A story or rumour affecting the short term price of a company stock, might leave little recourse to the company, as that price can return back to what it was relatively quickly. There would have been some reputation damage, but I wouldn't weigh stock price to be a good measure of that.
If the company was maybe in the middle of raising funds, say bonds from the market, or using additional shares; they would have stronger case if the false story hindered such find raising.
A company is often not affected by short-term fluctuations in its external "value".
If in the other hand, there's an investor who was adversely affected by such news, the stock price directly affects them. Perhaps they would have a stronger case.
This is my opinion based on my intuition.
> 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.
However if the press demonstrates that they followed reasonable journalistic practices and weren’t blatantly lying, they’d be fine.
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 the gist of the story does it?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8061/this-is-huge-intel-enter...
http://linuxgizmos.com/intel-invests-1-5-billion-in-chinese-...
Not only Intel gave away its CPU IP, it also "invested" $1.5B in Tsinghua Unigroup. Whats more last year they shared 5G modem IP with Unisoc, part of Tsinghua Unigroup holding.
"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."
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they got the IP anyway, just that wasn't the intention. AMD CEO Lisa Su made some comments a few weeks ago that the joint venture was already dead in the water and was just for one project only. I get the feeling AMD wasn't too happy about the way it all turned out.
Otherwise they would not have a single chance to bring in anybody of an anymuch high calibre to China
This is so painfully obvious it's sad that it has to be said out loud. There is no credible information about exactly what AMD means when they claim lower performance. Nothing meaningful is said about the nature of their 'protections.' And the fact that everything was supposedly blessed by all the various US government TLAs under the Obama administration is almost a confirmation of the WSJ lede; that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China.
what does this mean? It does not seem to be something secret or illegal.
FUD
https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)
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 picture, ando find it hard to believe the US Government couldn't have shut this down if it really wanted to.
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 that this was in the Obama era, when the likelihood of sailing the country down a river for $$$ was lower.
Whatever. If they really did unzip for the Chinese military as the WSJ claims then AMD will soon find itself competing with Chinese government subsidized derivatives of their IP and have next to no meaningful recourse with any governing authority.
After their stock crashed there was a small window of time where the tech crowd had concluded the claim is bullshit but the stock didn't go back up.
Checked out their financials and that seemed fine so stuck money in it and waited for it to recover
That's different from Intel conspiring with the Wall Street Journal to write negative (and maybe false) articles about AMD.
Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from.
The claim is that the article was FUD.
The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.
Without more information we're left with:
- Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago.
- AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric.
- The last time this happened, Intel engaged in outright illegal non-competitive behavior to preserve market share.
>It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... You know what I'm trying to say...
The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone.
While this does not prove the original accusation, it is supporting evidence, and makes the statement more plausible.
If there is zero proof of the claim, stuff that isn't proof ... still isn't proof.
I feel like using your reasoning, you could argue ANYTHING is more plausible.
Also, calling it "fierce competition" is a mischaracterization of their actions. They have been fined by countries for these practices, and have done what they could to keep the evidence from public view. Intel deserves the suspicion they get.