Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Re: Playing hard is always mistaken by the loser as not playing fair.
So, if AMD were to pay off the local power company to cut off electricity to Intel's FABs that's OK in your book?
Would Intel be "whining" if it called foul after AMD got the mob to hijack half Intel's chip shipments and dump them in the ocean?
How about if AMD were to hack into Intel's banks and siphon off their funds?
We have laws in the this country that govern competition - Maybe you'd prefer the way things run in some of the more tragic part of the Sudan where they've decided to go with rule of might rather than rule of law.
Re: Intel? I think you're being extreme. They'll end up paying big damages, and be forced to operate transparently for years, but I think they'll survive
Don't be so sure about that. It's the secondary lawsuits that do you in.
Look at John Manville, Corning, the Tobacco companies....
Once you lose that one big one the little cases start springing up like piranhas and the company gets stripped to bankruptcy surprisingly quickly.
Boy, when even the famously pro-Intel Olga Kharif starts writing articles like that, you know Intel is in trouble.
Olga's reading last year was that Intel's P4 and Xeon was enabling it to win the desktop and server CPU wars (the P4, of course, has been such a failure that the entire family is now being discontinued). And AMDs' "older techniques" included SOI and dual strained silicon, which produces more efficient chips than Intel's simple 300mm process and has let AMD rip nearly a third of the market for high end (4-way and above) server away from Intel since Olga provided her anaylsis:
The penalty it pays for using older chipmaking techniques is striking. AMD plans to move from 200 millimeter-diameter wafers -- silicon plates from which chips are stamped -- to 300-mm plates in mid- to late 2005, a transition that Intel is making right now. Such a shift allows for more chips to be made from every wafer, at cost savings of up to 30%. Similarly, AMD trails Intel in moving to making smaller chips, and the smaller the chip, the more that can be stamped out of every wafer.
Intel is also about to introduce new processors that will prove tough competitors to the Athlon. In the fourth quarter, it will release the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, a chip for PC gamers that will go head-to-head with AMD's new Athlon 64FX. Also in the fourth quarter, Intel will start shipping its latest Pentium for normal PC use, called Prescott. Next year, analysts expect Intel to crank up Prescott to a clock speed of 4 gigahertz (vs. 3.2 Ghz for the fastest chip today).
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc20031023_9828_tc055.htm
AMD's chips, particularly in the segments Olga called out, have been doing spectacularly well compared to Intel's.
Now even Olga writes that this time Intel could be in trouble:
Intel execs have been tied up in meetings on how to deal with the lawsuit. And if the fight drags out over 18 months or more, as AMD expects, it could further distract the chipmaking giant. Or it could force Intel sales execs to adopt a softer approach that might give AMD access to more markets -- and do so just as [AMD] ramps up production next year at a giant new chip-fabrication plant in Dresden, Germany, which is expected to cost $2.4 billion.
Re: What would you say to the argument that Intel has every right to DEMAND that its motherboard maker ONLY do Intel's stuff. What if, in selecting and working with a motherboard maker, Intel has to explain patented techniques and train employees of the motherboard manufacturer in proprietary production procedures, necessary to receive Intel CPU's.
Absent the existence of a full blown monopoly run by a bunch of sociopathic criminals, Intel would be hoping to sell its chipset products to board makers, and grateful for whatever sales it could make.
You post about Intel "selecting" its chipset customers as though it were the commissariat of PC's in some stalinist economy.
What's the next step, once Intel has the motherboard makers knocked down, does Intel start "selecting" which electric utilities are allowed to sell power to companies using Intel PCs?
Gotta ensure that the power being delivered is of sufficient quality, after all. Wouldn't want any utilities not licensed by Intel to be supplying electricity, would we? That would be anarchy!
Re: ...how about a dual core cpu at 3.5 Ghz that burns only 15 watts...
Well, that's not really fair, having your cake and eating it too, or whatever.
What about the choice we'll be making sometime next year between a 15 watt 1.8ghz X2 and an 85 watt 3.4ghz X2?
Which would you prefer?
Re: hardware power has exceeded software needs
I think it's more accurate to say that commodity hardware price/performance has exceeded specialized hardware price/performance.
