AMD's top lawyer discusses AMD Intel disputes

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Amds gets to present their case . Intel gets to defend its case . You can't not leave out critical facts based on fantacy. Intel has to ans the charges , Intel claims will be made AMD has to ans said claims its matter of LAW. You think relevency leaves out the fact intel kept them from selling more . Amd has to back those claims with cold hard numbers. Margins good dies . Dies per month ect ect ect . AMD claims intel stopped sells . AMD has to show how many sells were talking about . I want to see AMD duck waggle this one.

BTW AMD will not be arguing this case. This is the EU vs Intel. AMD may be called to testify, but the direction of the case will be made by the commission.

I don't care about the EU fraud . Its the Court case I want . Not EUs either The USA one . The one were AMD might get a payday. Buy time Intel loses the EU money they will have made 10 fold off of EU. Not a big deal its the justice . I doubt EU justice will be served . But in US ya it well .

 

[Schmide]

I doubt it. It will all be about specific meetings, who paid what for what, if said quota was not met was there a threat to withhold rebates, why can't you produce documentation about this rebate structure, where did the emails go, etc.

Sure in closing arguments there may be some capacity/technology mentioned, but we're talking a few minutes compared to months of testimony and discovery.

But keep dreaming. It could happen. In bizarro world.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I do believe the US case will come up befor the EU case . Since the briefing was intels first look at charges lol . Proper time for discovery I believe its called . The EU thing is public sentiment stunt . They new intel would take it to trail . EU just hoping to influence US case . Some big wiggs here not happy about this publicity stunt. Since US case comes first . Fact is some are claiming foul. Trying to influence law on false primese from another country.

 

[Nemesis 1]

AMD is making claims they could sell more . They have to show damages . That = REAL WORLD FAB numbers.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
AMD is making claims they could sell more . They have to show damages . That = actions by Intel that stifled competition .

Fixed

You should seriously read the complaint.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/asset...tel_Full_Complaint.pdf

Because the burden of proof rests on AMD, the case will for the most part follow the complaint addressing each issue with a presentation of evidence and argument. I would say maybe 1% of the complaint mentions capacity, probably less. If you think Intel can all of a sudden change the argument as you have attempted to, you are very mistaken.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
AMD is making claims they could sell more . They have to show damages . That = actions by Intel that stifled competition .

Fixed

No thats AMDs claims . AMD might be able to show this . But AMD is SUEING IN USA . A differant ballgame friend. That means AMD wants damages . You can't just make up numbers. You have to show what you could make at full capicity to show your damages.

This is an insurance case of injury. This is corporate. You have to be tried as an intinity. As a claiment you have to pass the test of a medicial exam to prove injury . You can't just claim . It happened because of Marketing . You really don't believe that do ya. Just make claims . Intel has counter claims in ans to discovery.

Don't even say you have seen lawful testmony in the US case . That was given under discovery . The only case thatmatters to AMD is USA case The EU case is shame to influence USA .

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
AMD is making claims they could sell more . They have to show damages . That = actions by Intel that stifled competition .

Fixed

No thats AMDs claims . AMD might be able to show this . But AMD is SUEING IN USA . A differant ballgame friend. That means AMD wants damages . You can't just make up numbers. You have to show what you could make at full capicity to show your damages.

This is an insurance case of injury. This is corporate. You have to be tried as an intinity. As a claiment you have to pass the test of a medicial exam to prove injury . You can't just claim . It happened because of Marketing . You really don't believe that do ya. Just make claims . Intel has counter claims in ans to discovery.

Don't even say you have seen lawful testmony in the US case . That was given under discovery . The only case thatmatters to AMD is USA case The EU case is shame to influence USA .

