The strange story of moist snuff, Carly Fiorina and Hector Ruiz

AT THE INQSTER we covered the antitrust trial against Intel by AMD in some depth. Now we have seen the latest deposition which is smeared with black blocks – called redaction – a sort of masking tape of the juiciest bits in the case.

Some gems remain in the acres of text covered in masking tape. On page 29 of the filing, the plaintiff’s joint preliminary case, “redacted”, we learn that AMD offered HP a million Opterons free but HP only would take 160,000.

After a mass of masking tape, we seem to find that AMD thought in some way HP was “irrational”. An unredacted bit said: “No rational computer manufacturer would leave 840,000 free, state-of-the-art microprocessors on the table unless it had been foreclosed from using them by exclusionary conduct. And that is precisely what happened.”

Was HP rational? Is HP rational? The jury isn’t out on that claim. There are pages more but we’ll have to wait until we launch the Examiner to, er examine this fascinating document further.

Moist snuff? Ah yeah, that is one of the precedents that AMD quotes. Presumably some manufacturer of moister snuff than snuff was being exclusionary to the less moist snuff manufacturer.

The case continues. And continues.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s