Re: Give specifics
Here you go:
Read the stories in order, then follow the link in the second one.
Where were you posting when these events occurred?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8571
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10475
The engineers at Intel are almost certainly a fine group of people but the company overall, particularly its upper management and marketing departments, are crooks and they're in the process of being caught. Unfortunately, the whole company and all of its employees will suffer the consequences.
On the other hand, the whole company and all of its employees have benefitted from the activities of the crooks in charge, so there's a certain fairness about the whole thing.
AMD has been collecting documentation for this case for years, waiting for enough evidence (it's a civel trial, so proof isn't necessary, AMD only has to show what Intel probably did) and the right time to file it.
Re: You are a liar. You're the one a talked about Intel's roadmap
You're a real piece of work. Go back through the posts. You offered up Intel's roadmap as the reason for Apple picking Intel - I'd never offer up any of Intel's roadmaps in a discussion, since they're completely re-written so often.
Re: i've seen just the opposite.
Bull. What "opposite." I've detailed specific examples of Intel behavior. People who have been following these companies for a long time know that I posted info here about the solectron extortion that was picked up by the Inquirere and later confirmed by a number of other sources.
I have actual contacts in the industry because I buy servers from vendors and I talk with them about the business.
Intel, or at lest their marketing operation, consists of a bunch of crooks committing crimes.
And now it turns out that AMD has had attorneys tracking and documenting Intel's illegal activites, much to Intel's surprise, for the past couple of years.
Intel is in a great deal of trouble.
Re: Either answer the questions or give it up.
I did answer the question. You made big noises about Intel's "roadmap", and I pointed out how meaningless that roadmap has been in the very recent past. Your only response is insults.
I think you're fully aware that Intel is presently in a very, very, bad situation. Intel's products have been failures for the past several years, but they've been able to use extortion and other criminal methods to keep selling their undesirable products at high prices.
AMD's lawsuit will limit their use of that crutch and Intel will be reduced to crawling along as best it can with only its uncompetitive products to keep its margins up.
Re: he saw the roadmaps and he made his choice
You mean the roadmap that showed 10ghz P4's in 2007?
Or the roadmaps that showed Itanium with more than 50% of the market in 2005?
Without a doubt, Intel's roadmaps are outstanding - it's just their CPUs that are mediocre...
Re: why did Steve Jobs choose Intel over AMD?
Well, if it's anything like the cluster competitions I've seen, Intel offered free chips plus free engineering support.
Re: And I must tell you that AMD's argument becomes much weaker if they can't establish a commercially superior product that is economically viable to the customer (and that includes all sorts of issues other than speed), whether that is a University or a VAR.
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, here. AMD has established a very viable commercial product in the form of Opteron, going from zero to between 1/4 and 1/3 of the 4-way and above market in barely a year.
On another point, it will be interesting to see what percentage of Itanium systems were sold, and what percentage were given away, either as full systems or as free chips for systems. It would be relevant to the case, and you would likely be shocked at the percentage of Itaniums that are sold vs. given away, so many years after Itanium's launch. I've been at least peripherally involved in several large $500 Million or more) cluster procurements and in every case Intel donated the CPUs for the Xeon or Itanium based systems being tendered towards the RFP.
Re: Intel's Black Shirt Squad (TM), has been working on mind control
Just keep your tin foil hat on, you'll be OK. Meanwhile for those of us who live in the real world....
It was really rather blatant. If I've heard some of the details of Intel's extortion as a small scale buyer of servers, I can only imagine what AMD has been able to collect during 4 years of active investigation.
Here's what Hector Ruiz told Business Week magazine 5 years ago: "Ruiz says he is 'shocked' by Intel's hardball tactics"
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_40/b3701114.htm
You don't think that someone who was this outspoken about the issue hasn't been keeping track of Intel's actions?
Dream on...
and keep in mind that, while you can offer whatever inducements you want to get someone to buy from you, it isn't OK to induce someone to not buy from a competitor, or not sell to a third party, monopoly or not. And it's a blatant criminal act to block someone else from selling to your competitor, which is what Intel did to solectron.