AMD only has to show that it was harmed by Intel's actions, what could or would have been is irrelevant. In fact it's inability to match Intel's numbers is actually at the heart of the case. Please read part C.61 of the complaint. Your argument of capacity actually affirms their case or at the very least this part of the case.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Hay you win ya popped me out. Your problem here is you believe that intel has to ans the charges in away AMD would like . Thats not happening . Intel gets to attack also . Its not a oneway street like you pretend it to be. So I am out . Said all I can say on my view . Lets see how it plays out . If intel wins I am coming back from hell for your ass. LOL

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Hay you win ya popped me out. Your problem here is you believe that intel has to ans the charges in away AMD would like . Thats not happening . Intel gets to attack also . Its not a oneway street like you pretend it to be. So I am out . Said all I can say on my view . Lets see how it plays out . If intel wins I am coming back from hell for your ass. LOL

Actually they don't get this privilege. Unless they wish to file a counter suit. Being the defendant they must answer to the allegations brought forth by AMD and provide a defense. They cannot bring their own allegations against AMD. Sorry.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

We'll see, I don't think Intel will be giving AMD any kind of significant monetary settlement.

If you are so sure AMD would win the case please provide the evidence that AMD would use (not hearsay and accusations) so we can all learn.

You mean give you AMD's discovery in a post? Hmmm...don't think that will happen. Even in 2006, the list for discovery if printed out was 137 miles long...it's far more today.

You're implying you have access to the discovery documents.

So, you have nothing to share?

Viditor are you going to respond to this?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Intel has exceeded two-thirds marketshare for most of it's entire history.

Of the chip market? No.

Of the CPU market? Well they invented it, so for the first few years, yes.

This is the same spurious argument that Microsoft tried to make...the court didn't buy it then either.

The market is x86 (which the courts declared to be the market for Microsoft as well)...it is legally defined.

Straw man again. Legally defined by whom? Intel hasn't been to court.

Dude that's hardly a straw man argument?

It is a good example of legal precedent.

Know your fallacies.

The Microsoft issue was bundling apps with the OS, it's nothing about CPUs.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
AMD is making claims they could sell more . They have to show damages . That = actions by Intel that stifled competition .

Fixed

No thats AMDs claims . AMD might be able to show this . But AMD is SUEING IN USA . A differant ballgame friend. That means AMD wants damages . You can't just make up numbers. You have to show what you could make at full capicity to show your damages.

This is an insurance case of injury. This is corporate. You have to be tried as an intinity. As a claiment you have to pass the test of a medicial exam to prove injury . You can't just claim . It happened because of Marketing . You really don't believe that do ya. Just make claims . Intel has counter claims in ans to discovery.

Don't even say you have seen lawful testmony in the US case . That was given under discovery . The only case thatmatters to AMD is USA case The EU case is shame to influence USA .

AMD only has to show that it was harmed by Intel's actions, what could or would have been is irrelevant. In fact it's inability to match Intel's numbers is actually at the heart of the case. Please read part C.61 of the complaint. Your argument of capacity actually affirms their case or at the very least this part of the case.

I am sorry but you really have a problem here . Ya accuse me of trolling . Because I say Intel will Use capicity in this charge . You go off on me like how dare I shift responsibility to AMD s problems to AMD management . Than in this post you agree its part of the Lawsuite in reguards to AMDs Claims.

Than after this post you post this.

Actually they don't get this privilege. Unless they wish to file a counter suit. Being the defendant they must answer to the allegations brought forth by AMD and provide a defense. They cannot bring their own allegations against AMD. Sorry.

Now if anyone is trolling here its you as you just proved that Intel can move to capicity discovery as its in the complaint.

What do you have to say to this.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya I know . I said I was out of this one . But I couldn't help but notice . You just need a little bit more rope to get job done . Much like AMD. So I thought I would extend the rope for you . Just as intels lawyers will for AMD. As noose tightens around neck.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
AMD is making claims they could sell more . They have to show damages . That = actions by Intel that stifled competition .

Fixed

No thats AMDs claims . AMD might be able to show this . But AMD is SUEING IN USA . A differant ballgame friend. That means AMD wants damages . You can't just make up numbers. You have to show what you could make at full capicity to show your damages.

