Histroy of AMD

In September 2005, Intel filed its response to an AMD lawsuit,^[49] disputing AMD's claims, and stating that its business practices are fair and lawful. In its rebuttal, Intel laid out the skeleton of its legal defense, which included a deconstruction of AMD's offensive strategy and levied the charge that AMD's long-struggling market position is largely a result of bad business decisions and management incompetence, including underinvestment in essential manufacturing capacity and over-reliance on contracting out chip foundries.^[50]

Legal experts predict the lawsuit will most likely drag out for a number of years, since Intel's response indicates they are not likely to try to settle with AMD.^[51][52]

In October 2006, a Transmeta lawsuit was filed against Intel for patent infringement covering computer architecture and power efficiency technologies.^[53] In October 2007, the Transmeta-Intel lawsuit was settled, with Intel agreeing to pay an initial US$150 million and US$20 million per year for the next 5 years. Both companies agreed to drop lawsuits against each other while Intel was granted a perpetual non-exclusive license to use current and future patented Transmeta technologies in its chips for 10 years.^[54]

Anti-competitive allegations by regulatory bodies

In July 2007, the European Commission formally accused Intel of anti-competitive practices, mostly against its main competitor AMD.^[55] The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers getting most or all CPU chips from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips and providing CPU chips at below cost to governments and educational institutions.^[56] Intel responded that the allegations were unfounded and instead qualified its market behavior as consumer-friendly.^[57] General counsel Bruce Sewell also responded that the Commission had misunderstood some factual assumptions concerning price and manufacturing costs.^[58]

In February 2008, a spokesman for the company announced that Intel's office in Munich had been "raided" by European Union competition regulators investigating its business practices. Intel reported that it was cooperating with investigators.^[59]

If found guilty of stifling competition, Intel could be fined up to 10% of its annual revenue.^[57] Rival AMD also subsequently launched a website focusing on these allegations.^[60][61]

In September 2007, South Korean regulators formally accused Intel of breaking antitrust law. The inquiry began in February 2006 when officials raided Intel's South Korean offices. If found guilty, the company risks being fined up to 3% of its annual sales.