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 231.83

+1.7%

Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (260149)	5/14/2009 1:46:06 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) of 275872

Yeah yeah, Elmer. We heard it the first 61 times you said it. How was Intel able to exercise its rights of defence? Intel has been provided full access to the Commission's file, with the exception of legitimate claims relating to business secrets of other companies and internal Commission documents. Intel has been able to fully comment on the evidence on which the Commission has based its Decision. The file in this case comprises several hundred thousand pages and the Decision is based on a broad range of contemporaneous evidence from a variety of sources. As far as Intel's statements defending themselves, from your EE Times article: "There was evidence that refute what was claimed here," [Otellini] added. "In some cases the OEMs made statements that these were not exclusive deals or [did not contain the] conditional terms [alleged by the EC, but] those documents were not allowed in the case file* or were not used properly** in making the decision," he added. Can you find any previous complaint by Intel that reflects this claim? I've heard them complain that the EC wouldn't compel AMD to produce some unknown piece(s) of nevertheless supposedly exculpatory evidence, but never that sworn statements weren't "allowed in the case file." *This one is bogus... Intel doesn't get to define how evidence is interpreted. Given that they could comment on it during the investigation, evidently their interpretation was rejected. Of course, this is easy to believe when you have Intel SVP & general counsel Bruce Sewell asking questions like, "can rebates be anticompetitive?" you really have to question their competence. fpg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next