🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr1.022155.1074@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <2303@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) writes:
>>Judge Phelps ruled that Intel has to pay AMD $15.256.472. Also he granted
>>AMD the permanent, royalty free right to produce and sell the Am386. Intel
>>is warned not to hinder AMD anymore in doing this.
>>
>>Seems pretty tough for Intel. Wonder what the future will bring.
>
>What amuses me is that Intel claims they won the arbitration and then
>in the next breath say they will appeal. Why would you want to appeal
>if you won?

	Please remember, much of this banter is PR. The general
opinion around here seems to be that the agreement between Intel
and AMD was violated by both parties to some extent. Most people
are ignorant of many of the facts, including myself, so I do not
wish to get into a discussion about who was right and who was 
wrong. The reason Intel claims victory in this case is that the 
monitary penalty was paltry compaired to quarterly revenues. 
Compairable to an award of a dollar to the plantif in the People's 
Court. ;-)
	By the way, AMD was seeking unconditional rights to the
386 design. They did not recieve this. They are not allowed to
use the design in any future products. Ho hum, I smell another 
court battle. Enough bandwidth on this subject. Take it to
lawyer.money.money.money .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Peterson 
Intel Corp., M/S SC4-69, 2625 Walsh Ave.
Santa Clara, Ca. 95052-9940
dpeterso@mipos3.intel.com
Dave Peterson
SC4-69
765-5109
dpeterso@mipos3