AMD failed to follow my advice
When Intel moved to strike part of AMD's claims on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, I suggested the following argument: Japanese PC makers such as SONY sell their finished PCes in the United States. Therefore, Intel's anti-competitive behaviour in Japan affects the US PC market and US consumers. When Intel excluded AMD from Japan's SONY, US consumers were no longer offered the choice of stylish SONY AMD PCes. Joe Osh could have bought a AMD SONY for $1000, instead he had to buy an Intel SONY for $2000. Intel's foreign anti-competitive behaviour thus have direct effect in both the foreign and domestic x86 markets. AMD's lawsuit in US seeks to address such effects in the US under US law, while AMD's lawsuit in Japan addresses the effects in Japan.
Judging from Judge Farnan's ruling, AMD failed to deliver the simple message above, instead, AMD's arguments were quite abstract.
While some Intelers are cheering, they have to understand this is just the original complaint. As AMD uncovers more evidence through discovery, it will leave to amend its complaint and may add these back in.
I don't have a JD. But I tell you, I can devise an argument to bring about a certain result with the rules and the facts. That's why I can be better than most lawyers -- liberal arts people who lack logic most of the time.
People have been seeing apples falling for millions of years, only Newton discovered gravity. Why? You can have all the facts, but you have to use them correctly...
Some info on the Judge, very fun reading.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 9/27/2006 07:47:00 AM
44 Comments:
The end is near. AMD will, in a few years, offer itself to be bought over by IBM to pull itself out of the financial mess from the lawsuit and the ATI acquisition.
Sad to see a company like this. It's been around for longer than Intel. And for most of the time it has been living off Intel's leftovers.
For the little time it was a leader, all we have seen is arrogance and manipulation of customers thru exorbitant prices.
Guess what ? An AMD without Intel is far far more dangerous than Intel without AMD.
Yo Pretender PhD, MBA, you are no JD.
Looks like AMD in a lot of hurt heah?
Took on a load of debt with ATI
Dropped prices 50% on leading edge products
Got no 65nm
Got no independent 65/45nm development team
Got no 45nm factory.. just dreams
Got no credible lawsuite..
Who is going to go BK?
The end is near? This statement is ludicrous. There is no financial mess from either the lawsuit or the ATI acquistion. Even Anand talked about AMD's need to make their own chipsets back in 2001.
I'm guessing you've been reading those ridiculous articles comparing 2007 to 2002. In reality, AMD will do better in 2006 than it has ever done. And, 2007 should also be a good year for AMD. AMD won't be bought by IBM.
Your facts are a bit lacking however. Intel is a little bit older than AMD but not much. AMD has not been feeding off of Intel's leftovers since 2003. AMD has actually been very nice to its customers and partners; this cannot be said of Intel. Also, I can't imagine when AMD has manipulated customers or charged exhorbitant prices. You seem to have the same problem that Anand had in 2003 when he wanted AMD to sell its best procesors for bargain prices. In reality, both AMD and Intel have had lower priced products available all during the last three years. There is no reason for Intel and AMD to not charge a premium for their EE/FX range.
Sharikou - yup...it's a pity all those highly paid lawyer's with actual law degrees are not bowing down to your Ph D and telling the judge the simple story. How about this - it's not relevant because Intel when it sells products to Sony in Japan does not dictate where Sony sells their laptops.
Since neither Sony or anyone elsie is providing proof for AMD's claims that Intel twisted their arm. And AMD has no way of proving exactly how many if any of those laptops were sold in the US and quantify the damage to the US consumer, your "simple" argument is hogwash. Thankfully, AMD is not listening to you!
For the little time it was a leader, all we have seen is arrogance and manipulation of customers thru exorbitant prices.
Not really.
AMD always said their processors where price/performance according to Intel offerings.
What you saw like you said was faster products from AMD which resulted in higher prices. You should “thank” Intel for the AMD higher prices.
Even so if you look at AMD single core offering was faster than the Intel parts and cheaper.
