"AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors". We no steal you IP. - China, Hehe.
AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
31–40 of 61 posts
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#32Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
I work in the law and I'm not 100% sure what the case law is on this but my guess is that if you could prove that they knew (or should have known) what they were publishing was false, then yes. First amendment lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah in general if the untrue statement was made without at least negligence then it will be protected.
> Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#33Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
Even if the company can prove that the newspaper engaged in libel it would be difficult to establish compensatory damages. Regardless of stock price changes, the company hasn't lost any assets. They might have a shot at getting legal fees plus some punitive damages depending on how egregious the newspaper's conduct was.
It would be the shareholders that would have grounds for a suit rather than the company itself, I would think.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#34Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
AMD in this case would likely have to meet the public figure standard of proving defamation, which would mean proving the WSJ was grossly negligent or knowingly published false claims.
They are probably not an all-purpose public figure, depending on the particular facts they could end up being considered a limited-purpose public figure. But even private figures must prove at least negligence to have a successful defamation claim.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#35Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
Oh, like Bloomberg's The Big Hack ?
First thing that came to mind. As far as I know they're still claiming it was accurate.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#36I'm sure the timing of this exposé (of a years-old story) has nothing to do with AMD's imminent release of a product that will seriously threaten if not outright beat Intel for years to come. FUD
Also the Intel leak
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c5nb01/amd_competitive...
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#37>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes t…
Eh, the lean of the article and the comments on the original HN thread were knocking AMD for it as if they were going against American interests by being successfully bullied by China into giving up valuable IP. AMD is saying that a) the IP was not of the highest value or performance, and b) it's unlikely to go against American national security interests when DoC and DoJ both give explicit sign-off. Remember too tha…
>when the likelihood of sailing the country down a river for $$$ was lower
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, the lean of the article and the comments on the original HN thread were knocking AMD for it as if they were going against American interests by being successfully bullied by China into giving up valuable IP. AMD is saying that a) the IP was not of the highest value or performance, and b) it's unlikely to go against American national security interests when DoC and DoJ both give explicit sign-off. Remember too tha…
I think you’ve got it backward. The likelihood is that the Obama administration treated China more like an ally and less as a hostile power than Trump has treated them.
Obama spent a lot of political and reputational capital on the TPP. The only purpose of TPP was to counteract China. I think it would be very surprising if they were treating China as an ally.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#39Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
Oh, like Bloomberg's The Big Hack ?
Made good money off that one :D
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#40>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes t…
Without knowing what those protections are, we haven't learned much from either the story or the response. The gist of the story wasn't just that a lot was shared; it was that it was shared nefariously, borderline illegally, and it was all AMD's fault and intention. It essentially painted them as mercenary traitors. I admit, the original story does sound bad. But I'm also aware of how easy it is to paint such a pictu…
It's also reasonable to believe that the "government" is not all on the same page. Everything can be true: some officials were happy to greenlight the tech transfer at the beginning of the process, other parts of government found out and disagreed but their hands were tied, and amidst all of that AMD leadership firmly and rationally believes that it's not being traitorous to transfer tech of Gen N when China's desperately stuck on Gen N-2 and "state of the art" used by the US is Gen N+5.