Intel Corp (INTC)

[The Duke of URL]

I posted this before.

There are two doctrines in the law which come into play from the Japanese administrative actions.

The first is Res Judicata. It means a "thing proven" before. If Intel in a court of competent jurisdiction has had a judgment against them, then on that same issue in another court, AMD would not have to prove it again, and Intel could not object.

But as I pointed out, Intel if the press reports are correct, only agreed to the Japanese sanctions, NOT TO THE FACTS OR THE LAW.

So nothing was litigated, and if nothing was litigated, then nothing (res) was adjudicated (judicata). See count #40 of the AMD complaint.

Olmelveny and Myers tries to slip this past the court by saying Intel "accepted" the Japanese judgment.

Well, that is um sort of like lying to The Court if the Press reports at the time are true, and that well is going to really piss off a federal judge.

Collateral Estopple is sort of like res judicata,

collateral estoppel
Estoppel by judgment barring the relitigation of issues litigated by the same parties on a different cause of action; broadly Estoppel by judgment barring the relitigation of issues litigated by the same parties on a different or the same cause of action

the analysis is somewhat the same, but I will not continue now.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6813991

Posted by: The Duke of URL
In reply to: None Date:6/28/2005 11:42:22 AM
Post #of 18447

The first 15 pages of the AMD complaint are foundational. On page 16 the first of the factual allegations start. This is the first:

40. Sony. With the introduction of its Athlon microprocessor in 1999, AMD began to make notable inroads into Intel’s sales to major Japanese OEMs, which export PCs internationally including into the U.S. By the end of 2002, AMD had achieved an overall Japanese unit market share of approximately 22%. To reverse the erosion of its business, in 2003 Intel paid Sony multimillion dollar sums, disguised as discounts and promotional support, in exchange for absolute microprocessor exclusivity. Sony abruptly cancelled an AMD Mobile Athlon notebook model. Soon thereafter, it cancelled plans to release AMD Athlon desktop and notebook computers. As a result, AMD’s share of Sony’s business dropped from 23% in 2002 to 8% in 2003, and then to 0%, where it remains today. In proceedings brought by the JFTC, Intel has accepted the JFTC charges of misconduct with respect to Sony.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This count fails. AMD's increase was in desktops because of Athlon. Intel gave Sony more marketing money when it came out with a more competitive chip, to gain back market share. Sony's cancellation of the Athlon notebook coincides with Intel's launch of a better notebook platform and value. AMD would have a hard time showing otherwise. There is NO allegation of any agreement by Intel and Sony. This would be necessary, at first blush, for an allegation of restraint of trade. And as for monopoly, AMD admits they had 22%. But AMD neglects to allege they have a thin and light product that was squeezed out.

The Japanese administrative proceeding was settled with no admission of right or wrong, so no res judicata, or collateral estopple. Or in English, they can't use the Japanese hearings to prove anything.


Usually, you start with your strongest count to get the court's attention. I am not going to go through the rest at this time.