Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (162702)	6/28/2005 11:30:50 AM
From: mcmab	Respond to of 275872

Where do you see RICO? RICO is criminal statute, very worrying for Intel directors & execs. The filing of a civil suit does not preclude future actions under the penal code. I see triple damages for anticompetitive actions plus punitives for actions which fall under "malice, fraud & oppression". The minimum damages I see for the first part would be $10bn. Puntives could easily double that. It may come out that the basis of punitives leads to a criminal action, all it would take is one of the allegations in the Complaint w.r.t coercion of OEM/distributors, especially if backed up by a fax, and you could see some long jail terms.

To: Dan3 who wrote (162702)	6/28/2005 12:08:03 PM
From: economaniack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

RE: Triple damages - nearly everything alleged by AMD constitutes per se violations of the Clayton act and is therefore already subject to triple damages. 7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (commerce and antitrust regulation) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), as this action arises under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26. The Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction of the pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. I think that AMD will likely request an award in the 20-30 billion range. Nearly all these claims are uncontested by Intel and are per se violations (means that they are illegal regardless of intent) so this is a very strong case. The stuff that will kill Intel in court are the threats. They will want to focus attention on the marketing aspect of their behavior and claim that any harm to AMD was inadvertent as a result of innocent attempts to protect their brand and share marketing costs so they only deserve a slap on the wrist. If a jury hears convincing testimony of direct threats of retaliation they will resent the countless hours that Intel will spend on the core of their case and Intel will pay through the nose. I bet the jury awards AMD $40 billion and it is reduced on appeal. Intel will try and slow things down (after asking for a summary judgement) and build a record for appeal. They wont really contest (in the sense of trying to win) this trial at all. I wonder how the AMD trial team is being compensated. This could be one of the largest contingency fees ever. e