As the AMD sued Intel case continues, here is an update to the antitrust lawsuit.

AMD has won a motion to serve document preservation subpoenas against computer makers, retailers, distributors and small system builders almost immediately after filing the motion Friday, July 1, 2005, as part of its claim that Intel is violating the antitrust law and put pressure on their vendors to use its x86 processors rather than AMD’s. In other words, AMD is granted to right to view third party’s documents, including their vendors’ communication logs and documents.

It is no doubt, the use of such documentary evidence is expected to play a key role as AMD attempts to prove its antitrust suit in the District Court of Delaware.

Quoted:
The motion sought a judicial order permitting AMD to “preserve relevant evidence that is in the possession of specified third-parties.” The company said its lawyers will now “engage in discussions with 30 third-parties in an effort to implement the order so as to preserve evidence while imposing on them as little an administrative burden as possible.”

Besides the support of documentary evidence, AMD is likely to call senior executives from some of the companies named in its 48-page complaint that alleges coercion and illegal tactics.

For instance the document cites supportive comments from Michael Capellas, who was chief executive of Compaq at the time the allegations were said to be taking place and who is now CEO of telecoms operators MCI. Atleast, someone has stood up and voices out something. :)

Quoted:
It says: “Capellas disclosed that because of the volume of business he had given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of server chips that Compaq desperately needed.” Reporting that ‘he had a gun to his head‘, Capellas informed a senior executive at AMD that he had to stop buying AMD processors.

HmmMm…. as I’ve said, big company doesn’t simply file a lawsuit to another big company like in this case. There must be some kind of solid evidence in the hand of AMD, otherwise they won’t simply do so. Perhaps, the situation will be more clearer over time, when more and more documentary evidence and supportive comments have been gathered.