Monosodium Glutamate, DRAM, Novell enter AMD Intel fray

INTEL cited various precedents to support its assertion that elements of AMD's antitrust case should be dissed by the judge in charge of the case.

Those, to wit, include Latino Qumica-Amtex SA versus Azko Nobel Chemicals, Lantec versus Novell, Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation, Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation and last General Electric Co versus Latin America Importations.

We know we should be more interested in DRAM and the Lantec Novell case, but we're drawn to the Monosodium Glutamate case instead, don't ask us why.

The plaintiffs, foreign buyers of Monosodium Glutamate, alleged the defendants were co-conspirators in a worldwide scheme to keep prices of the tasty additive high. But the alleged co-conspirators moved to dismiss the complaint. The judge granted this motion to dismiss because the foreign effect of price fixing "gave rise to their injuries".

Oh all right. The DRAM case concerned Centerprise versus Micron (tick: MU). The entire brood of Dramurai including Micron, Samsung, Hynix and the rest all moved successfully that the British corporation, in accusing them of price fixing, couldn't do so because it was outside the Sherman Act jurisdiction. In that case, Monosodium Glutamate raised its tasty head again as a precedent. µ

See Also
Monosodium Glutamate Intel AMD PDF
Centerprise alleges blizzard of DRAM firms conspired on prices
Intel moves to dismiss elements of AMD case
AMD hails proposed Intel antitrust protection order
INQ coverage of AMD Intel antitrust case

L'INQ
The facts on Monosodium Glutamate