You are right of course, you don't need to be an attorney to have an opinion, but at issue before the court is a motion, that neither I nor you have read, that neither the Court nor Intel has produced, and that has been "reported" by non judicial analysts.
Fortunately or unfortunately the motion should be decided on existing law, not feelings.
If I am correct in my theory of what the motion will contain, from a law perspective, then the Judge's comments, and perhaps AMD attorneys' comments indicate that they don't get the theory, yet either.
You don't have a theory, you have a wish.
Which is good, but it does not help us estimate what the ultimate legal decision will be.
The law is not rational, it is not fair, its reasoning is what is contained in the law. In this case, the law of Antitrust and the "law" of International ("Long Arm") jurisdiction.
It is not "fair". If you want "fairness" you do not go to law school, you go to divinity school.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
