RSSAMD Curious About Reported $10M Intel 'Discovery Management Program'
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 11, 2007, 5:33 PM
Yesterday, attorneys for AMD suggested a timetable under which Intel could turn over information to the court in their ongoing antitrust trial, explaining who was delegated to preserve which documents, and perhaps shedding light on how several were - even if temporarily - lost.
In a suggested ruling for Judge Joseph A. Farnan, AMD suggested that Intel have until April 27 - just over two weeks from now - to provide the court with 46 specifically listed items falling under 31 categories. Included in this list is a request for an explanation of a citation in a Bloomberg News report last month, where Intel general counsel D. Bruce Sewell told a gathering of attorneys at the Argyle Executive Forum in New York that one Intel IT manager may have been solely responsible for the misplacement of e-mails from 151 Intel employees, including its most senior executives.
Sewell was reportedly describing the problem by way of an illustration for his colleagues: specifically, that a company can spend $10 million on a "discovery management program," only to have all those efforts go up in smoke on account of one IT manager failing to notice an Excel spreadsheet listing employees, had a "Sheet2" tab on the bottom. Apparently this was the first AMD had heard of such a program.
Bloomberg quoted Sewell as having told the gathering the following: "We've got a $10 million discovery-management program, and yet that human interface can often be overlooked...Talk to your IT department."
All parties in the lawsuit require this documentation not only to determine how material that may have been relevant to the case was lost, but also to ascertain whether some of it may yet be recoverable. Intel and AMD had agreed in advance on a procedure under which IT managers designated by both sides could select certain Intel employees to provide e-mails deemed most likely to be relevant to the case. Even in the information age, it would be a likely impossibility to force Intel to instead back up every e-mail sent by anyone in the company's authority over a multi-year span of time.
If Intel can explain how and where the chain of authority broke down, the Special Master handling discovery matters, Judge Vincent Poppiti, may be able to independently evaluate the relevant value of the data that was lost, which is now important in ascertaining the legal value of the data that wasn't lost.
After the information is turned over, AMD requests that Intel's legal counsel be formally deposed on the matter of document preservation issues. If Sewell's comments were meant to be a specific example rather than a general illustration, it would suggest that somewhere, a more complex audit trail may exist than was previously believed. It could also suggest that Intel paid too much for its spreadsheet.
Thank you so much for providing this.
Get iphone
Score: -1
|BetaNews needs to add a "report" link so we can inform them when there is spam such as the post above. Good thing is I don't see too many spammers here yet.
Score: 0
|I agree. I see it at least once or twice a day on here now.
Score: 0
|Please stop spamming this site.
Get lost.
Score: 0
|Whatever.
I just can't help but wonder what AMD could do if they spent this much effort in organizing their own house and moving forward with the development of more compelling products rather than resorting to the lawsuits and simply complaining in press releases and commercials - as if THAT sways consumers!
Score: 0
|They already are, you just have to wait and see.
I do not believe the reporting on this is meant to sway any end-users or consumers, rather it is meant for those interested, which you appear not to be and so should appropriately not even attempt to read such reports.
Score: 0
|You must be new as foxfyre always gives us his knowledgeable insight on matters that in no way affect him and he always uses exclamation points no matter what the issue is on.
He's very passionate about the industry and mocking people with his superior intellect that he flaunts all over this forum.
Foxfyre, you did imply that this was meant to sway customers, granted it may not have been deliberate but its still there.
"I just can't help but wonder what AMD could do if they spent this much effort in organizing their own house and moving forward with the development of more compelling products rather than resorting to the lawsuits and simply complaining in press releases and commercials - as if THAT sways consumers"
Score: 0
|We will ALL have to wait and see as they announce much lower than expected earnings! And those issues are slightly larger than any other issues of which you might want to pay rapt attention.
And genius, this article is not intended to sway consumers, but AMD's spending in pursuing these matters, as well as spending their efforts to dispute the methodology of determining performance standards does NOT sway consumers!
If they are so certain that the reviews and metrics are biased, maybe they should run adds with 2 certifiably equivalent machines and run asks concurrently and let folks see the difference!?
