Replies to post #58653 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[dacaw]

Some Lawsuit Comments

1) O'Melveny & Myers are about as high profile as you can get, and one of the most feared legal shops. They don't make mistakes, period. Every document is poured over before it leaves their office. This is not true of many attorney firms, even high profile ones in Century City - O'Melveny & Myers is the real deal. Trial court judges just about roll over and sign the order when they see a brief from these guys.

2) The amount of damages is set at 3x actual damages by statute. This is not a slip & fall where the jury has to set the amount so it cannot be reduced on appeal ("shall" is the word). The wiggle room will be small. Once Intel is found guilty, and it will be as sure as eggs is eggs, it is then a matter of AMD filing its damages. I'm not sure if any of the causes of action will ADD to this amount extra punitives but I believe the 3xactual will just about clear out Intel's cash anyway and I suspect any Sherman Act reparations will be more in the way of preventing further abuses.

3) This will not drag on and on. Statements from AMD and the quick off-the-mark letters that the Inq has published indicate to me that AMD is not going to settle, that is wants no delay. Once interrogatories are served there is 30 days to respond, then AMD will serve demand for inspection of the actual documents identified in the interrogatories - another 30 days. Failure to comply will be met with a motion to compel - another 30 days from filing to hearing. In short, Intel has very little room to delay the process.

4) Even using such a high profile legal firm the costs of this suit are negligable for AMD, less than $20m I suspect. Claims that it will be $15m per qtr (UBS) are nonsense. Even at $20m AMD will get the very best that money can buy.

5) Looking at Otellini I can't but help feeling that he will make a very unsympathetic witness. He looks to me like a nasty schoolteacher.

[wbmw]

Re: wbmw apparently can't concede a single point, even when he makes a technical error in an intellectual excercise. For instance, did wbmw acknowledge my burden of proof rebuttal?

Do you?

It would be the gentlemanly thing to do.

I've been nothing but polite to you, so I don't see why you would insinuate that I am being ungentlemanly. For one, your last post had a lot of information, and far too much to respond in anything short of a Master's Thesis. I don't mind addressing points one at a time, at least those that I have a capacity to answer, given that I am not a legal expert by any means. If you want me to convince you of something while being less informed on a subject, it's not worth it for me to do that. And if you think I should agree with your point of view just because I can't come up with the appropriate legal explanation, well that's just silly. I've read AMD's complaint list, and agree that some of them are serious accusations, but none of it is new that hasn't been reported by word-of-mouth or on The Inquirer. In fact, most of the issues have been discussed here before, so I don't see the point of rephrasing them for your benefit. It's nothing personal, but I don't think you'll gain anything from hearing my point of view. The courts will decide the outcome, and I'll be watching along the sidelines and making up my own mind.

[tecate]

I'm glad you understand that the these are allegations, & you may stop with the ad hominen attacks, this is a stock not God vs. the Devil.

I think wbmw has been a pefect gentleman and has said let's agree to disagree, you on the other hand are acting like a typical AMD employee.

You also need to calm down, (are you in your 20s or 30s?) you have zero patience.

I've said I have made no real decision about Intel or AMD's guilt. I'm waiting to hear Intel's rebuttal, in court, not here.

wmbw isn't a lawyer, are you? have you questioned Intel? I mean no one really knows Intel's side yet. Gvie it a rest till you hear all sides.