Logical fallacies and misrepresentations in Intel's brief
If there's a problem with Intel's response, it lies in the number of logically incorrect factual or causative statements Intel attempts to chain together. Examples and discussion of these follows below.

According to the Intel brief:

AMD is prosecuting this case for alleged antitrust violations that it claims have limited customer demand for its products, yet AMD says it is "capacity-constrained"—which means that it sells every product it can make with its available manufacturing capacity.

Intel asserts that these two statements are contradictory. They are not. Logically, AMD can assert (and indirectly does so in its filing) that Intel's alleged antitrust violations have limited and constrained AMD product sales, and having done so, have likewise limited AMD's capacity. Intel's filing admits and agrees with AMD that CPU fabrication plants cost in excess of 2.5 billion dollars and take years to construct and bring online. Given these facts, AMD can logically assert that past Intel limitations have led to a present situation of capacity constraint.

In the next sentence, Intel states:

AMD recently claimed in a court document that Intel's competitive actions threaten it with becoming "non-viable", yet AMD's Chairman and CEO recently told investors that AMD "is in the strongest position we've ever been in."

Again, this is not necessarily the contradictory statement Intel claims it is. Logically speaking, a firm may easily occupy a strong position yet be seriously threatened by the competitive action of another company.

Intel's discussion of price discounting is similarly flawed:

AMD claims that Intel sustains a monopoly that allows it to charge higher prices, but that it does so by lowering prices . . . The discounts that Intel offers PC makers, and the support it gives distributors and retailers to assist them in expanding their sales, have the effect of lowering the prices that Intel charges . . . AMD seeks to impede Intel's ability to lower prices and thereby to allow AMD to charge higher prices.

AMD's filing is very clear regarding the type of discounts it opposes. AMD accuses Intel of tying rebates and marketing funds into a customer's willingness to forego AMD purchases, of requiring customers to hit certain Intel-set quotas in order to earn any rebates on volume purchasing, and of withholding rebate funds as a means of pressuring customers who attempt to do business with AMD. Intel addresses these points briefly (by denying them), but the text of Intel's filing paints AMD's claims with a considerably broader brush.

Conclusions
There aren't any legal surprises or stunning admissions in Intel's filing, and it raises some important points regarding alternative explanations for AMD's troubles in the marketplace. As Intel's filing states, major OEMs and companies have questioned AMD's ability to reliably supply Tier 1 products in the past, as well as the firm's ability to maintain technical parity with Intel.

Similarly, Intel is correct that its ability to offer all-in-one solutions encompassing chipsets, wireless, wired Ethernet, motherboard, and CPUs presents OEMs with cost-saving advantages AMD may have difficulty meeting. These issues are important, and will doubtlessly be explored in and out of court as the case moves forward.

Many of the brief's attempts to dismiss or deflect AMD's stated claims (other than the legal denials of such) fall flat or are painted with such a broad brush that they substantially misrepresent the actual stated point or issue as contained within AMD's filing. This filing is, of course, only one small step in a long chain that could stretch on for years, but in my view, Intel's response to AMD's allegations isn't wholly persuasive. While it raises some significant points regarding other factors that have contributed to AMD's problems in the marketplace, the response fails to demonstrate that AMD's key claims are without merit.

Two filings down, ten thousand or so to go.