Papster, look, in your own post you put. " ROFLMAO. Ok, sure. Perhaps you don't understand business?" That's refering to a POSTER, not AMD. I put I understand them perfectly well and then went on to cite more stuff about the thread. I am not on the payroll and don't insinuate it.
I know you know nothing about law. Yes, you can put anything you want in a document for public record, but you better have SOMETHING to back up anything you "claim." Why? otherwise without proof of any sort, even circumstantial evidence, a matter of public records such as this would be called slander and lible. Intel would SUE the pants off AMD. Actually, technically, AMD didn't put the document out. Which is whyI know you have not read the entire document or you have seen who the authors are at the bottom. It's a LAW FIRM, "RFL."
Law firms don't put slander out because their a$$es would be the ones out in a sling for their clients.
Yes, people put frivolous law suites out every day. Don't confuse what you watch on your fat a$$, eating bon bons, while watching Judge Judy as what happens in the "big boys" courtroom. When legal parties are involved, and not Papster's sister trying sue her pimp for not giving her the cut of the money, fivolous lawsuits are not made.
I think you are confusing THREATS of lawsuits, versus actual proposals. Actually, I KNOW you are. Yes, businesses can THREATEN and send you official looking documents to sue the pants off you and those threats need not have any merit or basis in reality. Heck that happens all the time. The moment they push for a court date though, it's no longer frivolous.
And what I said about double jeopardy... again that's true. If a court has has been put through and shut down, you can not by LAW put the exact same complaints through.
Read the definition of double jeopardy:
"DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989)."
It can NOT be another court trial offense of the same claims. Otherwise it will be thrown out by tomorrow morning and Intel could sue the pants of AMD and their law firm for badgering.
AGAIN, I'm not saying that Intel has done anything pertained in this document. That is for the courts to decide. I'm saying woohoo to the little guy for sticking up to the big dog for so long against the odds and finally perhaps finding proof of wrong doing by intel. IF there is, Intel needs to go down HARD. They've already been proven wrong in Japan so the chances they've been breaking the law here are very high based off that precedent. Sure, there is a chance that the Japanese office was acting completely in isolation from the US offices. But I wouldn't take that bet.
I'm also ticked that anyone here who belittles AMD for trying to stand up for our rights, and the rights of consumers and other businesses who've been shafted over the years. What the heck have YOU done lately Papster to try to set the world right?
Facebook
Twitter