Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

AMD's battle with Intel to go West?

Filed under
Legal

AMD vs Intel AMD's legal action against Intel in the US District Court of Delaware could up stumps and move to the US District of Northern California, if plaintiffs already engaged in proceedings against Intel have their way, court documents seen by The Register reveal.

The Delaware Court was this week notified that two Northern California plaintiffs, Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes, have requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) order the transfer of four cases coming up before the Delaware Court to be transferred to Northern California and consolidate them and ten anti-Intel class actions already taking place there.

Among those four Delaware cases is AMD vs Intel and Intel KK - the latter is Intel's Japanese subsidiary. The others are all cases filed on 6 and 8 July 2005.

The ten Northern California were all filed after AMD's 27 June 2005 complaint, suggesting they, like the three extra Delaware cases, were filed in response to AMD's lead. The ten Northern California cases list "consumers who purchased Intel microprocessor computer chips" as plaintiffs - as do the three additional Delaware cases.

According to the JPML request, all the extra cases "arise out of the same or similar illegal antitrust conduct and allege substantially similar claims... [and] a common core of factual allegations, namely, that Intel illegally maintained its monopoly power in the relevant microprocessor market and/or engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in that market by fixing the prices and/or allocating markets for Intel chips solid in the United States and elsewhere, thus overcharging Original Equipment Manufacturer purchasers and consumers for prices paid for Intel chips during the relevant time period".

The request notes that none of the cases have heard responses from Intel, and that combining them would save considerable court time and costs. Why move to Northern California rather than Delaware? Because that Court has the majority of cases already.

No date was given for a decision on the motion to transfer. The JPML meets every two months. Its next convention takes place next week, on 28 July, where it will consider a host of motions to transfer, but not MDL-1707, the request concerning the AMD case and others. That means the request will not be heard until late September at the earliest, by which time Intel should have filed its response to AMD's complaint.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Security: VPNFilter, Encryption in GNU/Linux, Intel CPU Bug Affecting rr Watchpoints

  • [Crackers] infect 500,000 consumer routers all over the world with malware

    VPNFilter—as the modular, multi-stage malware has been dubbed—works on consumer-grade routers made by Linksys, MikroTik, Netgear, TP-Link, and on network-attached storage devices from QNAP, Cisco researchers said in an advisory. It’s one of the few pieces of Internet-of-things malware that can survive a reboot. Infections in at least 54 countries have been slowly building since at least 2016, and Cisco researchers have been monitoring them for several months. The attacks drastically ramped up during the past three weeks, including two major assaults on devices located in Ukraine. The spike, combined with the advanced capabilities of the malware, prompted Cisco to release Wednesday’s report before the research is completed.

  • Do Not Use sha256crypt / sha512crypt - They're Dangerous

    I'd like to demonstrate why I think using sha256crypt or sha512crypt on current GNU/Linux operating systems is dangerous, and why I think the developers of GLIBC should move to scrypt or Argon2, or at least bcrypt or PBKDF2.

  • Intel CPU Bug Affecting rr Watchpoints
    I investigated an rr bug report and discovered an annoying Intel CPU bug that affects rr replay using data watchpoints. It doesn't seem to be hit very often in practice, which is good because I don't know any way to work around it. It turns out that the bug is probably covered by an existing Intel erratum for Skylake and Kaby Lake (and probably later generations, but I'm not sure), which I even blogged about previously! However, the erratum does not mention watchpoints and the bug I've found definitely depends on data watchpoints being set. I was able to write a stand-alone testcase to characterize the bug. The issue seems to be that if a rep stos (and probably rep movs) instruction writes between 1 and 64 bytes (inclusive), and you have a read or write watchpoint in the range [64, 128) bytes from the start of the writes (i.e., not triggered by the instruction), then one spurious retired conditional branch is (usually) counted. The alignment of the writes does not matter, and it's not related to speculative execution.

In Memoriam: Robin "Roblimo" Miller, a Videographer and Free Software Champion

Videographer Robin Roblimo Miller

Robin "Roblimo" Miller was a clever, friendly, and very amicable individual who everyone I know has plenty of positive things to say about. I had the pleasure of speaking to him for several hours about anything from personal life and professional views. Miller was a very knowledgeable person whose trade as a journalist and video producer I often envied. I have seen him facing his critics in his capacity as a journalist over a decade ago when he arranged a debate about OOXML (on live radio). Miller, to me, will always be remembered as a strong-minded and investigative journalist who "did the right thing" as the cliché goes, irrespective of financial gain -- something which can sometimes be detrimental to one's longterm health. Miller sacrificed many of his later years to a cause worth fighting for. This is what we ought to remember him for. Miller was - and always will be - a FOSS hero.

May everything you fought for be fulfilled, Mr. Miller. I already miss you.

Today in Techrights

Tux Machines Privacy Statement

Summary: Today, May 25th, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes into full effect; we hereby make a statement on privacy AS a matter of strict principle, this site never has and never will accumulate data on visitors (e.g. access logs) for longer than 28 days. The servers are configured to permanently delete all access data after this period of time. No 'offline' copies are being made. Temporary logging is only required in case of DDOS attacks and cracking attempts -- the sole purpose of such access. Additionally, we never have and never will sell any data pertaining to anything. We never received demands for such data from authorities; even if we had, we would openly declare this (publicly, a la Canary) and decline to comply. Privacy is extremely important to us, which is why pages contain little or no cross-site channels (such as Google Analytics, 'interactive' buttons for 'social' media etc.) and won't be adding any. Google may be able to 'see' what pages people visit because of Google Translate (top left of every page), but that is not much worse than one's ISP 'seeing' the same thing. We are aware of this caveat. Shall readers have any further questions on such matters, do not hesitate to contact us.