...
Any "expert" that can interpret the block diagrams before the court. It likely doesn't require much explaining that Bulldozer is missing a lot of parts in the module to constitute two discreet logic processors.
Dickeys likely gave a number using his own formula. Court will have to decide if that formula is fair or not.
Judges aren't supposed to be biased. If they have a bias, they're supposed to recuse themselves....
The counter arguments are simple. Who defined that a CPU required certain things? Your own earlier statements comparing various architectures prove that the point being made is invalid. You can't justify that a component is necessary, unless you can prove it directly influences end results, which they can't reliably do if even one instance proves the contrary. The plaintiff accuses AMD of removing a critical component, yet demonstrably it is not critical. Kinda hard to have an argument when the basis for said argument is impossible to justify.
Dickey is full of crap here, based on claims. This is a civil suit, and filed based upon a California law which doesn't have many parallels universally recognized throughout the country. As others have stated, this guy is basically taking what may be a couple of hundred dollars of processor and suing AMD for it, magically lost time, legal bills, and everything else. I'm sorry, but if this was actually about lost performance that is being claimed they'd have something more than that. I understand that a judge will only consider the plaintiff's request, but there's a difference between bargaining like this is a used car lot and asking for fair reparations. Whenever somebody asks for $5, and the cost of the original product was $1 they've got to either have an exceptional case or exceptional proof. Their "proof" as yet is a bunch of technical data sheets and block diagrams.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9674725/Dickey_v_Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc Hell, the filing fee in this court is $400, which could have bought a new system with an Intel quad core. This isn't about helping consumers, and the money proves it.
Really? I understand wanting to believe that judges have no bias, but what sort of world do you live in? The one I live in has people being named as judges. These people have motivations, such as seeing the best thing done for their community, and delivering their own form of "justice." To the former, suing an ailing company into the ground will have a negative impact on locals. If this were MS, Samsung, or Seagate I'd be less concerned with impartiality. To the later, you have to weigh timing. This person made no effort to get refunded, waited until years after official marketing material was released, hired lawyers from Chicago to represent them in Oakland, and has yet to show any desire or interest in the public good. I'm sorry, but with all that easily demonstrable, it's impossible for a technological hermit to not have an underlying bias when dealing with someone. Judges are human, above all other things.
One last point here. Intel had Pentium 4, and the nutburst...ahem...netburst issues. They got sued, so theoretically you can use that as a basis for the AMD suit. Except, you can't. The reason Intel lost that suit was they manipulated benchmarks to sell their product. They LIED to customers:
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/153085/intel-settles-pentium-4-lawsuit-by-paying-15-to-customers AMD didn't lie. They may have been optimistic to think that changing the architecture around would allow performance to universally be better, but they released benchmarks which were confirmed by outside sources. Yes, calling them octo-cores is sleazy, but it isn't a lie or marketing altering the truth. AMD's already paid for Bulldozer being a turd with years of poor sales, this is an opportunist trying to make money because AMD is likely to settle and make this go away. Zen is too big of a component of AMD's future to allow a pending lawsuit to tarnish the name. The Chicago lawyers know that, and they're using it to get functionally free money.
Again, read through the lawyer's own page. If you don't want to punch them in the face afterwards you're a far more tolerant person than I.
Edit:
I edited and the answer is yes. It only takes six K10 cores to beat eight Bulldozer "cores" even at significantly lower clocks (2.8 GHz versus 3.6 GHz).
I see it coming: "oh, but Bulldozer is technically only 4-core so a 6-core should be it!" My point, exactly.
FPUs were spotty around 1990s simply because it was brand new technology. You could argue Bulldozer was brand new technology too but, at that point, the definition of "core" was pretty well established for 6 years prior to that. The use of the word "core" where it isn't appropriate is why this lawsuit has merit.
So let me get this straight.
On one hand the plaintiff is smart enough to know what components a core entails, based upon the CPU architecture.
On the other hand, the plaintiff is not responsible enough to seek out any information on what is advertised as a completely new architecture. They are assumed to never have seen any information from 2009 to 2015 (look back to the Anandtech link I posted).
This person exists in such a narrow bubble of knowledge and ignorance that they can't possibly exist. It's be like saying a person has eaten hamburgers their entire life, and because of the name they assumed that they were made out of pork. They are now suing McDonalds because they were in fact a unique branch of Hindu, and killing pigs was acceptable but killing cows wasn't.
To say that preposterous statement hurts my cognitive faculties. They want me to drive a rusty spoon through my brain and scoop out my frontal lobe. The US is full of stupid lawsuits, but that doesn't mean we need to find the few examples of when they're true.