This is an insurance case of injury. This is corporate. You have to be tried as an intinity. As a claiment you have to pass the test of a medicial exam to prove injury . You can't just claim . It happened because of Marketing . You really don't believe that do ya. Just make claims . Intel has counter claims in ans to discovery.

Don't even say you have seen lawful testmony in the US case . That was given under discovery . The only case thatmatters to AMD is USA case The EU case is shame to influence USA .

AMD only has to show that it was harmed by Intel's actions, what could or would have been is irrelevant. In fact it's inability to match Intel's numbers is actually at the heart of the case. Please read part C.61 of the complaint. Your argument of capacity actually affirms their case or at the very least this part of the case.

Can you elbaborate on this a bit more? Because to me, it looks like you just pulled a complete 180. You went from capacity has nothing to do with it, to it being the heart of the matter. Am I misunderstanding?

P.S. Nemesis1, I am asking Schmide, not you. Please let him clarify himself before you jump all over it.

 

[Schmide]

Sorry to take so long to reply.

Well it does seem like I'm pulling a 180, but I'm not.

Being at the heart of the case and being a arguable point are two different things. I guess if you wanted to attempt to argue it you could say, AMD had 80% of the CPU market; therefore, Intel cannot be found as a monopoly. Done. Well this is obviously a false statement. I know this is a straw man but I must put forth one to show how the logic works. The point is, no party is going to argue that AMD had the capacity to equal Intel's share of the market. In fact, Intel's dominant position in the market is a prerequisite for them to be considered a monopoly and guilty of monopolistic practices.

Nemesis1's logic is

AMD couldn't match Intel in capacity, therefore Intel cannot be considered or be guilty of Monopolistic practices. There is a severe disjunction in logic here. I guess I should just accept the argument and move on, but Nemesis1 never really draws conclusions or elaborates on how the above argument is going to refute AMD's claims.

 

[OCGuy]

AMD is turning into the whiney kid that cries to mom because he doesnt have the nice toys that his neighbor friend does.

They should take a play from the book of their recent aquisition, and make a product that competes on its own merits in the marketplace. Even when the CPU side makes a great chip, they dont put the marketing force behind to make it a household name.

When ATi was being flat out beat in every segment, they went to the drawing board and created a product that people could get excited about.

Relying on daddy government to bail you out with a huge fine is a disservice to the consumer.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Sorry to take so long to reply.

Well it does seem like I'm pulling a 180, but I'm not.

Being at the heart of the case and being a arguable point are two different things. I guess if you wanted to attempt to argue it you could say, AMD had 80% of the CPU market; therefore, Intel cannot be found as a monopoly. Done. Well this is obviously a false statement. I know this is a straw man but I must put forth one to show how the logic works. The point is, no party is going to argue that AMD had the capacity to equal Intel's share of the market. In fact, Intel's dominant position in the market is a prerequisite for them to be considered a monopoly and guilty of monopolistic practices.

Nemesis1's logic is

AMD couldn't match Intel in capacity, therefore Intel cannot be considered or be guilty of Monopolistic practices. There is a severe disjunction in logic here. I guess I should just accept the argument and move on, but Nemesis1 never really draws conclusions or elaborates on how the above argument is going to refute AMD's claims.

Keys I have nothing more to add . My logic is disfunctional on the egg Vs, Chiken first ? I would say chicken but that my logic. Where is proof Intel monoply . I see none lots of cpu makers. X86 is a segment and there converging what don't you get.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Keys I have nothing more to add . My logic is disfunctional on the egg Vs, Chiken first ? I would say chicken but that my logic. Where is proof Intel monoply . I see none lots of cpu makers. X86 is a segment and there converging what don't you get.

I'll try to be constructive in this argument. These are my opinions

For the case to go forward AMD must show

Intel had a dominant position in the market such that no other entity could replace it.

Intel used a predatory pricing structure to artificially limit AMD's ability to compete in the market.