I personally think it's the extortion of solectron that will be the smoking gun in this case. Knowledge that Intel extorted solectron to not the ship the Opteron boards that AMD had co-designed with it was widespread in the industry and documentation of the events exists all over the place in the form of shipped samples and order commitments.
Re: advanced dynamic computer memory
You don't suppose it doesn't really support 64-bit, do you? That the chipset has to translate back to PAE page mode for more than 4GB?
Hopefully not - that would be pretty pathetic if it were the case.
Re: I expected more automated handling and scheduling of wafer movement
AMD pioneered the use of automated PODs for wafer transport at FAB 30 back in the late 90's, ahead of Intel. The initial concern was a combination of the need to isolate wafers to prevent dreaded "copper contamination" (which Intel kept claiming made the use of copper impossible) and to provide for 300mm wafers at FAB 30 (note that the transport system and some tools at FAB 30 have been 300mm ready since 1999). Check out page 18 http://www.susa-verlag.de/pdf/amd.pdf
Oh No !
Brace yourself for 14,872 posts from Phud and Wannabee about how AMD's FABs are held together with duct tape.
Re: The analysis by Pru assumed that discovery is the critical factor - I think that they have underestimated AMD's planning in this. I have little doubt that AMD has enough already. Overall the analysts treat this as tho' it just suddenly happened. I disagree: this has been simmering for years.
Given that Ruiz described himself as being "shocked" by Intel's behavior 5 years ago in an Interview with Business Week, I believe you are right and Pru's analyst blew it.
BUSINESSWEEK: OCTOBER 2, 2000
Ruiz says he is 'shocked' by Intel's hardball tactics, which 'border on unethical.' While he won't give details, he hints that Intel pressures its customers not to buy from AMD http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_40/b3701114.htm
Re: They've made gains with HyperTransport, Opteron, and x86-64, but none of those will last, and AMD has nothing else in its bag of tricks. I'm making this call because processor and system microarchitectures are maturing. All we've got left are multi-core and integration. Meanwhile, power and heat are now major obstacles that have to be balanced out along w/ manufacturability and the various vectors of performance. And even performance itself is becoming less relevant.
Let's look at your points:
1)They've made gains with HyperTransport
Yes they have, and AMD will continue to make gains due to it's Hypertransport advantage for a couple more years to come since Intel is taking so long to copy it.
2) AMD64
Intel has copied AMD's instruction set, though it took them 2 years to do it - now they can start trying to catch up in the market. There are a number of proven AMD64 platforms out there in their second and third generation. Intel's first attempt has had problems, particularly with dual core.
3) Heat and power
AMD's more advanced process (with SOI and dual strain) produces more efficient parts across the board. Intel does have a well developed mobile platform design that lets a 32-bit Intel chip keep up (in terms of power use, if not performance) with AMD's 64-bit parts, despite Intel's problematic process, but it's a design that will be looking very outdated by the end of the year.
Will Intel improve its parts and process? Of course!
Will Intel's parts 18 months from now be competitive with what AMD's shipping today? I expect they will.
But you claim AMD has nothing new once Intel catches up to where AMD was last year - Note that AMD has had working fin-fet prototypes for 4 years http://www-leti.cea.fr/commun/AR-2004/P/P1-01.pdf http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=331BHXIV2J41IQSNDBCSKHSCJUMEKJVN?artic... and will (as they were with copper, SOI, etc.) almost certainly beat Intel to fin-fet by 2 years or more. Fin-fet parts will let AMD deliver faster parts that use less power even than AMD's present dual strained SOI process.
AMD has a big lead on Intel right now, that lets AMD explore some high end technologies that Intel has to ignore while it concentrates on catching up. The big question is, how much further ahead will AMD have moved, a year from now, when Intel catches up to where AMD was 6 months ago?
Re: Baloney. AMD has always had notebooks SKU's for sale
That's flat out not true - at least, not in the way you're presenting it.
AMD has had a few skus in a very limited sub-segment of the notebook market.
What has happened in the past few weeks is that a great many (for AMD) new skus have been introduced and, much, much, more important, they are in segments other than entry level desktop replacement.
HP's new 5lb business notebook, MSI's 4 pound Turion, Acer's 4005 with high end graphics and hig res screen in a 6lb package - there are all new entries into segments in which there was no alternative to Intel's monopoly as recently as 1 month ago.