What you saw from Intel was Dual core for the masses (should read crap) that even Intel doesn’t want. That is the reason behind the lower prices over AMD dual core offerings. AMD Dual core was much faster, so more expensive.
I didn’t saw Intel for example with Quad core saying is going to follow the same “rule” it did with dual core, quad core cheaper (or as cheaper) as dual core.
Guess what first Intel Quad core will go for 1000$.
If AMD with 4x4 provides me 2 top of the line processors for the price of one top Intel.
Say welcome to a new market created by AMD with the 4x4.
How about this - it's not relevant because Intel when it sells products to Sony in Japan does not dictate where Sony sells their laptops.
Once AMD finds concrete evidence that Intel knew that some of SONY's PCes were bound for US, then your argument would collapse.
At this stage, the decision was made purely on the original complaint, the facts alleged in the complaint are sketchy. Once discovery is done, AMD may amend its complaint...It's called leave to amend...
I have personally defeated big name lawyers in lawsuits. I look down at them. Look, we science folks think like computers, with mathematical rigor, once we understand the rules, we can arrange the facts and rules into a certain result. Lawyers don't think like this, they always try to find a precedence without understanding the underlying principles.
...
Got no 65nm
Got no independent 65/45nm development team
...
And anyone besides Intel as? Where is IBM, TSMC, …, … .65nm?
And about the Intel superb .65nm
Do you know the just one month ago the .65nm production surpassed the .90nm?
I don’t think it would be strange that by the second half of next year AMD would be producing only .65nm parts and Intel keeps manufacturing .90nm parts.
PS: Intel products suck, that the only way that can be improved is by manufacturing advances. Core 2 Duo at .90nm would be eating grass from AMD 3 year’s old designs.
The way I see it, in the desktop arena AMD is in a lot of trouble. I'm not sure what AMD should do to make itself more competitive, but lawsuits against Intel won't stop AMD from going deeper and deeper into troubled territory.
1. Intel has superior desktop processors.
2. Intel's processors are less expensive than a poorer performing AMD counterpart processor.
3. AMD has very little in the way of brand strength to anyone who does not pay attention to the business of building PC's.
From the way I understand it, citing foreign sales tactics will not have any bearing in a US court considering anti-competitive behaviour. I may be wrong however, but I think the judge agrees with me.
I like AMD. They seem to be a 'good' company, relatively speaking. However, this is not enough to sway me when it comes to forking over an extra $40 for a poorer perfoming processor.
AMD should really not look at 65nm and skip this round altogether. They should focus on 45nm tech, take a hit in the desktop market this round, and survive off Opteron and ATI sales (which work well in new Intel systems and won't take a hit) for the time being.
Conroe has and will continue to set AMD on it's ass for the next while. Any losses on the Pentium D clearout will easily be offset by the interest in the C2D processors. Actually, it appears as though the general public is eating up the D's not too badly, oddly enough. For the same price or less you can have a better Conroe in your box and many people don't know that.
I see a lot of ads for the D's and can only imagine how salespeople are earning their bonus commissions getting rid of them.
The ATI acquisition was a good move, however, the market appears to have a poor taste in it's mouth when it comes to choosing an ATI video card over a Nvidia card. ATI flogged their poorer processors in the late 90's in too many mainstream stores where 'uneducated' shoppers bought inferior Radeons when they realized that for the same money they could have had a far better Nvidia product. Now those people are still sour. Even though Radeons perferm excellent these days often better than Nvidias offerings, they have far less brand strength than Nvidia.
As for Intel going out of business in the next 5-7 months, Sharikou, I think you'd best change your tune. AMD is behind the game badly right now. Lawsuits aren't going to get them ahead.
When Vista arrives and people are screaming for 64 bit processors, AMD will not be there for them. Intel will. Sad to say, if any corporation has to worry about going bankrupt soon it would be AMD.
4x4, K8L, Torrenzo ...
