After reading the allegations, do you think they are 1.untrue but illegal if true or 2.true but legal or 3.untrue, but legal even if true?
2.If Intel claims 2. (true but legal), this saves us from all the embarressing testimony from the OEM's. This testimony is unpredictable for both parties, but especially for Intel. Intel might find it best to submit to the facts of the case and argue the antitrust laws.
3. This defense always bothers me. It sounds like somebody arguing "I didn't kill my wife, I was out of the country when she was shot, but if I did kill her, it was self defense". What is it, were you out of the country or was it self defense, you can't claim both!
In this case, if Intel picks 3, it forces AMD to
1. prove the allegations are true (I think this is not going to be that hard).
2. they are illegal for a monopolist (this is a legal quadmire).
3. prove Intel is a monopoly (this is a legal quadmire).
4. prove consumers have been harmed (this is pretty easy).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
