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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (98125)	3/12/2000
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1580695

Sorry elmer, Tim Jackson's version of your fantasy is a little different. So much for your version of the AMD-Intel 1982 agreement and how Intel was getting screwed. steve Tim Jackson's "Inside Intel" Published by Plume

To: Elmer who wrote (98125)	3/12/2000 1:33:00 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1580695

Elmer Re..<<<<. Who among us would carry a deadbeat partner forever? EP...>>>>>>>> Gee Elmer, kinda sounds like what HP and all the rest said when they quit the Merced project. Secondly both AMD and Intel fought in court for years over who said what. Do you really think we can settle it in five minutes. Thirdly in the end the courts ruled for AMD but according to you the courts were crooked or made bad decisions etc. I really believed your "and the arbitrator was kicked off for owning 5 or 6 shares indirectly." Get real Elmer. And now we are to believe your anti AMD bias is from something that happened fifteen yrs ago; not because you do work for Intel now. Who the liar here? And you dislike Jerry because he lied in court 15 yrs ago. And of course Intel never ever uses others intellectial property although Intel is being sued as we speak for just that. So is AMD. So what. Its a sad fact of life in America nowadays. The thing that really surprises me is your and Pauls sudden obsession with history 15 to 20 yrs ago instead of present. Elmer I am willing to bet you could think of at least one thing Intel has done well recently. If you can remember it bring it up even if it is inconsequential. Anything has got to be better than bringing up old news day after day ad nauseum.

To: Elmer who wrote (98125)	3/12/2000 9:46:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580695

Elmer, I thought they had a tech agreement where A was traded for B. As far as I know the terms were met, however tech changed and what Intel got turned out to be less valuable than what AMD received in the long run. It could have been the other way as Intel made what it thought was a reasonable deal and AMD performed it's part as did Intel. It is not AMD's fault that Intel declined to make use of the designs offered or taken or that the market changed making the tech less valuable. Do you think Intel made a deal and agreed to take whatever AMD had in a closed box? But it is so far in the past as to be moot now, but it does show how Intel does look for monopolistic solutions as the steel and oil barons did before them Bill