In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) filed a complaint in the United States District Court alleging that Intel and Intel’s Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, punitive damages, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Subsequently, AMD’s Japanese subsidiary also filed suits in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against Intel’s Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan’s Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately $55 million, plus various other costs and fees.

In April, Intel notified the Japan Fair Trade Commission that it would accept the Recommendation and cease and desist order. The Recommendation is a remedy for factual and legal allegations concerning Intel’s business practices. However, Intel did not accept the underlying facts asserted or the application of law in the Recommendation because they misinterpret important aspects of our business practices and fail to take into account the competitive environment in which we do business.

We believe that the Recommendation’s cease and desist provisions provide a workable framework that enables us to continue to provide competitive pricing to our customers that benefits consumers and the Japanese economy. To continue to serve our customers with the best products and services, and to avoid putting our customers, our employees and the company through the inconvenience of a lengthy administrative and legal process, we believe that this was the best course of action.

Additionally, at least 68 separate class actions, generally repeating AMD’s allegations and asserting various consumer injuries, have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California and the District of Delaware, as well as in various California and Tennessee state courts.

In September, Intel filed its initial and formal response to AMD’s complaint, helping frame the issues that will be litigated in the case. In the response, Intel refuted AMD’s allegations and pointed out that Intel’s business practices are both fair and lawful.

The European Commission has been conducting a preliminary inquiry into Intel’s business practices since 2001. Consistent with our normal practice, we have been cooperating with various requests for information. By the end of 2005, no action had been taken.

In June, the Korea Fair Trade Commission sent a letter of inquiry asking questions about Intel’s sales practices. The company is cooperating with Korean authorities.