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: survivin who wrote (98169)	3/12/2000 5:20:00 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 1580615

Re: Findings of Fact... Nice Post! Regards, Dan

To: survivin who wrote (98169)	3/12/2000 6:58:00 PM
From: crazyoldman	Respond to of 1580615

Hello survivin, Re:Findings of Fact Thanks for your excellent post. The discussion of the history of these two companies comes up once in a while on this thread and the memories of various participants (my self included) seems to become more selective with age. It's good to be drawn back to facts on this matter least we all appear crazy to bystanders. Kindest regards, CrazyMan

To: survivin who wrote (98169)	3/12/2000 7:10:00 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1580615

Surviving Re...<<<<The arbitrator found Intel extensively breached its obligations to act in good faith and deal fairly. Beginning in mid-1984 Intel, anxious to be the sole source for the 80386 (its 32-bit chip, which was to prove vastly successful) and convinced the contract was to its disadvantage, decided to frustrate the operation of the contract by taking no more products from AMD. Intel also resolved to keep this decision from AMD and the public, leaving AMD and others in the industry with the belief AMD would be a second source for the 80386. This "ke[pt] AMD in the Intel competitive camp" and avoided public knowledge of Intel's sole-source strategy for the 80386, a strategy Intel feared could limit its market if known. n4 The plan succeeded: AMD continued for about two years to believe, incorrectly, its agreement with Intel "had a future." >>>>>>>>>>> Surviving great post. Normally one would assume Elmer would drop his vendetta against AMD if he was indeed mad at AMD for breaking the agreement with Intel , when it was Intel who refused to follow their agreement. However Elmer being Elmer I assume Elmer will think of another reason to keep the vendetta going. Facts don't seem to phaze Elmer's fudd one bit.

To: survivin who wrote (98169)	3/12/2000 7:55:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1580615

survivin, <Findings of Fact> People in the semiconductor industry knew what happened in the 80s between Intel and AMD. History is written by the winners and so it is natural that the microprocessor history is written by Intel. Unless someone is incredibly naive or biased, it should be pretty clear that Intel's industry dominance and the stockholder wealth created by Intel have not come without stepping on a few toes. Good job digging the document up! It is kind of refreshing to see a document from our legal system that sets the record straight for the people who haven't been following Intel/AMD at that time. Chuck

To: survivin who wrote (98169)	3/12/2000 8:48:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1580615

Survivin Re: "There seems to be many versions of what exactly happened in the 80s chip war/truce. Here are the facts as accepted by the Calf. Supreme Court. I've deleted some of the irrelevent text. Overall, it appears both sides were partially at fault, though Amd's "inertia" prevented the award of hundreds of millions in damages for intc's breach of good faith and fair dealing. (see footnote 4) " You have provided no link to your post. Please provide a link. Seeing as several cases were ejudicated(sp?), it would help to know which one this is referring to. It appears to be referring to the arbitration case but don't forget there were 2. I remember very specific quotes from the Supreme Court that don't appear in your post. Perhaps it would also help to know exactly what you have deleted so they we can see if all agree that it was irrelevant and not the result of unintentional bias. EP