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: tcmay who wrote (136224)	5/28/2001 11:59:29 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim I am glad we set the record straight :-)) (I meant no disrespect) as far as: "And for the record, I think it obvious that no company should ever be compelled to license any of its technologies or secrets." I do agree with you 100% but you have to realize that if Intel's clients can not live with intel's business practice then intel is out of business. IBM would never accept single source for the chips and that was it. As far as I recall there is nothing in Constitution that would force Intel on the customers either. :-)) I found it curious that you take a pride in "argue like hell before and during a meeting, but once a decision is reached, support that decision." It does not even sound good. Already on a number of occasions Intel suffered because of the lack of flexibility. Rambus alone is a great example how intel is sticking with decision made no matter what. AMD would not be able to gain that much of a market share and now threaten commercial sector if Intel would abandon rambus long time ago. I am not sure where "copy exactly" was adopted at amd. Amd did have issues at implementing technology but I do not believe that Intel's "copy exactly" was used to solve it. There is too much difference between those companies. Regards -Albert