCLUSIONARY ACTS – DELL..........................................261. Intel And Dell’s Unique Relationship..........................................272. Intel Funds Were Secret And Directed Against AMD.................293. Intel Conveyed Threats To Dell....................................................304. Intel Repeatedly Renegotiates Its Payments ToDell To Ensure “Monogamy”.......................................................305. The “Boomerang” Episode...........................................................316. The “MAID” Episode And The “New PartnershipArrangement” Between Intel And Dell........................................33
ii7. Intel Pays Dell Not To Launch AMD-Based Servers...................348. Dell’s Quarterly Profit Margins Depended OnIntel’s Payments............................................................................369. Intel Again Increases Payments To Stop Dell FromLaunching AMD-Based Products.................................................3710. Illegal Bid Buckets........................................................................4011. The Pressure Builds, Leading To Even Greater IntelPayments To Dell..........................................................................4312. Dell Finally Launches AMD-Based Products..............................45D. INTEL’S EXCLUSIONARY ACTS – HEWLETT-PACKARD.............481. HP Plans To Purchase CPUs For CommercialDesktops From AMD....................................................................482. HP’s Fear Of Intel’s Retaliation...................................................503. Intel’s Reaction.............................................................................514. HP Agrees To Cap Its Sales Of AMD Products...........................525. HP’s Desire To Use AMD Products Is LimitedBy Additional Intel Threats..........................................................556. Intel Punishes And Threatens HP ForLaunching AMD-Based Servers...................................................577. HP’s 2006 Company-Wide Agreement with Intel........................61E. INTEL’S EXCLUSIONARY ACTS – IBM.............................................631. IBM Considers Launching AMD Servers....................................632. IBM’s e325...................................................................................643. IBM’s Agreement Not to Launch a 4-wayOpteron Server in 2004.................................................................684. IBM’s Launch of Opteron Blade LS20.........................................70V. ASSIGNMENT OF DIRECT CLAIMS TO THESTATE OF NEW YORK......................................................................................75
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
