Replies to post #58472 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[dacaw]

I know the Civil Code & CCP rather well

"Not as well as you think that you do"

Interesting attack. Why do you say this?

<The damages will be substantial. I estimate, before punitives, $10bn>

Your response "Punitive damages are NOT available in an antitrust law suit. They are available for ambulance chasers (something within your level of expertise?) in personal injury cases. Antitrust cases -- by statute -- provide for treble damages."

Ah, but as I have pointed out this is not only about antitrust, there are 3 causes of action: 1) Sherman Act (antitrust); 2) Clayon Act (federal unfair business practices); 3) CA Bus & Prof Code (tortious interference with bus relationships). Where there is fraud, malice & oppression there certainly are punitives and you can see them claimed in the Complaint's prayer, section C. I do think however that the Complaint will have to be amended to allege, explicitly, the fraud, malice & oppression.

Now if you can point me to some caselaw that prohibits punitives in the 2nd & 3rd causes of action I would be willing to debate this. I don't know the Clayton Act since its federal, not state, and I don't have access to federal caselaw on an easy basis. However I will not argue the Codes for that is the job of published opinions and I think you ought to do some work before you challenge any analysis.

Certainly punitives are not limited to personal injury cases, in fact there they are quite rare I would think. I successfully guided a nuisance case where the Complaint demanded punitives (that's also a tort by the way).

[wbmw]

Re: Punitive damages are NOT available in an antitrust law suit. They are available for ambulance chasers (something within your level of expertise?) in personal injury cases.

Interesting analogy. I see this in a lot of people here. AMD's attack happens to coincide with their own deep rooted biases, so they're happy to pretend that AMD is the victim and pound the table for penalties to the maximum extent of the law. A lot like lawyers who represent women who cheat on their spouses and then divorce them and take every cent they own.

[Dan3]

Re: <The damages will be substantial. I estimate, before punitives, $10bn>

Punitive damages are NOT available in an antitrust law suit. They are available for ambulance chasers (something within your level of expertise?) in personal injury cases.

Antitrust cases -- by statute -- provide for treble damages.

The simplest damage estimate (though it's a pretty conservative estimate) is to simply assume AMD couldn't have sold any more chips than it did and just use the difference in ASPs between AMD and Intel chips as the direct costs of Intel's actions (if not for Intel's criminal actions, similar parts would have received similar prices).

Then Intel would be faced with direct damages of about $10 Billion and trebling them (your suggestion) would put the judgment at $30 Billion.

Beyond that, 3rd party contract interference has nothing to do with monopoly, and the majority of AMD's points are for just that, so there would be punitive damages on top of the base $30 Billion.

Time for Intel to start hiding assets in preparation for a bankruptcy declaration?