Intel Corp (INTC)

[Ixse]

Duke, you still haven't given a single reason why my logic would be incorrect (US customers buying Japanese products and hence would be effected from limiting AMD's case against Intel to US-only, which likely will prohibit Farnan from granting Intel's motion). Not a single reason, besides some baseless babbling that the law isn't fair.

You claim to have a theory but don't even state WHY that would be more probable to have an effect on the upcoming ruling than what I said. Again no reasons. BTW, besides that 'why' can you give me a link to your theory so I can have a look (I can't use search here).

re: The law is not rational, it is not fair, its reasoning is what is contained in the law. In this case, the law of Antitrust and the "law" of International ("Long Arm") jurisdiction.

Non sense. By FAR most US laws look pretty fair to me (same as in Europe) because it is mostly based on solid reasoning that most people at least consent to, as is perfectly logical in a democracy. In fact if you don't think the same you must have some pretty wild ideas. Again you refrain from giving even a single reason WHY the law wouldn't be more or less fair in this case. That's a bit weak wouldn't you say? It's your claim, so where's your beef?

You apparently can't give reasons or at least don't post them in your replies to me. You can state "You don't have a theory, you have a wish." as long as you want, but if you don't give any direct reasons as to why my logic would be incorrect, or why you think the law will not be fair in this particular case your words can't but sound plain baseless to me.

Regards,

Rink