To: Neil Booth who wrote (34872 ) 4/4/2001 6:03:55 PM From: survivin Respond to of 275872 Hi Neil, Don't worry, Most Americans understand the importance of honoring contracts regardless of the present operating environment. Regarding the payments required by Amd, these were not collateral payments such as granting a lien on your home or depositing with an escrow agent pending sale, but straight downpayments offered to guarantee future product at a set price and quantity. They were likely tabulated for percentage reduction upon each shipment with additional provisions upon buyer's default, the definition of which was no doubt quite clear. As I wrote earlier, AMD's cash position increased greater than their income (incl. division sales) for 2 or 3 straight Qs suggesting inclusion in amd's income statement. If anyone remembers Jerry's exact comments please respond. There is no excuse for alcatel's breach. Frustrated purpose, impossibility, unconscionability and other legal defenses are out of the question. They must now pay the price, which is an AMD action for specific performance or breach damages as specified under their agreement. For them litigation may be cheaper than full performance. It was quite ironic to see an earlier post giving a link to an alcatel Jan. press release showing record sales and earnings for Q4 and suggesting their business was great and implying AMD was foolish to threaten this relationship. These records were achieved with products AMD likely shipped in Aug/Sept. at well below market prices. I don't remember anything in it about them sharing their good fortune with amd for their fortuitous contracting, now they want to spread out their pain? Thankfully, it doesn't work that way. survivin