AMD has been coming up with more and more vaporware in the past 6months while Intel brought atleast 10 new CPUs to the market in the same period, all market leading in their segments.
AMD has been talking what Intel has been doing.
That's too bad that Farnan is in charge of this case for AMD then:)
There's a reason this case is considered far reaching.
Once AMD finds concrete evidence that Intel knew that some of SONY's PCes were bound for US, then your argument would collapse.
At this stage, the decision was made purely on the original complaint, the facts alleged in the complaint are sketchy. Once discovery is done, AMD may amend its complaint...It's called leave to amend...
Well - here's some more detail which bears out my POV:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/27/intel-amd-earnings-markets-equity-cx_rs_0927markets02.html
Remember, the burden of proof is to first demonstrate Intel engaged in monopolistic business practises and that those had an impact on the US. We shall see...or perhaps my grandchildren will see if you're right.
I noticed in a recent Intel press release the company begins to call AMD64 (i386's 64-bit extension, which was designed by AMD and later copied by Intel) the "Intel 64" instruction set.
All I could say is that this is the typical Intel. A shamelessly unethical and misleading marketing engine.
It actually will be good for the whole industry (not for its shareholders, of coruse) if this company goes Chapter 11.
"1. Intel has superior desktop processors."
True only for the high-end.
"2. Intel's processors are less expensive than a poorer performing AMD counterpart processor."
Not true. Last I checked Core 2 Duo is still a bit more expensive than equal-performing X2. Its motherboard is more expensive, too.
"3. AMD has very little in the way of brand strength to anyone who does not pay attention to the business of building PC's."
This has been true for the past 20 years.
The biggest damage that Core2 did on AMD, IMO, is that it pretty much kills the "FX" branding that AMD tried to establish over the past few years. Now FX doesn't mean super fast anymore, but super costly.
"And about the Intel superb .65nm
Do you know the just one month ago the .65nm production surpassed the .90nm?"
Where did you get this informatoin, though?
BTW, it's 65nm, not .65nm.
IMO, Intel's fabs are as efficient as AMD's, but it does have superior lithography.
"I have personally defeated big name lawyers in lawsuits."
If you could provide the actual complaints so we can read up on this, it would be appreciated - these should be public record documents, no?
considering the amount of money Intel is going to lose paying a bit to the judge to bend his impartiality is chump change!.
"And about the Intel superb .65nm
Do you know the just one month ago the .65nm production surpassed the .90nm?"
Yes - just because you ramp a new technology doesn't mean you stop producing on the previous technology - that would be financially stupid due to the fact that equipment depreciation is 4 years and typical process node scaling is 2 years.
If you follow what Intel has been doing - they typically startup a fab on a given node and contine running on that node and only upgrade the fab on "n+2" technology node as this will be in 4 years.
It doesn't make sense in many cases to rip out ~30% of your equipment for the new technology node when the technoology can be used for lower performing parts and chipsets.
Sharikou, given your expert advice and uncanny ability to predict markets - can you comment on how stupid AMD is to not offer you a job or try to hire you as a part time consultant?
It would seem AMD is a complete bunch of idiots to not hire you on as a consultant given your ability to outperform and think more clearly than AMD's entire legal team. Couple in the fact that you "have personally defeated big name lawyers in lawsuits" it would seem rather shortsighted for AMD not to hire you on as a consultant. Are your services available for hire?
Are your services available for hire?
No. I have sued companies a few times, and I found most lawyers are idiots -- even they are from huge law firm. The worse thing is they treat you like idiots. So I have to start reading Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and stuff like that. Without exception, I found I can read the rules once, and I understand them better than most lawyers. Everyone trained in science should start doing this if they ever get into a lawsuit.
Most lawyers are idiots period Once you know the procedure, the law, and the cases, you can be better with your scientifically trained mind. In my cases, I simply nail the opponents with surgical precision by defeating their arguments on pure logic, and they have no way of countering it. They can pile up a whole ton of cases, but they can't overcome simple facts coupled with mathematical reasoning.
