Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

AMD 231.80

+1.7%

Jan 16 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (258919)	3/13/2009 4:50:49 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) of 275872

>No, it's an excerpt from the translation. I.e. "First, [...]"(38p-39p) >“First, considering the fact that both Samsung and Intel Korea’s employees testified consistently that the defendants suggested rebates in exchange for abandoning AMD products in first quarter and second quarter 2002 continuously defendants’ employees describe it as “Full Alignment”) It is not testimony. That is a commentary from someone. People do not testify in the third person. When those people get on a witness stand under oath they can be question by Intel to clarify their comments in context. Do you understand the difference between a judgement and witness testimony? You seem to think that the translator is commenting on raw witness testimony. The so-called "commentary" as you put it, i.e. references to actual testimony vs. actual testimony, is due to the fact that the document being translated is the court's judgement. So since you're explicitly _not_ claiming that the document was "mistranslated", Do you think that the person who wrote the KFTC's judgement, i.e. the judge, misrepresented witness testimony or took it out of context? >Never said it was "official." So what? I'm only pointing out what it says. You are the one making baseless claims about the accuracy of its content. No, you're pointing out what the commentator said, not what the document actually said. You've got yourself so wrapped around the axle you have no idea what you're even talking about. The judgement is the judge's summary of the cases presented by both sides, and the rationale behind his decision. Your so-called "commentary" is the view of the judge, who was not ignorant of the context of witness testimony. Look at that quote at the top of this post... Do you think it was from the KFTC judgement, or the invention of the translator? fpg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next