AMD Investor lawsuit dismissed.

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by TurboGLH, May 25, 2019.

  1. quasar56

    quasar56 n00b

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
  2. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,028
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    I thought this would have been about the Bulldozer core lawsuit. When is that going to get tossed out?
     
  3. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,388
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    As soon as they try to legally define a core.
     
  4. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,500
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    The judge has not quit laughing long enough to do anything about it.:LOL:
     
  5. odditory

    odditory [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,570
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    "TOTAL exoneration!"
     
  6. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    775
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    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?
     
  7. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,380
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    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
     
  8. mope54

    mope54 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,437
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    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.
     
  9. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    775
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    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.
     
    Nobu likes this.