Ephud, (IMPORTANT!)
Then we don't disagree at all. I just don't conclude in this case that AMD has demonstrated anything at this point other than the loss of sales, which you point out could be due to any number of reasons, and I see no reason to presume both crime and guilt in the absence of nothing more than the missed sales.
betanews.com
But [Intel spokesperson Chuck] Malloy's comments to BetaNews today suggested that Intel will pursue a kind of affirmative defense, proving that the company did nothing illegal rather than waiting for AMD's case to fall apart. Up to now, he said, AMD has had only its allegations. Now it will need proof.
It's a very big case, Malloy added, and it will take all two-and-one-half years between now and the trial date for both sides to uncover the data they'll need to make a case. Intel's case, Mulloy said, will be an affirmative proof that his company did nothing illegal.
"All the business practices AMD argues about," remarked Mulloy, "are lawful." He conceded that some Intel business practices could, at some point, impact AMD, after a series of what Judge Mulloy in his decision yesterday characterized as "twists and turns."
The bolded sentence above, to my eyes, implies that Intel does expect AMD to provide evidence to support at least some if not all of their allegations.
It clearly says Intel is going to fight the lawsuit over the legality of the alleged practices, not whether the practices occurred. (That's a generalization, I'm sure there will be exceptions.)
In light of this comment, from an INTEL SPOKESPERSON no less, discussion of the content and legality of "all" of AMD's allegations is now fair game.
fpg |
