Yet those same emails remain missing and so does the 500 page report. Not exactly confidence building...
Not exactly confidence-building for Intel is that apparently their only defense is to try to restrict the way the court interprets Intel's transactions.
I.e. "For example, this Court need not resolve any disputed issues of fact to affirm that Brooke Group and its progeny establish a deliberately broad safe harbor for all above-cost single-product discounts; that this safe harbor necessarily includes volume and market-share discounts; and that AMD's proposed alternative analysis, based upon a supposed distinction between "contested" and "uncontested" shares of a single product, would subvert this body of precedent."
Two notes:
A) They specifically refer to a supposed safe harbor for volume and market-share based discounts, implying that they rely upon that safe harbor for protection, implying that they indeed used either volume- and/or market-share-based dicounts. But does their safe harbor protect ALL POSSIBLE volume- and market-share-based discounts?
B) They dispute the application of AMD's discount-attribution and equally-efficient competitor analysis... NOT that the analysis would say what AMD says it would, and what the EC says it did.
They appeal to Brooke as if it's a rule that's set in stone and must be strictly interpreted... But what happens when a rebate scheme appears to be designed to subvert the intent of Brooke?
fpg
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
