AMD Investor lawsuit dismissed.

I thought this would have been about the Bulldozer core lawsuit. When is that going to get tossed out?
 
Wow that's a lot of effort and money show for a he said she said. This system is so broken.
Is there a way to know if that was sponsored by Intel?
 
what's worse is the fact that AMD is actually vulnerable to some form and variations of spectre.. they even acknoledge in their product security page with their "recommended mitigations":

https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security

spectre2.PNG
 
You guys are really hopped up over this case but it doesn't seem like you've read it or, if you have, understood what you read.

This isn't the same case as the one suing over AMD's definition of a "core." This is a suit alleging false and misleading statements from AMD regarding their chips' (lack of) vulnerability to Sceptre. The lawsuit alleges that AMD's claims regarding Sceptre leaves them open to data breaches and IP theft. The court responded that neither of those things have actually happened so they can't sue AMD over those false statements (in effect arguing it isn't "false" to claim you're immune to a data breach if one hasn't occurred yet) and, even if AMD did make those false claims, they didn't do so knowingly.
 
mope54 said:
You guys are really hopped up over this case but it doesn't seem like you've read it or, if you have, understood what you read.

This isn't the same case as the one suing over AMD's definition of a "core." This is a suit alleging false and misleading statements from AMD regarding their chips' (lack of) vulnerability to Sceptre. The lawsuit alleges that AMD's claims regarding Sceptre leaves them open to data breaches and IP theft. The court responded that neither of those things have actually happened so they can't sue AMD over those false statements (in effect arguing it isn't "false" to claim you're immune to a data breach if one hasn't occurred yet) and, even if AMD did make those false claims, they didn't do so knowingly.
Click to expand...

yeah from what I quickly read they seems to imply that AMD said they were not affected by variant 2 because of the "near zero risk" part used. Plaintiff read "zero risk" and omitted the "near" part and tried to say AMD misled them.
Glad to see this rejected. Situation has been clear from day 1 over those flaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobu
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top