AMD has been coming up with more and more vaporware in the past 6months while Intel brought atleast 10 new CPUs to the market
Well, could you name even one vaporware product from AMD? And, before you put your foot in your mouth by mentioning K8L, keep in mind that when Anand previewed Conroe it wasn't due to be released for six months. K8L should be previewed soon and released about six months later. You might not be able to understand the concept but it isn't vaporware when you release a product on time or earlier than you said you would. And, AMD has always said mid 2007 for K8L.
Secondly, what are these ten processors from Intel? I assume you must mean Conroe plus woodcrest and merom. You must have forgotten that AMD released Revision F which included support for DDR2 and virtualization. AMD will soon be releasing Revision G which is just a die shrink but also the 4x4 chips, and then Revision H which is a modified core in Q2 07.
1. Intel has superior desktop processors.
The 18% share of production that is Conroe is superior. The other 82% is not.
2. Intel's processors are less expensive than a poorer performing AMD counterpart processor.
No. 82% of Intel's chips are not cheaper in terms of performance. Of the 18% that is Conroe, AMD's 3800+ currently has no competition from Intel. Intel's E6300 and E6400 chips are about equal to AMD's chips at these prices. However, the E6600, E6700, and X6800 are indeed better performing than AMD's offerings in the same price range.
3. AMD has very little in the way of brand strength to anyone who does not pay attention to the business of building PC's.
This is actually the normal situation. It is very unusual for a supplier like Intel to have brand recognition. However, Intel just tossed out most of its recognized brands and pretty much just has Centrino left. ViiV has not left the ground yet.
The biggest damage that Core2 did on AMD, IMO, is that it pretty much kills the "FX" branding that AMD tried to establish over the past few years. Now FX doesn't mean super fast anymore, but super costly.
Not really. FX will be replaced by 4X4 FX.
When Vista arrives and people are screaming for 64 bit processors, AMD will not be there for them.
Are you insane or just incredibly ignorant? AMD has had 64 bit processors since it released Opteron in Q2 03. Intel has had 64 bit processors since it turned on the this capability in the Prescott cores which I believe was in early 2004. So, both companies have had these processors for years.
BTW, did you forget that Intel wanted to create its own 64 bit extensions after AMD announced AMD64 and Microsoft told Intel that they would not support them?
"AMD has been coming up with more and more vaporware in the past 6months while Intel brought atleast 10 new CPUs to the market in the same period, all market leading in their segments.
AMD has been talking what Intel has been doing."
No one denies that Intel has much more resource than AMD. Intel has more than 4 times the workforce working on x86 designs alone, not including production and marketing (which are even much more).
That doesn't mean AMD is not doing, however. In fact, AMD released AM2 and socket F, Turion64 X2, better Cool&Quiet and the ability to gate processor core and HT clocks independently, just to named a few right off the top of my head.
Also, it really doesn't matter how many CPUs Intel comes out. You have to look at the innovations in those products. Larger cache? Faster FSB? MCM for dual- or quad- cores? The fact is, the more Netburst Intel sells, the more harm it does to itself and to the industry as a whole. Core2 is probably the only significant advancement Intel has in 3 years, yet with Core2 Intel is shifting from selling power-hungry super-clocked CPUs to power-hungry super-clocked chipsets / northbridges.
In fact, Intel did good things before, with *relatively* more open minds and attitudes. We now know that the addition of virtual memory to the original x86 was good, and the transition to 32-bit was necessary; we now know that Intel did the right thing to give up its "CISC is better" ego and implement the p6 microarchitecture as RISC internally; we also know that SIMD instructions (MMX/SSE) are very useful.
