InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 11
Posts 7127
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/15/2002

Re: Elmer Phud post# 35134

Wednesday, 11/22/2006 2:14:32 PM

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 2:14:32 PM

Post# of 151749
I shouldn't be so insensitive, but a better title to that article would be:

"Intel files reply brief, AMD files sur-rebuttal. We don't really know what is happening and the Judge hasn't ruled and we have a deadline so let's regurgitate the arguments made by the briefs with a slight amount of lack of understanding, because IF it is just a matter of not alleging foreign damage in the US WHICH IS AN INTUITIVE ARGUMENT, then AMD should be given permission to amend their complaint or to change it to conform to proof. Now can I go to lunch?, Title."

Film at 11.


Actually, without putting too fine a point on it, Judge Farnan, trying to be as narrow in his ruling as possible, avoided the issue that any breach of any foreign anti-trust law, don't matter didily squat in an American Court, but that is the technical explanation. :)



Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent INTC News