Re: UBS on "What if AMD beats" thesis.
It's possible to invest in Intel, risk free!
That's got to be one of the most biased statements on the lawsuit I've seen to date. Elmer's probably blushing about the blatancy of the bias. This guy thinks Intel's illegal behavior is great and "bolsters our belief that Intel is an aggressive tough competitor."
Consider his first point: The base assumptions underlying our thesis, which we review in more detail in a section below, include:
Intel's lead in notebooks widens with the upcoming Centrino/ Napa and Santa Rosa platforms to be released successively over the next 18 months.
The reality is that until recently, Intel had almost the entire notebook market - there was essentially no remaining share to gain. What has happened in the past few weeks is that several dozen very competitive new notebook models featuring AMD Turion and Mobile Sempron chips have been released - that will undoubtedly reduce Intel's notebook share, and more important, reduce Intel's margins on that reduced share. The reverse will happen at AMD. Intel's present notebook position is great, but by definition they have nowhere to go but down.
All I can say is, if you want to buy and hold Intel stock, use UBS as your broker, because if and when the AMD lawsuit wipes out Intel, you'll be able to get your money back from UBS - just bring a copy of this "analysis" along with a documentation for what you paid for your stock to the binding arbitration hearing - your every penny will be returned.
I can't believe UBS let this go out under their name.
Re: What If AMD Beats Our Current Market Share Projections?
I think Intel is holding this guy's kids in a basement somewhere.
I'll start with his first point: The base assumptions underlying our thesis, which we review in more detail in a section below, include:
Intel's lead in notebooks widens with the upcoming Centrino/ Napa and Santa Rosa platforms to be released successively over the next 18 months.
Until recently, Intel had almost the entire notebook market - there was no remaining share to gain. What has happened in the past few weeks is that several dozen very competitive new notebook models featuring AMD Turion and Mobile Sempron chips have been released - that will undoubtedly reduce Intel's notebook share, and more important, reduce Intel's margins on that reduced share. The reverse will happen at AMD. Intel's present notebook position is great, but by definition they have nowhere to go but down.
Here's another of his "points" : AMD's airing of alleged Intel business practices bolsters our belief that Intel is an aggressive tough competitor. AMD's objective in the complaint and the related anti-Intel marketing campaign is to vilify Intel and paint what may be aggressive marketing as "illegal".
That's got to be one of the most biased statements on the lawsuit I've seen to date. Elmer's probably blushing about the blatancy of the bias. This guy thinks Intel's illegal behavior is great and "bolsters our belief that Intel is an aggressive tough competitor."
All I can say is, if you want to buy and hold Intel stock, use UBS as your broker, because if and when the AMD lawsuit wipes out Intel, you'll be able to get your money back from UBS - just bring a copy of this "analysis" along with a documentation for what you paid for your stock to the binding arbitration hearing - your every penny will be returned.
I can't believe UBS let this go out under their name.
Re: why hasn't the governent gone after Intel.. if all of this is true
It did - 5 years ago - and has been operating under a consent decree ever since.
Which means they had constructive notice that they were a monoploy and that these behaviors were very much illegal....
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-222682.html?legacy=cnet
Re: if the suits had a strong case they would have pressed on
Really? How many antitrust cases have been "pressed on" in the past 5 years?
The Justice departement forced Intel to agree to a settlement - how many cases has Justice taken to trial for Anti-Trust in the past 5 years?
Re: AMD's case looks weak.
Not to me, and I've been an active participant with a number of contacts in this business for the past two decades.
I'm convinced that enough of these charges will be demonstrated to be likely true (all that's needed in a civil trial) that Intel will end up paying around $10 Billion in damages to AMD.
Re: I'm not asking for it to happen soon, but I am asking if anybody is willing to make a reasonable guess
February 7 of next year.
Re: things reach a level of absurdity that is just too much.
Given the recent hysteria of a lot of the posters with some affiliation with Intel, I suspect that the briefings, internally, at Intel are not optimistic about Intel's prospects in the upcoming trial.
The detailed nature of the charges, and the time span that they cover make it clear that AMD has been putting this together for a number of years, during which time Intel clearly thought it could do anything it wanted to because it never suspected that anyone was watching.
