????2004年到2009年之間，常年處于競爭下風的超威半導體公司（AMD）在全球范圍內對它又羨又恨的、幾乎壟斷了整個市場的競爭對手英特爾公司（Intel）發動了大規模的反壟斷訴訟。AMD在遞交給仲裁機構和法院的意見書中指控英特爾為維持其在x86處理器市場上的壓倒性市場份額不惜采取違法手段。x86處理器是用來運行大多數個人電腦的“大腦”。這場大膽的、歷史性的官司是在AMD前CEO魯毅智的領導下啟動的。曾在2002年至2008年間擔任AMD首席執行官魯毅智是個不太招人喜歡的人。他今年67歲，上個月剛剛出版了一本書，名叫《彈弓之戰：AMD打破英特爾市場統治的戰爭》，書中就談到了這段經歷。

????從法律上講，AMD這次訴訟戰的戰果不容質疑。審查了各項證據后，至少有代表大約30個國家的6個政府性監管機構同意了AMD的主張。他們認為，在2001年至2007年間，由于AMD推出的一些產品被廣泛認為在技術上要比英特爾的產品先進——尤其是用于企業服務器的皓龍（Opteron）處理器，因而英特爾公司在此期間涉嫌采取了一系列不正當做法，以保持其80%至85%的市場份額。這些監管機構發現，英特爾采用了向電腦廠商付錢等手段，迫使這些廠商在產品中完全棄用AMD芯片，或是限制他們只在某些小業務或死氣沉沉的業務里使用AMD芯片。據說英特爾向戴爾（Dell）、IBM、富士通（Fujitsu）、三星（Samsung）、三寶電腦（Sambo Computer）和歐洲最大的電腦零售連鎖機構“萬得城”（Media Markt）都付過錢。（受此事牽連，后來美國證監會決定對戴爾進行處罰，理由是戴爾誤導了投資者，沒有告訴他們戴爾之所以連續20個季度的業績都達到了預期，唯一的原因就是英特爾為了讓它不使用AMD的芯片而付給它60億美元的資金。戴爾最終不得不掏出1億美元罰款與美國證監會達成和解。）

????英特爾和戴爾始終不承認自己有任何違法行為。不過英特爾還是簽了好幾份和解協議，而且還繳納了不少罰款，其中包括付給歐盟委員會的14.5億美元（這是歐盟委員會歷史上收到的最大一筆罰款），以及為了和解AMD的民事訴訟而繳納的12.5億美元，還有15億美元的調解費給了芯片制造商英偉達（Nvidia），該公司自稱也是壟斷行為的受害者。

????同時，AMD訴訟戰的商業影響卻極為有限，其他企業高管、分析師和商學院教授也同樣沒有從此案中得到什么清晰的教訓。市場環境從來不會等到一場反壟斷官司分出勝負后再繼續發展，對于此案更是如此。等到英特爾和AMD最終分出了勝負，智能手機和平板電腦革命早已風生水起，而且很大程度上將這兩家公司晾在了一旁，令它們的市場份額都出現了一定程度的縮水。

????時至今日，這場訴訟已經結束快四年了，英特爾仍然控制著x86芯片市場80%到85%的份額。魯毅智于2008年離開了AMD，他承認2009年英特爾付給AMD的“區區”12.5億美元的現金調解費（另外還有其它補償）令他感到失望。不過他從2010年8月美國聯邦貿易委員會與英特爾的和解協議里找到了更多為自己辯護的證據。對于AMD指控英特爾過去實施過的種種不當做法，該協議勒令英特爾將來不許再犯。

????From 2004 to 2009, Advanced Micro Devices, the perpetual underdog semiconductor manufacturer,launched worldwide antitrust litigation against its much admired, much feared, near monopolist competitor, Intel. In submissions to competition authorities and courts, AMD charged that Intel was breaking the law to preserve its dominant market share for so-called x86 microprocessors, the brains that run most personal computers. This audacious, historic assault was led by an incongruously unprepossessing man, Hector Ruiz, who served as AMD's (AMD) CEO from 2002 to 2008. Last month Ruiz, 67, published a book about the experience, called Slingshot: AMD's Fight to Free an Industry From the Ruthless Grip of Intel.

????Legally, the outcome of AMD's assault was as decisive as these things get. After examining the evidence, at least six government regulatory bodies, representing some 30 nations, agreed with AMD. From about 2001 to 2007, they concluded, Intel (INTC) had engaged in a wide range of abusive practices to preserve its 80% to 85% market share during a period when AMD's product offerings -- especially its Opteron chip for enterprise servers -- were widely seen as technically superior to Intel's. Intel was paying computer makers to abjure AMD chips entirely or to constrict their usage to tiny, backwater portions of their business, the regulators found. Intel allegedly made such payments to Dell (DELL), IBM (IBM), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Lenovo, Acer, NEC, Toshiba, Sony (SNE), Hitachi, Fujitsu, Samsung, Sambo Computer, and Europe's largest computer retailing chain, Media Markt. (Wounded in the collateral damage, computer maker Dell eventually also had to cough up $100 million to settle charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleged that Dell misled its shareholders by failing to tell them that the only reason Dell was able to meet its quarterly numbers for 20 consecutive quarters was the $6 billion in funds Intel was paying it to not use AMD chips.)

????Intel never admitted any wrongdoing of any kind. Nor did Dell. Intel did, however, sign multiple consent decrees, and it paid some hefty speeding tickets, including $1.45 billion to the European Commission (the largest fine that body has ever imposed); $1.25 billion to settle AMD's civil suit; and $1.5 billion to settle litigation with graphics chip maker Nvidia (NVDA), another alleged victim of anticompetitive conduct.

????At the same time, the business impact of AMD's litigation is extremely murky, as are the lessons that should be drawn from it by other C-suite officials, analysts, and business school professors. The market environment never holds still while an antitrust suit plays out, and that was especially true in this case. While Intel and AMD slugged it out, the smartphone and tablet revolution took place largely without them, diminishing the stature of both companies.

????Today, almost four years after the litigation ended, Intel still controls about 80% to 85% of the x86 chip market. Ruiz, who left AMD in 2008, admits disappointment with the "paltry" $1.25 billion in cash (plus other consideration) that the company finally received from Intel in November 2009. He finds more vindication, though, in the consent decree the U.S. Federal Trade Commission wrangled from Intel in August 2010, which banned Intel prospectively from engaging in the abusive practices which AMD claims it resorted to in the past.