Intel Corp (INTC)

[The Duke of URL]

Counter-suing would NOT be in the best interest of Intel. At BEST, it would stir up the pot and prolong the litigation. At worst it would be a public relations nightmare that AMD could play on as David to big Ole meanie Goliath, Intel.

No, the legal concept here is to REDUCE the interaction with AMD as much as possible. This is not an accurate analogy, but it is like trying to win an argument with a kid. Even if you win, you loose.

No, the correct legal corollary that is applicable here, is

"NEVER GET INTO A PISSING MATCH WITH A SKUNK"


:)))

Duke, J.

[edit, after posting, I see others are of the same mind]

On the other hand, the wrong of "Abuse of Process" leaps to mind. It would not be above belief that AMD instigated this investigation just for the publicity.

Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts. Malicious prosecution requires hatred or ill-will and the process must be determined IN FAVOR of the plaintiff.

That has not happened yet.

But, the elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows:

it is the deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. ... The person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution