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: bnsbhat who wrote (162628)	6/28/2005 7:42:42 AM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

"Is this filing a tactical defensive move to insure that something like this does not repeat. theinquirer.net Especially keeping in view encouraging design wins of late in Servers and notebooks. Very clever. Worst case scenario is that with this lawsuit, AMD has provided the "perfect construct" for those currently intimidated by INTC to alter their ways. Intimidated vendors can now tell INTC that they have to play straight as they are now under the legal microscope. Interesting timing when one looks at it from such a perspective as this lawsuit provides a "safe harbour" for intimidated vendors to disengage from INTC's oppresive/illegal tactics at the very time that AMD is ramping up capacity. Skilfully timed, from my vantage point.

To: bnsbhat who wrote (162628)	6/28/2005 8:41:43 AM
From: Robohogs	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Some customers will be unhappy with amd however. This could backfire. Jon

To: bnsbhat who wrote (162628)	6/28/2005 10:21:09 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

S. Bhat, Is this filing a tactical defensive move to insure that something like this does not repeat. It is happening as we speak, so first, AMD needs Intel to stop it. Here is my dream come true scenario, as far as ongoing business. Intel, after being found to be a monopoly that abused the monopoly power would be "supervised" for a period of time in all of its deals. They would have to be non-discriminatory and open (meaning public). Damages for past actions woud be nice too... Joe