Re: You won't even stand behind this one
I like that post and very much "stand behind it."
Are you having a little bit of a reading comprehension issue here?
Note that the end of next year is the end of 2006 for a post written in 2005 - the end of next year is NOT the same as the end of THIS year, which is apparently how you interpreted that sentence.
Re: Statements like that, waste the thread's time.
Duke -
Intel was sued by the FTC for being an abusive monopolist.
The outcome was that Intel felt it had to settle and the details of the settlement were kept secret as part of the settlement.
Unless Intel had concurred that it had behaved as an abusive monopolist, it wouldn't have had to settle and it wouldn't have had to agree to a consent decree that stiplulated which abusive monopolistic behaviours Intel would refrain from going forward. Regardless, Intel has signed up with the FTC as an abusive monopolist, and that's going to be part of the background of the upcoming trial.
Given the scope of the charges in AMD's complaint, there's an excellent chance that one or more of the charges overlapped with the consent decree, but it isn't a certainty.
Which is what I posted.
My original post was logical and well reasoned.
You owe me an apology.
Re: But the tape still exists I take it !
..what's to stop them showing it NOW ?
Or did they sign a contract ?
Screw the video, what I'd like to see is that contract - as an exhibit in court!
Re: Is it possible these might be RAM chips for MCMs?
It's probably flash or chipsets. If you're using NOR flash like AMD's, you don't typically need to build your flash into an MCM with RAM.
Re: Intel gained their current market position through innovative engineering and smart management
LOL !!!
That was a joke, right?
Re: It's funny you should mention that
Yep, 2006 and AMD is right on schedule - my prescience is AMAZING, isn't it?
(though I did follow that with a smiley face - if you'd had much internet experience, you'd have understood what that meant.
Your second post is from Niceguy, not me. Any issues you have with what he posted should be taken up with him.
By the way, don't expect me to attribute other people's posts to you and then insist that you defend those posts, I know it's part of the Intel "dirty tricks" training, but I don't operate that way.
Re: That settlement had NOTHING to do with the current case
It gave Intel explicit notice that it was a monopoly, and had to behave so as not to abuse that monopoly.
In the settlement Intel agreed to limit certain behaviors when dealing with its customers, including punishing them through the withholding of information and other benefits.
Explicit violations of the last agreement could leave Intel in a situation where a judge monitored every aspect of their business for the next 20 years, as happened to IBM (which led to IBM allowing Intel to turn into what it is today).
Joe - post this to Elmer, who hides from my posts.
Intel has been operating under a settlement agreement with the FEDs since 1999, when Intel was investigated and found to have been operating illegally. Intel agreed to change their behavior, but it seems likely that they've violated that agreement (whatever that agreement was, the behavior listed in AMD's complaint probably violates some part of Intel's agreement). One of the secondary affects of this lawsuit will be that it stands a good chance of re-opening that previously closed case.
The commission sued Intel last June, alleging that the company was a monopolist that illegally threatened to stop dealing with customers unless they signed away valuable intellectual property rights. The commission sought an order that would have forbidden Intel from engaging in that practice.
Terms of the settlement remained confidential but FTC spokeswoman Victoria Streitfeld said it gives the government what they have been seeking all along. The FTC "sought out to establish a principle and the staff believes that the proposed settlement achieves that goal," Streitfeld said. Both sides indicated that the agreement resolved the case.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-222682.html?legacy=cnet
How much you want to bet that AMD doesn't make Intel's agreement to those terms some of the standards for allowable market behavior? Standards that Intel will be shown to have violated.
Clearly defined standards that Intel will have knowingly violated after having promised the justice department they would not engage in such behavior.
Re: Intel will be in a position to (legally) serve AMD exactly what it deserves. And I sincerely hope they do
Me too. That $10 Billion dollar check that Intel will be serving to AMD will be much appreciated and well deserved.
Re: AMD needs to prove Intel is a monopoly..
No, it doesn't. We've been over this several times.
why do you thing the Feds have not gone after Intel?
