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: pgerassi who wrote (237745)	7/30/2007 10:24:07 PM
From: graphicsguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Pete, have you ever heard of the statute of limitations? Read Intel's pleadings during discovery in the U.S. civil suit. Read the judge's rulings. At issue is the filing date of the suit, and the date at which the last AMD microprocessor was made in Austin. The statute of limitations expired. Finished. Done. Nothing to discuss. AMD does not seem to contest this point. So the only thing at issue is microprocessors made in Dresden. For these, there is a complicated question of U.S. jurisdiction. If a AMD makes a chip in Germany and sells it to a Japanese company exactly what jurisdiction does a U.S. court have if Intel practices in Japan made AMD get less $ for it? I'm sure some court has jurisdiction, but I'm not sure it's a U.S. one. That argument has yet to be resolved in the U.S. antitrust case. The special master allowed discovery on these issues, but very explicitly did not resolve jurisdiction. The EU case is simpler in that regard, since jurisdiction is more clear.