Intel threatened players in the market (i.e. the opteron launch) to prevent AMD from entering key segments.

Remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There is a lot to prove. However, even if Intel is declared not to be a monopoly, it can still be found guilty of monopolistic practices.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Intel has exceeded two-thirds marketshare for most of it's entire history.

Of the chip market? No.

Of the CPU market? Well they invented it, so for the first few years, yes.

This is the same spurious argument that Microsoft tried to make...the court didn't buy it then either.

The market is x86 (which the courts declared to be the market for Microsoft as well)...it is legally defined.

Straw man again. Legally defined by whom? Intel hasn't been to court.

Dude that's hardly a straw man argument?

It is a good example of legal precedent.

Know your fallacies.

The Microsoft issue was bundling apps with the OS, it's nothing about CPUs.

Phynaz, I don't know what else I can tell you that you will listen to...

1. I explained that Intel was a legally defined monopolist according to the rules in the US
2. I showed you the rules and Intel obviously falls within them if x86 could be defined as a discrete market
3. I explained that Microsoft tried to refute monopoly status by saying that they should be judged based on all software, not just x86 software...the court refused.

It doesn't matter what the case was about, what matters is that the court defined x86 as a discrete market for the purposes of monopoly power.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: OCguy
AMD is turning into the whiney kid that cries to mom because he doesnt have the nice toys that his neighbor friend does.

They should take a play from the book of their recent aquisition, and make a product that competes on its own merits in the marketplace. Even when the CPU side makes a great chip, they dont put the marketing force behind to make it a household name.

When ATi was being flat out beat in every segment, they went to the drawing board and created a product that people could get excited about.

Relying on daddy government to bail you out with a huge fine is a disservice to the consumer.

I guess that makes Intel the Gangsta that pops a cap into anyone who talks...🙂

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Intel has exceeded two-thirds marketshare for most of it's entire history.

Of the chip market? No.

Of the CPU market? Well they invented it, so for the first few years, yes.

This is the same spurious argument that Microsoft tried to make...the court didn't buy it then either.

The market is x86 (which the courts declared to be the market for Microsoft as well)...it is legally defined.

Straw man again. Legally defined by whom? Intel hasn't been to court.

Dude that's hardly a straw man argument?

It is a good example of legal precedent.

Know your fallacies.

The Microsoft issue was bundling apps with the OS, it's nothing about CPUs.

Phynaz, I don't know what else I can tell you that you will listen to...

1. I explained that Intel was a legally defined monopolist according to the rules in the US
2. I showed you the rules and Intel obviously falls within them if x86 could be defined as a discrete market
3. I explained that Microsoft tried to refute monopoly status by saying that they should be judged based on all software, not just x86 software...the court refused.

It doesn't matter what the case was about, what matters is that the court defined x86 as a discrete market for the purposes of monopoly power.

1. Monopolies are not illegal in the US.

2. "If"

3. Link?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
1. Monopolies are not illegal in the US.

Absolutely correct...what's your point? This all started because a monopoly must abide by different standards than a non-monopoly in anti-trust...

2. "If"

"what" "the" "Hell" see, I can do that too...🙂

3. Link?

I am tired...I have researched the rules and law for you, as well as found the precedent. Maybe you (or someone else) can actually try to Google something for a change...🙂

Edit OK...I know you won't research it (doesn't fit your agenda), so here goes (took me all of 24 seconds).
USDOJ

"The complaint narrowly tailors the relevant product market to the market for certain operating systems software for x86 microprocessors. The geographic market is not limited"

AMD's complaint is the same, and remember that Microsoft was convicted on this market. Just remove the words "operating systems software", and you have the wording...

 

[Schmide]

Never mind

 

[Snarks]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1.

Christ sake, is English your first language?

Please tell me it's not.

 

[Forumpanda]

Who killed my favorite CPU forum?

I noticed a recent trend here, any thread that is remotely related to Intel, will by page 4 or 5 contain pretty much the same posts.