But lately, it is really AMD who is pushing the technological front. First Intel refused to admit that clockrate is misleading, only to U-turn its stance a few years later; then Intel rejected the idea of AMD64, only to copy it and call it "Intel 64" a few months later. Today Intel still dismisses the need of on-chip memory controllers, low-latency processor interconnect, NUMA, open platform and socket, among other things. Do you notice a change in Intel's attitudes/approaches now from the 80's/90's?
Simply put, there is no hope for Intel to sustain any growth by its current way of doing business. It has already saturated and stifled the PC market. Intel knew this, and was already looking at wireless/PDA technologies for its future growth.
So yes, Intel is "doing" because it has so many wordforce there. Core2 is a good core design, as dual core. What else innovation did Intel bring to the table except that?
"It has already saturated and stifled the PC market."
And exactly how is AMD GROWING the market, here I was thinking there growth was mainly from market share gains?
Just a though laptop is one of the fastest growing segments - I suppose you will say Intel had no impact in that area? Wi-Fi is fairly ubiquitous now, Wi-Max will soon be. I hear Intel also makes an OK mobile technology which may have contributed to growth of the mobile market.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but AMD did make the argument you said they should make. See pages 5 and 6 of the memorandum opinion. Yes, I have a JD.
Could you please name some cases you have been involved in where you have defeated all these attorneys?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but AMD did make the argument you said they should make. See pages 5 and 6 of the memorandum opinion. Yes, I have a JD.
Then you prove my assertion that lawyers are idiots.
Tell us where on page 5 or 6 of the opinion mentioned the arguments I made.
What AMD argued, besides theory of a single global x86 market (which was wrong, I believe), was that because AMD exported chips made in US, Intel's behaviour in Jap harmed its export business.
'Intel argued that AMD should now be precluded from obtaining discovery outside the United States.
"Our view of the judge's order is that anything related to foreign jurisdictions, be it damages or discovery, is no longer part of the U.S. case," he said.'
Any thoughts on this now that the foreign claims have been dismissed? Shouldn't discovery regarding these claims also no longer be valid? (I.e. only Intel's trade practices regarding chips sold in the US should now be part of discovery in the US case?)
If this occurs, this will significantly cut the "PR" portion of AMD's lawsuit as it may now allow some computer manufacturers to no longer have to respond to subpoenas/discovery requests (for US case).
There is also an article on Yahoo finance that refernces an AMD statement that the judges ruling will signifcantly reduce potential damages.
Hmmm... Apr'09 trial date - Intel will be bankrupt for over a year by then, I guess there's no point going forward with the lawsuit?
So if trial is set to start in Apr09, and given likelihood of possible delay and actual duration of the case itsel, what are we looking at... a 2010 or 2011 decision?
From page 6
"an examination into foreign conduct of Intel which is alleged to have domestic effects. AMD contends in this case Intel's foreign conduct and the foreign harm it caused is inextricably bound with Intel's domestic conduct restraining trade ..."
Then read almost all of page 8.
You are confusing your specific factual analogy with the legal argument, unless you are arguing that an american could have gone to japan and bought a sony AMD PC there.
Moreover, the judge is addressing multiple legal arguments and claims in very close quarters, thus it is difficult for a non-attorney to understand the intricate nature in which the arguments are addressed.
A further note: This ruling will not limit AMD from introducing such evidence as a state of mind on the part of Intel or as a more effective argument phrasology "a common scheme".
See also page 11 of the opinion which differentiates between a "ripple effect", but-for causation, and the required standard "direct causation.
For my final point, see the "loss of fredom" of consumer choice discussion on page 12 of the document.
So please Sharikou, do not comment on things for which you do not understand. Legal argument are often somewhat abstract. AMD's arguments encompass your own, but alas they failed on those claims.
Fear not however, much of the complaint is still in tact. It is not uncommon for a complaint containing 50 or so claims to actually go to trial on 5-10.
I am still waiting for your answer to which cases you have been a part of where you have been better than most lawyers.
Moreover, the judge is addressing multiple legal arguments and claims in very close quarters, thus it is difficult for a non-attorney to understand the intricate nature in which the arguments are addressed.
