AMD and Intel Accuse Each Other of Inability to Retain Evidences

AMD and Intel File Sanction Motions Against Each Other

by Anton Shilov
10/15/2009 | 11:52 AM

UPDATE 1: Adding comments from AMD.
UPDATE 2: Changing headline, re-shuffling text, adding corrections.


Intel Corp. this week said that it had filed sanction motion against Advanced Micro Devices in the pending antitrust legal conflict between the two companies. Intel accuses AMD of inability to keep documents that are crucial in the antitrust case. AMD also accused Intel of not being able to keep and/or present crucial evidences during the process.

“It is clear that AMD did not and that some AMD executives and employees failed to retain thousands of documents and emails,” an official statement by Intel reads.

Intel has filed a motion in Delaware seeking sanctions against AMD in the pending antitrust case. Intel asserts AMD failed to adequately retain documents in the case it filed against Intel in June of 2005. Intel also asserts that AMD misrepresented its efforts and tried to hide its failures from the Court and Intel. AMD claimed to have an "exemplary" scheme to retain documents in this case.

In March of 2007 Intel disclosed to AMD and the Court that it had experienced lapses in document retention in this case. Following that disclosure Intel embarked on a court approved plan to remediate or correct the mistakes made in the discovery process. This effort, Intel said, has cost the company tens of millions of dollars and Intel believes it has complied with the plan and successfully corrected the problem consistent with approved plan. As a result Intel delivered nearly two hundred million pages of documents to AMD.

According to Intel, during this process AMD has consistently asserted that Intel was negligent in its actions and that their case was somehow harmed by this issue. Meanwhile from the outset AMD has claimed that they had instituted an "exemplary" scheme for document retention and that any problems they had were "innocent and innocuous" and any data losses were “inconsequential”.

“There is now evidence that appears to show that AMD's "exemplary" scheme to retain documents was not even close,” said Intel.

Intel said it had discovered a number of problems with AMD process, including certain executives and employees at AMD that failed to retain documents and emails. According to the world’s largest chipmaker, AMD failed to begin retaining documents when it reasonably anticipated the litigation, something that is required by law.

“AMD engaged in a secret scheme to selectively restore documents from backup tapes to analyze the scope of their retention failures, all the while denying to Intel and the Court that it was doing so or that there ever was a problem,” concluded Intel.

AMD does not admit any wrongdoing and claims that Intel, in fact, preserved evidences. According to AMD, Intel admitted to the Court back in 2007 that it had massive evidence preservation issues.

“We are confident that the court will affirm our position on Intel’s failure to preserve evidence, and see Intel’s defensive motion as a meritless distraction tactic,” said Michael Silverman, a spokesperson for AMD.