Intel Corp (INTC)

[The Duke of URL]

Interestingly enough, AMD may be trying to cover some substantial defects in the complaint.

Perhaps their legal council reads this thread. :))

It may be that Olmelveny is trying to buttress the weakness (the legal word is infirmity) in the Japan proceedings by trying to turn the administrative determination into a "real" judgment that might have been used as res judicata or collateral estopple.

But they just introduce other issues, none the least of which is that Japan courts interpret Japan law, not US law, and substantive procedural issues back here in Delaware.

This now starts to get VERY complicated and very expensive to litigate.

There is no real Federal origin of res judicata and collateral estopple, they come from common law. So they have now introduced issues of whether they intend procedural or substantive effects of these doctrines.

If they are procedural, then the federal rules of civil procedure obtain, if they are substantive, and not covered by federal law, then the federal court looks to the rules of the jurisdiction.

Which brings up the next real interesting issue?

The Delaware Federal Court might just very well say to itself,

This really is a contract issue. There is no federal issue or law here, and guess what?

Dismiss the case. :))

Boy that would that frost the Droids.

AMD is a Delaware corporation. Intel does business Delaware, and IS also a Delaware corporation so there is no Federal diversity jurisdiction. :)

The name of the case is Strawbrige v. Curtis.

So the Court might say, well Japan has nothing to do with US law of antitrust.

Intel may bring a motion to isolate the monopoly issue. And if the Court rules that Intel does not have a monopoly and finds that AMD has gradually lost market share from 50% over the years from competitive issues....???

Stay tuned.