AMD v. Intel belongs in court

Infoworld’s AMD v. Intel telephone tip line and e-mail drop box are bearing fruit. I’m glad of that, and doubly glad that those calling and writing with information are for the most part levelheaded and are giving me leads for investigating both sides of the story. I’m even getting more tips than I dreamed possible from people willing to go on the record.

Free IT resource Virtualization Insights from Top Experts - Learn how virtualization gets real! Sponsored by Dell Free IT resource Try Sun servers, workstations and storage products free for 60-days. Sponsored by Sun Microsystems

A reader sent me e-mail about my mission to protect the market, asking, “Isn’t this a bit premature?” An excellent question. I appreciate being prodded to soul-search on this. Exactly what is it about AMD v. Intel that so rapidly turned me into a zealous champion of the free market?

I’ve always been passionate about maintaining the fragile ecosystem of the high-tech market, but up to this point, when I’ve seen the market’s natural balance threatened or the system being played, there’s been nothing I could do about it. I could add my blog to the thousands of sites championing some worthy cause, or I could send a check to the Electronic Freedom Foundation. That kind of participation is needed, but it is truly the least I can do. For me, sedentary activism is passing the buck. I’m not wired that way.

Having my AMD cover story from November 2004 quoted in AMD’s complaint is, by itself, the most trivial of reasons to get involved in AMD v. Intel. The honor done me is not being quoted in its complaint, but that AMD, without intent in that regard (I had no advance notice), sucked me into an irresistible case that focuses so many of my beliefs and passions onto one target. Let’s be clear: My target is not Intel. My objective is to keep the tech market protected while it shifts to the next stage, where high-performance computing technology is the commodity baseline. I see that the technology is ready and consumers, including IT, are ready, but something’s holding it up.

Ecologists’ suspicions are raised when frogs start growing third eyes. Mine are raised when computing’s predictable evolutionary path starts forming sinkholes. It has happened before. I’ll lay out the history in upcoming columns and blogs for those who weren’t there or weren’t tuned in at the time. Just keep in mind that throttling the pace of technological advancement is itself an insidious form of market control.

Do I want to see AMD win its case? If Intel is proved to have crossed defined legal boundaries, the answer is yes. It must win. But the proving comes first.

My certainty that this case needs to be tried and given the weight it deserves is not the same thing as being sure that Intel broke the law. AMD’s complaint doesn’t decide the case for me. (I know full well I’m a journalist, not a jurist, but I still want facts to act on and pass on to you.)

I’m focused on learning all I can about AMD v. Intel by bypassing Google, online forums, and missives from Intel bashers and instead talking directly to people who know how Intel conducts itself. For me, knowledge keeps the fire stoked. I’m in no rush to judgment. I’m simply in a rush to receive facts.

If you have firsthand knowledge to share but trepidation has your tongue, know that gutsy souls with just as much to lose have gone before you — on the record.

For those who did go before, allow me to extend my gratitude.