State of New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Intel. The suit charges that Intel “violated state and federal anti-monopoly laws by engaging in a worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct” in order to monopolize the processor market, and that they have the emails to prove it.
Hmmm… The EU is suing Intel; Asia is suing Intel; AMD is suing Intel. Any particular reason for the State of New York to jump atop the dogpile? (Besides the press coverage, that is.) Probably not. The state doesn’t have any special standing, nor any particular damage to claim. Maybe it puts them in line for some settlement money. It also might prod the US Attorney General to take another look into the matter – a complainant with unlimited resources who could drag Intel through legal procedures for years.
Being sued, and pouring money into lawyers’ pockets, is never a good thing. But this won’t impact Intel on the technology front at all.
They’ll still be pumping out chips at the same pace. It might affect the marketing side of the business; they may have to rein in some of their most aggressive practices. But none of the suits are a surprise to Intel, and surely they’ve been receiving legal advice on everything from marketing programs to font choice on data sheets. That’s the insidious cost of these battles – the amount of time (and money) that is spent making sure that every possible legal review has been passed before taking even the most minor action. I’ve read quite a bit about how various federal actions against IBM, including the decade long (1969-81) federal antitrust suit, affected the company and caused a sort of paralysis that lingered for years afterwards. These actions aren’t fun for anyone… wait a minute… that actually isn’t true: the lawyers have fun and make big bank on these cases, and aspiring federal or state prosecutors can use them as a springboard to bigger and better things.
It’s going to be hard to prove or quantify consumer or business damages. Both Intel and AMD have been keeping price/performance on a Moore’s Law curve for the entire period covered by these suits, so it’s hard to make the case that innovation was stifled. It’s also hard to argue that if Intel had behaved differently, chip prices would now be lower. Plus, AMD was able to sell their chips during this period. Their technical advances gave them as much as 25% of the server market at one point, and some of the time they were sold out. But then Intel mounted a furious comeback that has given them the technical high ground.
What bothers us is that if there were some anti-competitive actions on Intel’s part, and New York or the EU anyone else is successful in suing Intel, the real aggrieved party – AMD – won’t be compensated. The fines, if any, will go to bureaucrats, who will – as bureaucrats do – fritter it away. If Intel did step over the line between fair and unfair competition….or if they staged an entire River Dance on the wrong side of that line, then AMD is the party that should be made whole.