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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (51602)	8/17/2001 8:40:11 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Albert, Re: "re:You are confusing a warning with an ultimatum. You are confusing an ultimatum with a warning." That's a cute little word reversal, but that's not what the article said. The article said "warning", but you assumed it should have said "ultimatum". As for the "threat", I think you are confusing the wording a little. I am no legal expert, but I assume that if motherboard manufacturers intentionally make use of a product that they know was constructed without legal permission, than they can in fact be held liable. It's not a threat more than it is a statement of fact. You might believe that VIA is safe as far as the licensing is concerned, but that may not be the way the court sees it. If Intel is awarded their case, they can easily hold any manufacturer liable that has intentionally shipped the motherboards with the illegal chips aboard. It is in their best interest not to ship until the legal battle is settled, but obviously a few manufacturers will take their chances, and Intel can't do anything about it until after they win in court. wanna_bmw