Intel has been operating under a settlement agreement with the FEDs since 1999, when Intel was investigated and found to have been operating illegally. Intel agreed to change their behavior, but it seems likely that they've violated that agreement (whatever that agreement was, the behavior listed in AMD's complaint probably violates some part of Intel's agreement). One of the secondary affects of this lawsuit will be that it stands a good chance of re-opening that previously closed case.
The commission sued Intel last June, alleging that the company was a monopolist that illegally threatened to stop dealing with customers unless they signed away valuable intellectual property rights. The commission sought an order that would have forbidden Intel from engaging in that practice.
Terms of the settlement remained confidential but FTC spokeswoman Victoria Streitfeld said it gives the government what they have been seeking all along. The FTC "sought out to establish a principle and the staff believes that the proposed settlement achieves that goal," Streitfeld said. Both sides indicated that the agreement resolved the case.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-222682.html?legacy=cnet
How much you want to bet that AMD doesn't make Intel's agreement to those terms some of the standards for allowable market behavior? Standards that Intel will be shown to have violated.
Clearly defined standards that Intel will have knowingly violated after having promised the justice department they would not engage in such behavior.
Between the new class action suits, the additional suits in Japan, the re-invigorated European investigation, and the fact that (as you reminded me) they've also almost certainly violated their consent decree, Intel is in a lot of trouble.
A lot of trouble on a lot of fronts.
Add in the fact that their current line up uses too much power, is woefully far behind in the workstation and server segments, and that their chief competitor is ramping up unprecedented capacity, and Intel has a lot to think about these days.
Re: But the facts are that you are basing all of this on AMDs side of the story. No evidence has been presented only accusations
There are a lot of well known facts regarding the behavior in the industry that we've all seen for the past decade, and particularly for the past 5 years that are pretty much inexplicable unless the actions listed in AMD's complaint are true.
I buy from several small VARs and have had the details of a few the things listed in AMD's complaint independently corroborated earlier in personal conversations.
By the way, here is an excerpt from an article on Ruiz in Business Week from 5 years ago:
He's getting his wish--and more. Ruiz says he is 'shocked' by Intel's hardball tactics, which 'border on unethical.' While he won't give details, he hints that Intel pressures its customers not to buy from AMD--and says he's grateful that the federal government keeps a close eye on the chip giant. Even so, Ruiz isn't looking for the feds to fight AMD's battles: He aims to beat Intel in the marketplace. Intel declined to comment for this article.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_40/b3701114.htm
My guess is that Ruiz gave them about a year to clean up their act and to see if Intel could actually be as "shocking" a bunch of criminals as they at first appeared - and then he had his attorneys, buyers, and industry contacts begin the 4 year effort of keeping notes, collecting documents, saving emails, and just generally building this case.
Given the obviousness of the case (there have been years of otherwise inexplicable actions like "plain white box" products vendors sold but wouldn't list on their web sites) and the time AMD has had to put it together, I think Intel is in a great deal of trouble.
Given the time frame and the nature of the case, I think it's save to assume that AMD and some of its customers have been basically feeding Intel rope for months or years and documenting Intel's acts. e.g. Acer buyer, calling from a cell phone from which it is legal to tape phone conversations, "do we have to reduce our purchases of AMD chips? What if we buy more parts from you at the same time we buy some AMD parts?" Intel rep replies to Acer cell phone, "It doesn't matter how many parts you buy from us, to get the marketing funds, and good timing on your shipments, you have to stop buying from AMD."
All it takes is one call like that to a cell phone, and the only thing left to do is calculate damages.
Re: Gordon, samo samo. Dan lies like there's no tomorrow, while Dougie spams the board with nonsense and patting himself on his own back. Attack the message, and they'll just come up with more.
Did it ever occur to you that we might just be correct?
Being right is what makes it so easy for us to come up with more.
And you guys still can't come up with an argument against any of what we post, all you can do is to call names.
Intel will almost certainly be paying AMD an industry changing amount of money as damages for its crooked behavior. You need to get used to that and understand how it will be changing the industry.
Re: Enough with your personal attacks.
Thanks - But when those on the other side of the argument can't think of anything to refute your position, and simply engage in a series of personal attacks, it's encouraging to me as an AMD investor since I know that a bunch of smart people who have followed this industry for years can't think of anything that could save Intel from this suit.