There are two issues left: (w, I never thought I could do this reconstruction :)) )
---Predatory pricing kinds of stuff, where AMD claims that Intel uses Price to deprive AMD of the market. I am sure it will come out or has come out in discovery that Dell, for instance gets a discount.
Mt GUESS is that AND will lose big on this point. The Clayton act DOES ALLOW PREFERENTIAL PRICING if the pricing, simplistically put, is based on the manufacturer's savings for volume production, etc. BUT the real answer is that AMD has be screaming this for 20 years and Intel's VERY capable legal staff, some posters here included, are VERY aware and have structured deals like ad budgets that I assume, have been okayed by lower courts.
---The second issue, and the LAST issue AMD has left in the case is in the nature of the existence, if any, of an agreement in restraint of trade.
For simplistic example, Intel goes to Gateway and says, "If you drop AMD, we will give you preferential treatment." THAT is an agreement which would violate the law.
My belief is that Intel has spent a boatload on money in the last 15 or more years SPLAINING to the sales staff NOT to do this. Intel will win on this last issue.
I know they will win for two reasons. IF AMD had ANY evidence of such an agreement, they would have spilled their guts by now.
There is an issue which I am researching now as to discovery limitations; it has been suggest by the rag, BetaNews dot com, that there has been a moratorium on discovery. I have seen this no where else.
IF AMD has a deposition or a smoking gun on this one there is not a chance in Hell we would not know it.
AMD has been claiming the existence of these kinds of agreements for years, as have posters, here, that they have first hand or "hearsay" evidence of such agreements.
But let me tell how this happens: The purchasing agent for Dubai National Oil Money PCs is a good friend of the AMD salesman. They play golf together for damnsake.
So when the AMD salesman asked his buddy why he did not buy AMD, the buddy to bulshit the relationship and protect his friend says, "I wanted to buy from you but someone up above me ordered me to buy Intel".
This sort of shit is human nature, and rapidly becomes the stuff of believed legends.
BUT WHEN YOU PUT THESE GUYS UNDER OATH, all this nonsense disappears.
That is what is happening now. Now AMD may think this is a CIA/Intel conspiracy to deprive them of the truth, but in the cool light of day, it is THE OPPOSITE.
The truth is there weren't any such agreements, in any manner formal enough to prove that in any way Intel used UNdue influence.
Due influence is fine.
On top of this Intel has two very big things going for it:
One is the information they are going to get from the documents in the ATI acquisition. There WILL be admissible statements against AMD's interests, made by AMD that say, "we need ATI to combat Intel, better."
Well, if they need it to be better, now, WHAT WERE THEY BEFORE WHEN THEY HAD TO DEPEND ON INTEL FOR CHIPSETS?
The court will find the answer to that question in the lyrics of the songs by Milli- Vannilli. :))
Two is the recent successes of Opteron. It will be established that the market is such that not only do you have to have a superior product, but you have to have it for a while, to allay fears that no one wants to get locked in to a company which may be a flash in the pan, leadership wize.
How is AMD going to explain the success of Opteron. The law suit?
There has been ongoing litigation in and around this issue for 20 years between these two companies, and those law suits never changed anything.
<b
In fact, it is arguable that any sophisticated knowledgeable attorney (or 1500 man LA law firm) would believe much of my analysis, which would mean that no behavior patterns changes could be attributable to the lawsuit.
Much better to attribute Opteron's successes to taking advantage, finally of some major Intel decision issues, coupled with a unexpected decline in the market demand.
To be continued.....
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
