Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

AMD's battle with Intel to go West?

Filed under
Legal

AMD vs Intel AMD's legal action against Intel in the US District Court of Delaware could up stumps and move to the US District of Northern California, if plaintiffs already engaged in proceedings against Intel have their way, court documents seen by The Register reveal.

The Delaware Court was this week notified that two Northern California plaintiffs, Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes, have requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) order the transfer of four cases coming up before the Delaware Court to be transferred to Northern California and consolidate them and ten anti-Intel class actions already taking place there.

Among those four Delaware cases is AMD vs Intel and Intel KK - the latter is Intel's Japanese subsidiary. The others are all cases filed on 6 and 8 July 2005.

The ten Northern California were all filed after AMD's 27 June 2005 complaint, suggesting they, like the three extra Delaware cases, were filed in response to AMD's lead. The ten Northern California cases list "consumers who purchased Intel microprocessor computer chips" as plaintiffs - as do the three additional Delaware cases.

According to the JPML request, all the extra cases "arise out of the same or similar illegal antitrust conduct and allege substantially similar claims... [and] a common core of factual allegations, namely, that Intel illegally maintained its monopoly power in the relevant microprocessor market and/or engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in that market by fixing the prices and/or allocating markets for Intel chips solid in the United States and elsewhere, thus overcharging Original Equipment Manufacturer purchasers and consumers for prices paid for Intel chips during the relevant time period".

The request notes that none of the cases have heard responses from Intel, and that combining them would save considerable court time and costs. Why move to Northern California rather than Delaware? Because that Court has the majority of cases already.

No date was given for a decision on the motion to transfer. The JPML meets every two months. Its next convention takes place next week, on 28 July, where it will consider a host of motions to transfer, but not MDL-1707, the request concerning the AMD case and others. That means the request will not be heard until late September at the earliest, by which time Intel should have filed its response to AMD's complaint.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more