Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.025838.22553@amd.com>
Date: 17 Oct 90 02:58:38 GMT
References: <1990Oct11.214112.1392@mozart.amd.com>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 61

First of all, a disclaimer:

I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE COMPANY, BUT MERELY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Well, I've been trying to restrain myself, but what the
heck, here goes (all quotes from Judge Phelps (retired)):

"...Intel's attitude caused Intel to act unworthily, in a
manner entirely unbecoming to a company which occupies a
position of the first magnitude in the industry: It permitted
Intel to allow itself to decide internally to ditch the
relationship with AMD and, at the same time, to pretend
externally to AMD that the relationship still existed, to
hold out a carrot for AMD - not for the purpose of extending
or nurturing the relationship, but for the self-serving purpose
of keeping AMD in the Intel 'camp', of keeping AMD away from some
sort of a partnership with another company - say NEC or Fujitsu -
where AMD's talents might be used in effective competition
against Intel."

"This action is a classic example of a breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, preaching good faith but
practicing duplicity."

"AMD refused to give in to what it correctly perceived to be
extortion on the part of Intel..."

"Suffice it to say that Intel's conduct in this regard
was inexcusable"

"I note the enigma at Intel: On the one hand it didn't want
AMD to go to another competitor because AMD would, with its
talents, damage Intel; on the other hand, Intel thought AMD
had no talents which merited a continuation of the
relationship. If it had no product for Intel, why would it
have product for any other competitor?"

"Intel's failure to transfer the 8087 as required by the
Contract was a knowing, deliberate and unjustified breach
of contract ordered or approved by the most senior officials
at Intel."

"Intel's conduct in this regard (failure to transmit the 80286
E sStep) was inexcusable and unworthy of a company whose
announced standards (announced and acknowledged) in respect
of responsibility and good faith are as high as those of Intel."

"The Arbitrator may award money damages in a relief module for
two reasons: First, the contractual limitation on money damages
has not survived termination of the Contract, and, second, even
if it has those limitations are against public policy and void."

"Intel may not profit from its own wrong. It may not breach a
contract and then escape without compensating AMD for whatever
damages flowed from the breach according to AMD's proof. Neither
law nor equity can countenance such a result and the Arbitrator
has the jurisdiction to prevent it."


--
The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.