SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Larry Loeb who wrote (33865)7/2/1998 10:01:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson  Read Replies (2) of 1573857
 
Larry , I think the fact that the selling speeds differ from the bell curve speed distribution makes almost all chips sold test faster than their marked speed. So a 266 bin will have all parts from 266 to 299 and then they go into the 300-332 bin. Of course they might put a 5-10 meg safety factor in there. What these lawsuiters are nagging about is taking excess from the next few speed bins and marking them down to the slower speed. So if you had 3 bins, 266, 300, and 333 with a continous spectrum of speeds from 266 to 365 split into those break pints you would expect those in 266 to sell as 266 and pass the speed tests fro 266-299 and the same for the 300 passing from 300 to 332 and the 333 from 333 to 365 anbd get more costly as you get faster. The fact that Intel can shift parts from the 333 bin to the 266 bin says thay could sell all the 333 parts for the 266 price and they are not. This is the basis for the supposed tort.
If you recall the Bausch and Lomb case the same lenses were sold for both weekly/daily change and monthly long term use, each with their own kits of cleaners and sterilizing agents, and the long term lenses were a whole lote more money. After the kits consumable cleaners etc ran out you would buy more and keep them going. the daily ones were thrown out after a day/week. People found out that they were the same lenses and sued and won. Now the excat parallel occurs here. The same part for more money? How will this work it's way through the system? I think it will be a hot potatoe, especially if they face a Texas jury??

Bill
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News