Rather one sided, but accurate.
For example they don't site the numerous cases AMD brought against Intel but lost.
AMD was not the 'victim' of Intel's alleged plan, but was "victimized by its own inability to adjust to what it knew to be reality," and, with respect to AMD's delay in the development of competitive products, that "Intel's actions had very little to do with AMD's conduct."
He characterized Advanced Micro's behavior as ''unremitting vindictiveness accompanied by a large dollop of opportunism.'' He also said Intel's behavior did not excuse Advanced Micro from having to come up with acceptable products to trade. ''The problem is that A.M.D. assumes a somewhat romanticized factual situation which, like Camelot, never existed,'' he said in the ruling.
"When in doubt, litigate."I am curious if somewhere there is an article about Intel's perspective of how all of this went down.