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: Bill Jackson who wrote (33902)7/3/1998 12:17:00 PM
From: Dale J.  Read Replies (3) of 1574023
 
Bill,

Thanks for the clarification I knew the B & L case was real, but I didn't remember the specifics.

But here is the difference. The case against Intel has no damages.

Intel sold a 300mhz (marked as 266mhz) for the price of a 266mhz chip. Where are the damages?

Intel sold a 300mhz (marked as 300mhz) for the price of a 300mhz chip. Again no damages.

Intel, in other words sold to some, a deluxe product (300mhz) at standard (266mhz) prices. No damages.

The B & L case was less distinct. They called the product a deluxe and a standard at the same time. There was no clear definition. A product cannot be a deluxe and standard simultaneously. So those that paid the deluxe price actually got the standard product. They are entitled to damages.

To sum it up:
Intel sold a verifiably genuine deluxe product (300mhz) at standard product (266mhz) prices in some instances. No damages.

B & L called a standard product a deluxe product in some instances. Damages

Dale
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