Federal Pleading rules are quite broad, unlike other jurisdictions, any piece of paper that states, "a claim upon which relief can be granted" is acceptable, BUT
if I am correct about the Japanese matter, this does sort of put the matter wrong footed.
What seems more an more likely, the more I think about it, is that sans Japan, this stuff, what ever it is has been going on for 15 years, and yet it is only recently that AMD has "discovered" this "anti-trust violation".
My impression is that since Intergraph and Microsoft and Dec and even the AMD litigation of what 1994-5, Intel has been more, not less careful and aware.
And, AMD decline in market share from what 50% 10 years ago to now is more readily explainable by market demand, rather than conspiracy.
One never knows, but it is troublesome that olmelveny seems to be treating this like a "slip and fall".
Who will do the defense for Intel? Skadden, Arps?
We will know a lot more in the next couple of days.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
