Intel Corp (INTC)

[The Duke of URL]

This is what you said:

"even if he is, maybe you should not have come to that conclusion based on that exchange, given that the Duke who falls on your side of the fence agreed with him".

And "and he even agreed with Keiths viewpoint.""

Now you are saying,

"Duke you are twisting my words! I never said that you agreed with Keith!! :)"

Are you really worth responding to?

AMD's point in their complaint must be that Intel intentionally and affirmatively made the compiler less useful to AMD.

The confusion comes from the fact that AMD does not come out and say "intentional". It can be read either that Intel was intentional or that Intel was negligent.

I think it will be established that Intel had no duty to make the compiler "tuned" for AMD.

This means there is no allegation, or AMD will lose on an allegation of negligence.

The only thing that leaves legally is that Intel INTENTIONALLY screwed up.

This is what was at issue in the MS Dr dos screen. It turned out that someone at MS intentionally caused MS Dos to report an "error" when it found DR Dos present, sort of as a joke.

Even if Keith didn't say this, THAT is what AMD is going to have to prove in court.

Don't confuse yourself.