Monday, August 9, 2010

The War Of Attrition Grinds On

Here comes the expensive part, and we need your donations more than ever. Intel Corporation has stated that they will try and force us to surrender by making this case as long and as expensive as possible, and they have already stated an intention to appeal, even though they have not yet lost at the federal district level. (They will, and they will lose the appeal, too.)

Any amount will help. We encourage people to donate $5. We'll make you a cappuccino next time we see you. Use the link on the right-hand side of the page.

A very pithy and unbiased summary of the dispute to date may be found here.

The Court Management Conference yielded the following schedule for the trial proceedings:

• Lay Discovery Cut-off: December 1, 2010

• Designation of Experts Deadline: December 20, 2010
• Designation of Rebuttal Experts Deadline: January 5, 2011
• Expert Discovery Cut-off: February 1, 2011
• Last Day to File Dispositive Motions: February 16, 2011
• Pretrial Disclosures: March 25, 2011
• Pretrial Conference: April 8, 2011
• Trial: May 9, 2011

HOWEVER, it is important to note that we will be moving for a summary judgment, and this is a very likely scenario. The hearing for the motion for summary judgment is not until Mar. 4. Until that time, the rest of these dates apply. 

This is where Intel Corporation will insist on a burdensome level of discovery and depositions, just to create a strain on our finances. But we've got enough canned food and bottled water for years, so bring it on!

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Court Management Conference

Friday, August 5th is the date for the Court Management Conference. We will have dates and a scenario for how this matter will proceed once we can digest the event. 

Wednesday, August 4, 2010


We are currently working with the California rap artist Grammatical B to develop a music video for the Internet that documents Intel Corporation's greed and abuse in this lawsuit.

Anyone who can donate video-editing or production expertise to this cause please write to

The video will be broadcast far and wide, creating embarrassment for Intel Corporation but also potentially bringing fame and accolades to any of the video's creators! 

Intel Corporation's Complaints Not Cognizable!

We have been asked by followers of this blog to give a concise update to the trial's progress.

1) U.S. Federal Judge Charles Breyer has agreed to give Intel Corporation its day in court, though he made it clear that he is VERY skeptical of the company's bogus complaints. In fact, he said:

"If ANIP's assertion [that it is using the term 'intel' in its generic sense] is true, then Intel's dilution claim, like its infringement claim, is not cognizable."

2) Intel Corporation has acknowledged that the generic sense of intel is "shorthand for gathering and analyzing information." And nobody has every disputed that is exactly what the Mexico Watch Intelligence Service did, when its newsletters and briefs were in publication. Therefore, UNLESS THE JUDGE CHANGES HIS MIND, WE WILL DEFINITELY WIN THIS CASE. 

3) Intel Corporation responds to this quandary by stating that it will produce a survey that proves that people think of the company brand INTEL before they think of informational intel when they hear the word.

Under this standard, words like apple, converse, mango, puma, vans, and virgin would no longer belong to the public domain. Since that scenario is patently absurd, so is that standard, and we are confident that the judge in this case will agree and rule against these frivolous and abusive complaints.    

Our Monopoly Abuse Is Not Like Your Monopoly Abuse

This blog is not about Intel Corporation's widespread and well-known abusive practices as a monopolist. That's gotten them into trouble in Korea, Japan, the European Union, the United States, and elsewhere. Plenty of bloggers are out there to document this.

But we like to 'chime' in from time to time. "Bum-bum-bum-buuuum. Our coercive practices aren't like YOUR coercive practices."

Many people are aware that on Wednesday, August 4, Intel Corporation "settled" the case brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission. What does a settlement mean here?

It means that Intel Corporation knew it would lose, and agreed to nearly all of the FTC's terms, but can now deny breaking the law and maintain the official position that the FTC's complaints are all false. It's akin to pleading 'no contest' rather than 'guilty' in a court of law.

What were the FTC's allegations? The answer would fill hundreds of pages, and in fact does. But a very brief version from The Washington Post:

"The agency investigated Intel's practices going back at least 10 years and found the company 'stepped well over the line.' The FTC said Intel told customers it would not sell products to them unless they agreed to stop doing business with Intel's rivals. The agency also said Intel redesigned its central processing units, or CPUs, to throw off competitors by making it harder for their chips to work with Intel's."

Sadly, in technology, monopoly abuses means essential consumer products are kept much more expensive and unnecessarily so -- a fact that widens the digital divide and keeps vital tools out of reach of billions. The only winners are the shareholders of Intel Corporation, who enjoy profits artificially inflated by rents. In addition, Intel Corporation has retarded innovation through its disregard for legal market practices.