But maybe when you can learn to read for meaning, you will discover that not only was this article was not intended to sway consumers (nor did I ever think it was!), but that AMD's other efforts and money have been wasted attempting to debate abstractions that do not matter to the average consumer.
But you evidently are not smart enough to know this.
Here, now go read this: http://www.betanews.com/...ower_Revenue/1176242913
And poor ebonics boy, who gives a sh!t about your IM speak conventions. Especially as basic English punctuation confounds you.
Score: 0
|Foxfyre still does not realize the true reason for this legal battle. It is not only to find something that can hold intel accountable for its past actions, but also to continuously keep a legal check on intel and make them super cautious before they even think of using unfair means to hurt AMD or any other competitor. Intel is a classic example of a MONOPOLY, there is no denying that fact. Would you honestly think that AMD got its success with the opteron only due to its technical advantage over the xeons? one would be naive to assume that. AMD had to make sure that Intel did not come down with a heavy hand to crush this beautiful product that is truly good in its own way. I know how protective I'd have to be of a creation of mine if I had a merciless adversary like Intel. Hence the legal front. If you think AMD is going to benefit itself by not spending on its legal department, you are more imbecile than I thought, because the fact of the matter is the exact opposite. Without the continuous legal pressure and the eye of the justice department over Intel, no kind of super product from AMD would be sufficient to keep Intel from crushing it. That's my 2 cents on this report.
Score: 0
|Newsflash:THIS IS A FORUM NOT ENGLISH CLASS.
You never start a sentence with And so talk about YOUR BASIC English skills. (only saying really since you had to putdown someone else for their misuse.) Personally, I don't care as I am not being graded but if you are going to go insulting people because they can't spell or use incorrect punctuation you should check yours first.
Score: 0
|"Intel is a classic example of a MONOPOLY, there is no denying that fact."
Nope. Not even close.
It is an oligopoly that may be considered a duopoly.
"A true duopoly is a form of oligopoly where only two producers exist in a market. In reality, this definition is generally eased whereby two firms must only have dominant control over a market."
Score: 0
|Hey Ebonics boy, YOU are the one who has your panties in a wad all because I used an exclamation point!
The comment was an addendum aimed at YOU, not him! And what in hell is this "You never start a sentence with And so talk about YOUR BASIC English skills. (only saying really since you had to putdown someone else for their misuse.)"
What drug are you on?
Shove your IM speak. YOU are the one whining about punctuation! If you can't take the reply, don't bring it up dimwit.
Score: 0
|"Foxfyre, you did imply that this was meant to sway customers, granted it may not have been deliberate but its still there."
BS! I was refering to AMDs campaign to discredit the metrics used in evaluating both CPU performance and power usage by Intel! And lawsuits against others do not sell their own products either!
AMD's efforts would be better served by pushing the strengths of their own products, and if the metrics are indeed flawed, demonstrate their products superiority in head to head tests!
Whining about Intel being unfair in their claims does not help AMD's case. It simply reinforces the image of a company making excuses.
So tell me what I meant. You haven't a clue what you are talking about, let alone anyone else.
Score: 0
|Just to nit-pick, but technicaly...
Intel Makes Chips.
AMD Makes Chips.
IBM Makes Chips.
SUN Makes Chips.
and a couple smaller companies.
So I wouldn't say it's a duopoly. oligopoly true, but wouldn't go as far as duopoly.
True enough in the x86 market.
Score: 0
|Thank you, you proved my point
Score: 0
|And if you comb your hair just right, no one will notice it.
Score: 0
|"So I wouldn't say it's a duopoly. oligopoly true, but wouldn't go as far as duopoly.
True enough in the x86 market."
Just to nitpick...
So, within the frame of reference with which we were focused, it is an duopoly. And anything BUT a monopoly as originally claimed.
;-))
Score: 0
|John Kerry has a message for you. You better punctuate and phrase your posts properly or you will get stuck in Iraq.
I also agree with catalystgod's summation on the matter.
Score: 0
|