On page 8, AMD's argument was this: because Intel's behaviour hurt AMD's business, it weakened AMD overall. That theory was based on the unproven theory of single global x86 market, and was very weak.
On page 11, the judge mentioned that AMD brought up the "loss of freedom" of computer buyers in US. But the judge differentiate the computer market and the processor market. Basicaly, the judge says the direct effect was on computer market, but AMD was suing about monopoly in x86 proceesor market. I didn't read AMD's opposition, however, if AMD did raise the points I mentioned, then the judge is twisting logic here. The processor market cannot be separated from the computer market. A processor is only useful when operating inside a computer. What Intel did was to exlcude AMD processors from OEM's computers. AMD could always sell their CPUs directly to DIY market. Intel never limitd AMD CPUs shelf space in Frys, Intel limited the shelf spaces of PCes equipped with AMD CPUs. What Intel did was always on the PC, because without a PC, the CPU is useless. If you take the judge's position, then Intel never excluded AMD from the processor market -- japanese and americans could buy AMD CPUs directly from AMD...
There is nothing intricate about this whole thing. I don't have the time to study it fully, but in any case, it's just a matter of correctly apply the rules...
I fragged two partners in a big law firm, the judge sided with me totally and ruled harshly against on those million dollar lawyers' motions... One day I will write about it and much more.
"I fragged two partners in a big law firm, the judge sided with me totally and ruled harshly against on those million dollar lawyers' motions... One day I will write about it and much more."
How about giving us the docket number or case name and the court?
I like how you link to other blogs to try and impeach the judge.
AMD got bitchslapped and you know it.
I like how you link to other blogs to try and impeach the judge.
AMD got bitchslapped and you know it.
Dude, a ruling at this stage on the original complaint means nothing. AMD hasn't file an amended complaint yet. The issues are definitely not dead. They can be re-introduced as AMD uncovers more evidence, you know that. The law of the case doctrine is not absolute.
Expect the fight to continue to be bloody. The most important thing is Intel's behaviour is under global scrutiny and consumers have more freedom to choose.
The case is scheduled be tried in 2009, by then, Intel will be BKed already. AMD is trying to move it forward, in a hope to get some money. But it really doesn't matter. Once Intel BKs, AMD can make all the money it wants.
"They can be re-introduced as AMD uncovers more evidence, you know that"
Just a thought but shouldn't AMD have some evidence before they specify the claim or are they just hoping to uncover it along the way?
Also, Intel is now arguing if the foreign claims have been dismissed, AMD should not be allowed anymore discovery in those areas as they are no longer part of the "official" ammended complaint. It'll be interesting if judge rules in favor of this or not (ruling probably could go either way)
Also, Intel is now arguing if the foreign claims have been dismissed, AMD should not be allowed anymore discovery in those areas as they are no longer part of the "official" ammended complaint. It'll be interesting if judge rules in favor of this or not (ruling probably could go either way)
No. Discvery rule is different from evidence rule. During discovery, you may request docs that may lead to evidende. The docs themselves don't have to be directly relevant.
There was an interview that Hector Ruiz did with a financial periodical (can't be sure if it was Forbes of Fortune) in which he mentioned why the suit had to be made.
In early 2000, AMD too was encroaching towards 30% market share, and it was Hector's belief that a large part of it had to do with Intel then running a lot of monopolistic practices which pushed AMD out of business virtually in Japan and reduced its worldwide share.
With this lawsuit in place, it has seemed to put Intel on the defensive and made a lot more companies more willing to take a gamble with AMD, without worrying about repercussions from Intel. This IMHO has already happened and so the lawsuit already has achieved one of its intended goals.
Among other things I have heard (but not confirmed) was that intel's latest compilers no longer de-optimize code if the CPUID does not return GenuineIntel. So AMD processors will still have SSE2/3, MMX and other optimization flags etc all enabled.
