Antitrust: Microsoft haunts Intel

[Yousuf Khan]

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.

 

[nobody]

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.


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

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...

 

[keith]

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]

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.

 

[nobody]

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.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

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

 

[Felger Carbon]

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! ;-)

 

[George Macdonald]

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.

 

[YKhan]

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

 

[keith]

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.

 

[Rob Stow]

South of the borDER, one can appeal right up the chain, unitl one gets
teruned down.

That is much the way it is in Canada too: Yousuf is wrong. You
can appeal up the chain until you hit a court that refuses to
hear your appeal. Losing an appeal does not mean you are done:
you *can* appeal to a higher court on the same grounds or you
can appeal to the same court on different grounds.

There are only a few instances that can be appealed
directly to SCotUS,

Ditto for "SCotCan".

but a pair of losses up the chain is not an automatic loss.

It is *not* that way in Canada. If an appeal is heard and ruled
on, then either side can appeal that ruling to a higher court,
unless, of course, you are already at the highest court. And if
one court refuses to hear your appeal, chances are overwhelming
that a higher court will also refuse, but it is not a
rubber-stamp process.

You can appeal as often as you can convince an appeals court at
any level that you have valid grounds for your appeal and your
appeal deserves to be heard. You could, for example, lose an
appeal of a criminal conviction in the Supreme Court and then
have a successful appeal years later if new evidence turns up
that gives your fresh grounds for a new appeal.

A case can conceiveably be appealed five times (not
counting and remanding to lower courts).

I thought it was much the same in the US as in Canada: no limit
on the number of times you could appeal - you just have to
convince an appeals court that they should let you present your
case. Indeed, from what I have read, American appeals courts
seem to spend a lot more time than Canadian courts on deciding
which appeals they will hear.

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

Ditto.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

That is much the way it is in Canada too: Yousuf is wrong. You can
appeal up the chain until you hit a court that refuses to hear your
appeal. Losing an appeal does not mean you are done: you *can* appeal
to a higher court on the same grounds or you can appeal to the same
court on different grounds.

It's been a long time since I took law in school, but that is one of the
things I think I heard about back then.

Yousuf Khan