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
On 26 Sep 2006 22:47:59 -0700, "bbbl67" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
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 MicroDevices' antitrust lawsuit against Intel, saying that U.S. law does notcover many of AMD's claims."http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6119981.html
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".
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 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.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in part:
Quote:
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?
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.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:39:07 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in part:
Quote:
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?
No, those are the rules set down over hundreds of yearsof trade agreements, the latest being GATT. They're verynecessary for tariff purposes.
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.
Quote:
I agree it makes no practical sense to ignore design andmachine costs, but the rules look at the article itselfand subcomponents by value to determine "origin".
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 <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in part:
Quote:
I seriously doubt that the "rules" were framed to reflect the kind of situation we have here.
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.
Quote:
What article? The box the article comes in, the packaging of the IC, the physical IC itself, the wafer the IC was "printed" on?
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.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:01:12 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in part:
Quote:
I seriously doubt that the "rules" were framed to reflect the kind of situation we have here.
Of course they were not. The law has to evolve. In thiscase, AMD tried to get a US judge to apply US law to overseasactions. For the very good reason that they affected theUS market. The judge didn't see that he had that power,so severed those portions of AMD's complaint.
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.
Quote:
What article? The box the article comes in, the packaging of the IC, the physical IC itself, the wafer the IC was "printed" on?The article as received by the purchaser, including shipmentpackaging. It doesn't matter, the packaging (both shipmentand electronic connections) is no-where near 50% of thecost for CPUs. I don't know how the testing and cullingis evaluated. Perhaps neglected. So it really boils downto where the wafer is printed.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in part:
Quote:
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"...
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?
Quote:
or the journo screwed it up, as Yousuf indicated.
Journalists screwing up is a given.
Quote:
An anachronism then!:-)
Many thing in the law are, but it's surprisingly flexible
and can be "caught up", usually by better jurists.
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:23:07 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in part:
Quote:
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"...
I am agreeing with you, but I also think perhaps the judgereally 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 ratherjudges legislate from the bench?
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.
Quote:
or the journo screwed it up, as Yousuf indicated.Journalists screwing up is a given.
Quote:
An anachronism then!:-)
Many thing in the law are, but it's surprisingly flexibleand can be "caught up", usually by better jurists.
The MyLounge.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not
be relied upon and is not a substitute for any advice. The information contained
on MyLounge.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation
of the opinions of MyLounge.com. MyLounge.com does not warrant or vouch for
the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications
of any person responding. Please consult a expert or seek the services of an
attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation. Please note
that our forums also serve as mirrors to Usenet newsgroups. Many posts you see
on our forums are made by newsgroup users who may not be members of MyLounge.com
Term of Service
Judge tosses part of AMD suit against Intel
Linear Mode