In "Droit v. De Seigneur" the ruling boils down to no matter what you did somewhere else, it was what happened at home that counted the most.
Therefore, Intel can and will excercise jus primae noctis over AMD for as long as AMD makes processors.
We can see an example of "jus primae noctis" in what is happening to ATI sales since the merger announcement.
Once Intel BKs, AMD can make all the money it wants.
I'll try to get this past you one more time, since you neglected to approve it last time.
The above statement can be interpreted to mean that while you believe an Intel "monopoly" is an evil dictator of the marketplace, you believe that AMD would be a "benevolent dictator", never wronging the customer in any way- be it innovation, pricing, or...?
On what grounds do you believe that AMD would behave any differently than any other company that "owns" their market? Your comment that AMD can make all the money it wants indicates to me that in fact you believe they are going to bend their customers over once Intel is out of the way, no?
The above statement can be interpreted to mean that while you believe an Intel "monopoly" is an evil dictator of the marketplace, you believe that AMD would be a "benevolent dictator", never wronging the customer in any way- be it innovation, pricing, or...?
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. What's wrong is using anti-competitive methods to maintain the monopoly and thwart advance of human civilization. Intel did exactly that. It is a reactionary force that tried to keep the world at obsolete 32 bit FSB technology, while AMD is for progress with pervasive 64 bit computing. In this sense, Intel is guilty of obstructing the advance of civilization and must be forcefully stopped. AMD kills Intel is natural selection and represents evolution.
We can expect there will be even more creative companies who will produce even more creative technologies. Will AMD abuse its power then? We don't know. We cannot accuse someone for crimes he has not committed.
while AMD is for progress with pervasive 64 bit computing.
Ah, back to the "pervasive 64 bit" thing. I asked in a previous few threads- show me how 64 bit is anything more than hype in the volume consumer and business space. Show me applications in the past X years since AMD64 release that require 64bits. 64bit computing remains a niche market, and will for some years to come. High end SW development on the lowend, scientific and other big-iron apps on the high end, demand it today. There is a dearth of compute power at the highest end. But for the bulk of the world, it is nothing more than marketing hype, with some overhead penalty to boot. You have neglected to respond to that topic to date, and I'm sure you will shirk it again...
"Most lawyers are idiots period Once you know the procedure, the law, and the cases, you can be better with your scientifically trained mind. In my cases, I simply nail the opponents with surgical precision by defeating their arguments on pure logic, and they have no way of countering it. They can pile up a whole ton of cases, but they can't overcome simple facts coupled with mathematical reasoning."
You, my friend, are an idiot. You arrogance is born out of your ignorance for the legal profession. Any decent attorney would tear you apart legally, as would you if it was engineering. To think different is just retarded.
Don't be a retard.
I think this is amazing. You already show us that you have *no* real insight into microprocessors, and now you're more crafty than some of the best lawyers. Sharikou, PhD wannabe, I'm impressed.
Any decent attorney would tear you apart legally, as would you if it was engineering.
Dude, 99.9% of the lawyers are far below me. What I have already done in law is well beyond most lawyers are capable of. I already reversed a trial court ruling in an appeal with a single argument--one sentence, and the thing got reversed. I will be attending an oral argument in a state supreme court, and I have presented a brief that will reverse a majority opinion of an appellate court. The ability to comprehend complex legal matters and pinpoint the logical flaws in someone's argument--in this case, ruling of a majority in an appeal, which already sustained the attack of the dissenting opinion--is what one needs as a successful lawyer. As I stand at the side line watching the fight between the high level judges (majority and dissent in Appellate court), I found I can point a finger and knock down either side at will.
That's a powerful feeling.
At the end, what you need is IQ. California has 200K lawyers, most of them idiots.
"At the end, what you need is IQ."
That is the problem you need IQ and from the garbage you have spewed it is obvious you have none.
You are still arguing about notebooks exploding because of intel dual cores when companies left and right are recalling sony batteries.......pathetic.
Post a Comment
<< Home