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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (164350)	4/20/2002 6:03:41 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tench, i guess this line answers my question on how Sanders could avoid sounding like a hypocrite with regards to his feelings against the "Intel Monopoly", and his testimony in favor of the "Microsoft Monopoly". 1 At AMD, we have a different view of how our industry 2 should work. We believe in competition. 3 Did I read that correctly, sir? 4 A. Yes, you did. 5 Q. And is that something you believed to be true in 1997? 6 A. Strongly. 7 Q. Do you strongly believe it to be true in 2002? 8 A. I do. 9 Q. And in fact, sir, you distinguish in your mind, do you not, 10 between monopolists who work through good competition and 11 monopolists who have a tendency to try to exclude competition 12 through their practices, do you not? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And your view from what you know is that Microsoft falls in 15 the former category and Intel in the latter; correct? 16 A. Since I don't remember the former, I think -- Intel bad, 17 Microsoft good. Somehow, I'm skeptical that he gains much credibility after such a statement.... After reading the transcript, I got the distinct impression that Intel was on trial - not Microsoft. And am I right to understand that nearly all the cross examination questions came from Sanders' deposition? You have to wonder if Sanders orchestrated his entire court appearence in order to get some things "off his chest" regarding his arch-enemy. Sure, he killed Microsoft's case with the quid-pro-quo, but he sure got to give Intel a few dozen zingers, as well as bring up highly sensitive information - Yamhill, something about Microsoft initiatives in Windows CE, another few words on "trustworthy computing", etc. To think how much Sanders could have blown - all to get more "even" with Intel - just astounds me like I can't describe. wbmw

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (164350)	4/20/2002 9:33:49 AM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

It seems Jerry was unusually open about how he needed Microsoft's support for Hammer. The theory is being tossed around on the Mod thread that Jerry wanted to derail a possible collusion effort between Intel and Microsoft. So he purposely "neglects" to read the states' proposals, and he proceeds to use the trial as a forum for exposing the supposed collusion. Personally, I don't see the wisdom behind this move, if Jerry really had such a motive. Didn't he just piss off Bill Gates, thereby hurting Jerry's chances of ever getting Microsoft to support Hammer? Tenchusatsu I don't think that Bill Gates can announce support of Hammer now, even if he wanted to. It would make it look like Bill bought Jerry's testimony with Windows support, and would certainly damage Microsoft's case. There may be support of Hammer in Microsoft's next OS, but by the time Bill determines that the fires have burned out low enough to announce it, Madison will have already come and gone, and AMD could be a very small spec in the rear view mirror...... IMO Semi