I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."

Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
much more difficult to defend.

> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>
> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.

"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.

> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>
> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
>
>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
> much more difficult to defend.
>
>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>>
>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
>
>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
>
>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>>
>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
years and years...

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
>>
>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
>> much more difficult to defend.
>>
>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>>>
>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
>>
>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
>>
>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>>>
>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
> years and years...

Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.

--
Keith

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:26:44 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:19:58 -0400, keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
>>>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
>>>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
>>>>
>>>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
>>>> much more difficult to defend.
>>>>
>>>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
>>>>
>>>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
>>>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
>>>>
>>>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
>>> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
>>> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
>>> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
>>> years and years...
>>
>>Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
>>trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
>>surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.
>
> I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
> hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
> it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
> be Intel.

Of course they may appeal, but anyone who thinks SCotUS will take this up
(based on what's known today) is, frankly, nuts.

--
Keith

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:19:58 -0400, keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
>>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
>>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
>>>
>>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
>>> much more difficult to defend.
>>>
>>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>>>>
>>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
>>>
>>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
>>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
>>>
>>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>>>>
>>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
>> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
>> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
>> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
>> years and years...
>
>Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
>trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
>surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.

I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
be Intel.

keith wrote:
>>I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
>>hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
>>it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
>>be Intel.
>
>
> Of course they may appeal, but anyone who thinks SCotUS will take this up
> (based on what's known today) is, frankly, nuts.
>

I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada, if you lose one
round of appeals, it doesn't go any further up the chain.

Yousuf Khan

> I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but in Canada, if you lose
one
> round of appeals, it doesn't go any further up the chain.

Yousuf, _one_ side of an appeal _always_ loses. Unless there's a tie
and they cut the baby in half.

This being the case, it follows from your premise that there is no
need for further apellate courts since, one side having lost, the case
never goes further up the chain. Is that correct? You obviously know
more about Canuckistan jurisprudence than I do! ;-)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:26:44 GMT, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:19:58 -0400, keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:31:08 +0000, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:35:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I found this article fairly well thought out, it's from Investor's
>>>>Business Daily. It's not a simple AMD or Intel fan piece. Quote:
>>>>"The old Microsoft antitrust case could come back to haunt ... Intel."
>>>>
>>>>Basically it's arguing that the Microsoft case has now made Intel's case
>>>> much more difficult to defend.
>>>>
>>>>> That case created a blueprint for regulators, Balto says.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are a number of key issues," he said. "First, there are no per se rules that justify certain types of contractual agreements. In the old days they'd say, 'This isn't in the contract, so it can't be illegal.' That has fallen to the wayside.
>>>>
>>>>"Innovation" will also be looked at here too. The architectural
>>>>improvements AMD made to the x86 processor in the last few years.
>>>>
>>>>> "Third, the case said you could look at current price effects, but also at the long-term impact on innovation. The court said long-term stifling of innovation must be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The AMD case is much stronger. We're not talking about hypothetical innovation, but actual innovation. This is a really good case," said Balto, who is not involved in the case.
>>> We can speculate on the outcome, but the only thing that looks almost
>>> sure is that the case will go all the way to the supremes, possibly
>>> making a few returns to lower courts on the way. So expect it to last
>>> years and years...
>>
>>Don't be so stupid. The Supremes would never grant certiorari for such
>>trivia. ...unless there is far more to this issue than shows at the
>>surface. Good grief, the Supreme Court isn't the late-night court.
>
>I admif the Supreme Court may or may not, in its discretion, decide to
>hear it. Yet it's almost sure that the loser of the case will appeal
>it to the last possible opportunity, especially if the loser turns to
>be Intel.

I think the PR value, negative or positive for either player, is going to
rule when it comes time to go forward with the umpteenth appeal or not. It
*is* going to be interesting.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Well, of course what I meant was if the losing side also loses on
appeal, it goes no further up the line. Basically it's always the
losing side that appeals something, even in a middling decision where
one side wins a few points and the other side wins a few of their own,
each side can appeal the points that they lost.

Anyways, if one side wins on appeal, that makes the other side the
losing side of course. So those guys can then appeal one more level up.
If they fail on the second appeal then there are no more appeals.

Basically, two losses in a row and you're out.

Yousuf Khan

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:15:36 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> Well, of course what I meant was if the losing side also loses on
> appeal, it goes no further up the line. Basically it's always the
> losing side that appeals something, even in a middling decision where
> one side wins a few points and the other side wins a few of their own,
> each side can appeal the points that they lost.
>
> Anyways, if one side wins on appeal, that makes the other side the
> losing side of course. So those guys can then appeal one more level up.
> If they fail on the second appeal then there are no more appeals.
>
> Basically, two losses in a row and you're out.

South of the borDER, one can appeal right up the chain, unitl one gets
teruned down. There are only a few instances that can be appealed
directly to SCotUS, but a pair of losses up the chain is not an automatic
loss. A case can conceiveably be appealed five times (not
counting and remanding to lower courts).

However, upper courts tend to go with the findings of fact from the lower
courts. Most appeals are on procedural aspects of the cases.

--
Keith