Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Detail-MD who wrote (92023)	11/9/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: Brian Malloy	Respond to of 186894

Yea, as if politicians, lawyers, and judges aren't the biggest group of back room, cigar smoking, cognac sniffing, deal making, ethics breaking group in existence. Yet they attempt to rule everything and pontificate from on high about right, wrong, truth, justice and the American way. It is sickening, Regards

To: Detail-MD who wrote (92023)	11/12/1999 6:28:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 186894

Sorry --- These particular lawyers may contribute nothing to society, but here the main problem is expert witnesses and wall-eyed TV reporters. The interesting this is that Intel had to pay the expert's fee when it deposed him. He can be as full of stuff as he wishes, as long as he is willing to to claim the estimated damages as his opinion. Profits are not part of the cost of production, especially against a quasi-monopolist that sets its own prices, so any damages collected against Intel cannot be passed forward to customers. If they could, then why would any business mind losing a lawsuit? If this is a jury case, the fact that the plaintiffs invented nothing will be of critical importance. Juries hate these tricks. They love the poor embattled genius cheated by the giant firm.