|INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. (02-572) 542 U.S. 241 (2004)
292 F.3d 664, affirmed.
[ Ginsburg ]
[ Scalia ]
[ Breyer ]
INTEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER v.
MICRO DEVICES, INC.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 21, 2004]
Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment.
As todays opinion shows, the Courts disposition is required by the text of the statute. None of the limitations urged by petitioner finds support in the categorical language of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). That being so, it is not only (as I think) improper but also quite unnecessary to seek repeated support in the words of a Senate Committee Reportwhich, as far as we know, not even the full committee, much less the full Senate, much much less the House, and much much much less the President who signed the bill, agreed with. Since, moreover, I have not read the entire so-called legislative history, and have no need or desire to do so, so far as I know the statements of the Senate Report may be contradicted elsewhere.
Accordingly, because the statutethe only sure expression of the will of Congresssays what the Court says it says, I join in the judgment.