Playing the part of David against Goliath, AMD has grown tired of searching for tactics in order to bring down the giant and now it has called for a referee to control this match.

For AMD is very important for how many of the multiple charges in the 48-pages document it can provide legally acceptable evidence. AMD's case against Intel is largely built on transcripts of certain conversations, as for example "the company said that, and then Intel's officials threatened that…", or "Intel has suggested that it will withdraw, increase the price.." and so on.

In its struggle against the giant, AMD is counting too much on allies that might turn against it at some point. It's not yet known how many of the 38 companies cited by AMD will accept to go before the court and admit and especially supply legal and convincing proofs regarding Intel's monopolistic actions.

If all that AMD had in mind was to issue a warning signal regarding Intel's practices, then its mission has been a success. AMD's lawyers have declared that they hope to have the first hearing by the end of 2006.

However, by then, many things can change, and today's enemies can become tomorrow's allies and the other way around. Up until now, Intel has been quite discreet in this matter, and beside some short statements denying AMD's accusations, it had nothing to comment.

If AMD's intention is to appeal to the users, then it has succeeded, because the general tendency is to side with the party subjected to some type of oppression, but who keeps fighting. The only problem is that what AMD really needs is the companies' help, and since the fight will probably be a long and difficult one, it is vital for the manufacturer to have as many big names as possible in its camp.

The fact that, up until now, none of the companies accused by AMD to have given in to Intel's business practices has had any reaction says a lot, and especially that most of them will probably stay out of this conflict.

AMD's case is a little more credible in Japan, where the conclusions of the FTC report seem to support its statements. Although, while commenting AMD's actions in court, Intel has insisted on it's compliance with the valid laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates, the conclusion of the FTC report points out something rather different.

And even if there will be enough evidence to prove Intel's illegal actions in 2-3 years' time, what will AMD really win?