AMD said to be readying Ryzen 5 5500, 5600 and Ryzen 7 5700X CPUs to reduce Alder Lake's...

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
You just provided source that AMD would lose $5 million if they lose. AMD should have lost immediately and save $7 million if they thought they were wrong. Battling for years tells that AMD thought they were right.
You don't understand the logic... that's OK, your AMD coloured glasses block out the truth... but I'll try again :)

The $5 million ESTIMATE was assuming they lost, had to pay damages and legal fees... but... since they settled for $12 million instead...

This means that AMD saw that there would have been MORE than just damages and legal fees... and they were so desperate to keep the courts from making a decision that they were willing to settle for $12 million instead!

Why would they be this desperate? Well... the obvious answer is: because they KNEW they were going to lose!
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
You don't understand the logic... that's OK, your AMD coloured glasses block out the truth... but I'll try again :)

The $5 million ESTIMATE was assuming they lost, had to pay damages and legal fees... but... since they settled for $12 million instead...

This means that AMD saw that there would have been MORE than just damages and legal fees... and they were so desperate to keep the courts from making a decision that they were willing to settle for $12 million instead!

Why would they be this desperate? Well... the obvious answer is: because they KNEW they were going to lose!
It took 4 years to settle case. That $7 million difference probably mostly comes from there. So if AMD thought they would lose, it would have been much cheaper to pay right away, not after 4 years of battle. Theory "we are going to lose, so first we fight 4 years and then we settle" does not sound logical.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
It took 4 years to settle case. That $7 million difference probably mostly comes from there. So if AMD thought they would lose, it would have been much cheaper to pay right away, not after 4 years of battle. Theory "we are going to lose, so first we fight 4 years and then we settle" does not sound logical.
If you fought for 4 years... THEN settled... that makes it even more obvious that they thought they would lose!!

Why settle after spending 4 years fighting!?!?!? They would have already paid 4 years of legal fees.... so they actually spent even MORE than $12 million... just give up, this is basically cut and dried...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
If you fought for 4 years... THEN settled... that makes it even more obvious that they thought they would lose!!
Took 4 years to realize they are going to lose? Slow thinking I must say.
Why settle after spending 4 years fighting!?!?!? They would have already paid 4 years of legal fees.... so they actually spent even MORE than $12 million... just give up, this is basically cut and dried...
Not settling Could mean 40 years of fighting instead 4 years. And lawyers are only group that benefits from that. Fighting costs money, many times even you win.

Since you have no experience in court cases, I make it simple: money wise, it makes no sense to fight on court at all if you are going to lose anyway. Usually those who know they will lose, threat that they will take case to court, hoping that other side scares about it. How many times other persons have threaten me about taking case to court? Dozens. How many of those threats actually are taken to court? Very few. They know they have no chance and when I don't react their threats at all, they let it be.

In short, fighting in court makes very little sense if loss is certain. Some exceptions exist, like delaying payment so that competitor suffers (AMD vs Intel case). However that does not apply here.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Took 4 years to realize they are going to lose? Slow thinking I must say.
I suspect they dragged it out so that the PR hit wouldn't affect their current lineup...
Not settling Could mean 40 years of fighting instead 4 years. And lawyers are only group that benefits from that. Fighting costs money, many times even you win.

Since you have no experience in court cases, I make it simple: money wise, it makes no sense to fight on court at all if you are going to lose anyway. Usually those who know they will lose, threat that they will take case to court, hoping that other side scares about it. How many times other persons have threaten me about taking case to court? Dozens. How many of those threats actually are taken to court? Very few. They know they have no chance and when I don't react their threats at all, they let it be.

In short, fighting in court makes very little sense if loss is certain. Some exceptions exist, like delaying payment so that competitor suffers (AMD vs Intel case). However that does not apply here.
Big companies are fighting lawsuits all the time... this isn't like an individual getting sued... big companies have entire legal departments setup for this...

Just give up - they knew they'd done wrong and everything went accordingly...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
I suspect they dragged it out so that the PR hit wouldn't affect their current lineup...
If that was right, why AMD settled one month After Zen2 launched? Makes no sense.
Big companies are fighting lawsuits all the time... this isn't like an individual getting sued... big companies have entire legal departments setup for this...

Just give up - they knew they'd done wrong and everything went accordingly...
And having legal departments cost money. Just look at patent troll lawsuits.

You said AMD lost court case. I'm still waiting for evidence about that (AMD lost that court case).
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
If that was right, why AMD settled one month After Zen2 launched? Makes no sense.
Maybe because they were no longer focused on selling FX chips? So any loss of PR would be mitigated with their "Zen is totally different and better" (which it actually was).
And having legal departments cost money. Just look at patent troll lawsuits.
Yes... and they already HAVE one... every large company does...
You said AMD lost court case. I'm still waiting for evidence about that (AMD lost that court case).
I said they THOUGHT they WOULD LOSE the court case... learn to read (and comprehend what you read)... obviously they didn't lose the case, since it was settled out of court...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Maybe because they were no longer focused on selling FX chips? So any loss of PR would be mitigated with their "Zen is totally different and better" (which it actually was).
They were not focused selling FX chips after Zen Launched, two years after settlement.
I said they THOUGHT they WOULD LOSE the court case... learn to read (and comprehend what you read)... obviously they didn't lose the case, since it was settled out of court...
OK, yeah. Next question: if AMD thought they would lose, did they also thought that facts change during 4 years so that something happens between 2015 and 2019? That what would be loss on 2015 is victory 2019?

Once again: if loss on court is predicted, making case go longer means more PR loss (in AMD's case) and more expenses. Still waiting for Intelligent reason why it was better for AMD to make case 4 year long battle if they knew they were wrong? And continue case even after FX-sales didn't matter any more (Zen2 launched).
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
They were not focused selling FX chips after Zen Launched, two years after settlement.

OK, yeah. Next question: if AMD thought they would lose, did they also thought that facts change during 4 years so that something happens between 2015 and 2019? That what would be loss on 2015 is victory 2019?

Once again: if loss on court is predicted, making case go longer means more PR loss (in AMD's case) and more expenses. Still waiting for Intelligent reason why it was better for AMD to make case 4 year long battle if they knew they were wrong? And continue case even after FX-sales didn't matter any more (Zen2 launched).
You'd have to ask AMD... but the fact that they did it clearly shows that they knew they'd lose... just give up dude...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
You'd have to ask AMD... but the fact that they did it clearly shows that they knew they'd lose... just give up dude...
Ok, so from now on: every time company settles court case, it means company knew it was going to lose that court case.

I'll remember this.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Ok, so from now on: every time company settles court case, it means company knew it was going to lose that court case.

I'll remember this.
I highly doubt you will... you seem to have a very selective memory...

But how about this: whenever a company faces a huge outcry about something that they've done that is obviously sketchy... and it goes to trial... and then they settle...

YES... it means the company knew it was going to lose :)
 

3ogdy

Posts: 54   +46
"The average consumer doesn't NEED to know core count or clock speed. If they do, they'll do the research. What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once? The salesman is going to tell them the same as they did with 4, 6, 8+ core parts. It will or it won't do what they want the computer for."
Sure, all good until they NEED to run an app or game that won't work on their system because of the system requirements their newly-purchased computer doesn't meet. Then, all of a sudden, after spending money on something they didn't need to know about, they become interested.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,430   +2,409
Sure, all good until they NEED to run an app or game that won't work on their system because of the system requirements their newly-purchased computer doesn't meet. Then, all of a sudden, after spending money on something they didn't need to know about, they become interested.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're trying to find a hole where there isn't one.