What exactly are you basing your claim that it was "certainly" "by no means the only or deciding" factor? The evidence overwhelmingly shows that it WAS the deciding factor, up to and including discussions between the chief executives of DELL and Intel.
Again, you are mischaracterizing the situation. In your biased and prejudging mind you see the evidence as "overwhelming", yet the evidence is only overwhelming when you just hear one side. As you can only comprehend that "Parts is Parts", the weight that you assign to the perfectly legal rebates is disproportional. Had you more than a cursory understanding of the business you would consider other factors which dissuade a company from switching suppliers and weigh those factors more carefully before you naively declare the evidence "overwhelming".
No, your personal need to attack my credibility, as if the conclusions re: Intel's payments to DELL were originated by me, is where that nugget of BS came from. Meanwhile, the SEC's evidence and their conclusions based on it remain, unaddressed by you except for simple incredulity. I.e. "pooh-pooh the SEC."
Your naive and pedestrian understanding of the semiconductor business has done far more damage to your credibility than I could ever do. You were spoon fed, by multiple professionals, a commentary on AMD's false and misleading claims. You failed to comprehend then and you fail to give credit now to the knowledge and wisdom presented to you free of charge. You still fail to comprehend that the SEC's allegations were just that, allegations, they are unproven and no Court of Law has ever agreed with your view.
The public evidence indicates that Intel paid DELL to exclude AMD.
It does to you, when only one side of the story is heard by a ill informed, prejudiced novice who still believes that "Parts is Parts". |
