Tench, i guess this line answers my question on how Sanders could avoid sounding like a hypocrite with regards to his feelings against the "Intel Monopoly", and his testimony in favor of the "Microsoft Monopoly".
1 At AMD, we have a different view of how our industry
2 should work. We believe in competition.
3 Did I read that correctly, sir?
4 A. Yes, you did.
5 Q. And is that something you believed to be true in 1997?
6 A. Strongly.
7 Q. Do you strongly believe it to be true in 2002?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. And in fact, sir, you distinguish in your mind, do you not,
10 between monopolists who work through good competition and
11 monopolists who have a tendency to try to exclude competition
12 through their practices, do you not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And your view from what you know is that Microsoft falls in
15 the former category and Intel in the latter; correct?
16 A. Since I don't remember the former, I think -- Intel bad,
17 Microsoft good.
Somehow, I'm skeptical that he gains much credibility after such a statement....
After reading the transcript, I got the distinct impression that Intel was on trial - not Microsoft. And am I right to understand that nearly all the cross examination questions came from Sanders' deposition?
You have to wonder if Sanders orchestrated his entire court appearence in order to get some things "off his chest" regarding his arch-enemy. Sure, he killed Microsoft's case with the quid-pro-quo, but he sure got to give Intel a few dozen zingers, as well as bring up highly sensitive information - Yamhill, something about Microsoft initiatives in Windows CE, another few words on "trustworthy computing", etc.
To think how much Sanders could have blown - all to get more "even" with Intel - just astounds me like I can't describe.
wbmw |
