Intel hires antitrust expert as new top lawyer
At the same time that Intel settled Advanced Micro Devices' antitrust lawsuit for $1.25 billion, the chipmaker settled another legal matter as well by hiring A. Douglas Melamed as its new top lawyer.
Melamed, who most recently worked as a partner at the law firm of WilmerHale, is expected to assume his new role this month, said a source familiar with the situation. Melamed has been based in Washington, D.C.
He has extensive antitrust experience, which could come in handy given Intel's remaining legal issues with the European Commission, the New York attorney general, and the Federal Trade Commission. From 1996 to 2001, he was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Before that, he was the Justice Department's principal deputy assistant attorney general, where he was responsible for "civil non-merger and merger investigations and litigation involving most of the division's litigating sections; the division's appellate matters; policy matters involving, among others, the communications, electricity and tobacco industries; and international antitrust enforcement matters," according to WilmerHale.
Intel declined to comment on the matter. The Wall Street Journal reported the new hire Thursday.
Intel's previous general counsel, Bruce Sewell, left Intel to take the top legal job at Apple in September.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
Better to remain quiet and appear ignorant than to spek up and remove all doubt.
Intel settled because NY's Cuomo has a solid case against Intel because Intel was in the wrong and could wind up facing racketeering charges. Also don't think Intel is off the hook yet, just because AMD has released them from liability only means that AMD expects no more from them. However the ongoing cases are based on solid evidence and AMD is not the Claimant in these cases, rather it is Governments and they could care less whether Intel and AMD have settled.
As a matter of fact the case AMD started against Intel and is to resume in March is not over. Despite the settlement between the two if the Judge in the case decides that Intel was in the wrong he can decide that the District can be a proxy claimant if he determines enough laws were broken.