AMD cannot contribute to the case since they settled; the EU cannot obtain said evidence.
No, because AMD doesn't hold the evidence, that is held by the OEM's with which intel made verbal agreements during lunch meetings. Which in turn landed in the hands of authorities and can be used to enforce EC's own evidence.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21599.htm
Like I said, the EU justice system works differently than it does in the US. It's enough to get notice that lets say Dell refused to add AMD to their lineup when Athlon64 was released, that's before Christmas 2003 - a big sales period, and we have Michael Dell's "testimony" in which he clearly states AMD isn't worth it so no, AMD won't appear in Dell systems, which then in 2004 still happens because Pentium 4 were seen as a weaker options and pressure was made to include Athlon64's in their systems. It's enough to notice that a business man like Michael D., making some strange comments which didn't hold any water, didn't act in the best interest of his company by acknowledging the better product and offering solution as such.
Wouldn't you lets say as an investor find it strange if your CEO made a business decision that in effect would produce loss of image as a brand, clients and money? Keep in mind, that as an investor you have a much higher power of control over security in your company, compared to execs - i.e. your "labors", and can in effect gather evidence that the dealings your CEO and co. (aka the foot-soldiers) made with intel actually were a big screw-up for you.
Rising an eyebrow and then finding some... skeletons.
That's all it takes to become suspicious, and inquiries then can prove those suspicions right or wrong.
