Judge tosses part of AMD suit against Intel

  • Thread starter Thread starter bbbl67
  • Start date Start date
A couple of articles here:

Judge tosses part of AMD suit against Intel | Tech News on ZDNet
"A federal judge has dismissed a large portion of Advanced Micro
Devices' antitrust lawsuit against Intel, saying that U.S. law does not
cover many of AMD's claims."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6119981.html
Click to expand...

Uhh, so CPUs which are designed in the U.S. and with process technology
developed in the U.S. and which happen to be made in a fab in Germany and
packaged in Malaysia are err, "German made"?... and CPUs which are designed
in Israel but made in a fab in Arizona or Ireland and packaged in Asia are
supposedly "US made"? Umm, what happened to the "global economy"? Judge
asleep at the whee... err, bench?

I think Intel should check their boots on this one - I think they just
stepped in "it".
 
George said:
Uhh, so CPUs which are designed in the U.S. and with process technology
developed in the U.S. and which happen to be made in a fab in Germany and
packaged in Malaysia are err, "German made"?... and CPUs which are designed
in Israel but made in a fab in Arizona or Ireland and packaged in Asia are
supposedly "US made"? Umm, what happened to the "global economy"? Judge
asleep at the whee... err, bench?
Click to expand...

I don't really think the story is actually right, but it's as close as
clueless reporters are going to get. I think what the judge threw out
were the parts of the lawsuit dealing with sales to manufacturers
outside of the US, such as the Japanese OEMs, etc. So they're going to
have to deal strictly with US manufacturers here, even though it's
likely that the Japanese manufacturers sell some of their stuff into
the US.

Yousuf Khan
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald said:
Uhh, so CPUs which are designed in the U.S. and with process
technology developed in the U.S. and which happen to be
made in a fab in Germany and packaged in Malaysia are err,
"German made"?... and CPUs which are designed in Israel
but made in a fab in Arizona or Ireland and packaged in
Asia are supposedly "US made"? Umm, what happened to the
"global economy"? Judge asleep at the whee... err, bench?
Click to expand...

No, those are the rules set down over hundreds of years
of trade agreements, the latest being GATT. They're very
necessary for tariff purposes.

I agree it makes no practical sense to ignore design and
machine costs, but the rules look at the article itself
and subcomponents by value to determine "origin".

OTOH, the stupidity of these rules has helped the demise
of tariffs, once a major tax and larger trade impediment.

-- Robert
 
No, those are the rules set down over hundreds of years
of trade agreements, the latest being GATT. They're very
necessary for tariff purposes.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the "rules" were framed to reflect the kind of
situation we have here. Take a look at even the sketchy details I gave
above. Both Intel & AMD are international corps who make chips in various
places, which are packaged in various other places. The ICs are anonymous
as to point of origin once packaged - there's no reason at all to make the
fab the nominal "Made in..." country.
I agree it makes no practical sense to ignore design and
machine costs, but the rules look at the article itself
and subcomponents by value to determine "origin".
Click to expand...

What article? The box the article comes in, the packaging of the IC, the
physical IC itself, the wafer the IC was "printed" on?
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald said:
I seriously doubt that the "rules" were framed to reflect
the kind of situation we have here.
Click to expand...

Of course they were not. The law has to evolve. In this
case, AMD tried to get a US judge to apply US law to overseas
actions. For the very good reason that they affected the
US market. The judge didn't see that he had that power,
so severed those portions of AMD's complaint.
What article? The box the article comes in, the packaging
of the IC, the physical IC itself, the wafer the IC was
"printed" on?
Click to expand...

The article as received by the purchaser, including shipment
packaging. It doesn't matter, the packaging (both shipment
and electronic connections) is no-where near 50% of the
cost for CPUs. I don't know how the testing and culling
is evaluated. Perhaps neglected. So it really boils down
to where the wafer is printed.

-- Robert
 
Of course they were not. The law has to evolve. In this
case, AMD tried to get a US judge to apply US law to overseas
actions. For the very good reason that they affected the
US market. The judge didn't see that he had that power,
so severed those portions of AMD's complaint.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that you're really agreeing wih me that the judge
ruled certain actions "overseas" or "foreign" when in fact they were
not.;-) IOW the judge is not "fit"... or the journo screwed it up, as
Yousuf indicated. I don't see the same kind of stuff in the tech site
articles.
The article as received by the purchaser, including shipment
packaging. It doesn't matter, the packaging (both shipment
and electronic connections) is no-where near 50% of the
cost for CPUs. I don't know how the testing and culling
is evaluated. Perhaps neglected. So it really boils down
to where the wafer is printed.
Click to expand...

An anachronism then!:-)
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald said:
I get the impression that you're really agreeing wih me
that the judge ruled certain actions "overseas" or "foreign"
when in fact they were not.;-) IOW the judge is not "fit"...
Click to expand...

I am agreeing with you, but I also think perhaps the judge
really had no choice. It would have been reaching too far
[novel agrument], and s/he didn't feel competent to go there,
so left it for the inevitable appeal. Or would you rather
judges legislate from the bench?
or the journo screwed it up, as Yousuf indicated.
Click to expand...

Journalists screwing up is a given.
An anachronism then!:-)
Click to expand...

Many thing in the law are, but it's surprisingly flexible
and can be "caught up", usually by better jurists.

-- Robert
 
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald said:
I get the impression that you're really agreeing wih me
that the judge ruled certain actions "overseas" or "foreign"
when in fact they were not.;-) IOW the judge is not "fit"...
Click to expand...

I am agreeing with you, but I also think perhaps the judge
really had no choice. It would have been reaching too far
[novel agrument], and s/he didn't feel competent to go there,
so left it for the inevitable appeal. Or would you rather
judges legislate from the bench?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the "German made" and "ripple effect" quote which is apparently
correct just sounds too much like words invented and placed in his mouth by
Intel. In todday's semiconductor market, with e.g. all the outsourcing and
foundries, to say that AMD chips are "German made" and Intel's are umm,
"U.S. made" [quote by implication here] just simply justifies the law's
portrayal as an ASS, and the wrong end of it too.:-) It also hints a
rather strong pong from umm, chambers.

The above legal assumption would have ATI and nVidia's GPUs "Taiwan Made"
if outsourced to UMC or TSMC or "US Made" if fabbed at one of IBM's fabs in
NY. I reckon there's going to be some serious repercussions from this
throughout the entire industry.
Journalists screwing up is a given.


Many thing in the law are, but it's surprisingly flexible
and can be "caught up", usually by better jurists.
Click to expand...

In the meantime.........
 
Back
Top