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: hmaly who wrote (163351)	7/1/2005 1:19:47 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Harry Why the hell was Intel using illegal means to stop AMD.... Why on earth would Intel go to the lengths they did, having Barret himself threaten OEMs.... You have confused allegations with facts. You have judged with out reviewing evidence. That is prejudice by definition. You have no idea whatsoever what really took place, only the crybaby whining of a loser. You've bought it hook line and sinker with no concern for the other side of the story. AMD say's it, you believe it. Did you believe Jerry when he told you "yields are fine"? I'm sure you did. Did you believe Jerry when he said "There's no Intel microcode in our 486"? I'm sure you did. AMD say's it, you believe it. You believe it now because AMD said it. No need to listen to the other side of the story. My cement contractor says you're not to be believed. I guess that proves it.

To: hmaly who wrote (163351)	7/1/2005 1:33:27 AM
From: rzborusa	Respond to of 275872

hmaly, Why on earth would Intel go to the lengths they did, Those are just rumors. Some people reject AMD products for moral reasons: Message# 157970 ;)

To: hmaly who wrote (163351)	7/1/2005 3:31:38 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Harry, Re: What a brilliant post.> I also thought it was pretty good. Re: <Why the hell was Intel using illegal means to stop AMD, when all Intel had to do was tell them, the chips AMD was selling were actually vapor, and while they seemed real enough, they were just Chinese knockoffs.> Well yes. Intel could have taken that approach and maybe it should have. However when Intel's statements proved true it would have embarrassed AMD something terrible. And Intel, the Friendly Giant, just wouldn't do something like that. Additionally those OEMs NEEDED that kickback money and had to feel they were actually doing something to get it. How would Carley(Just as an example) have felt if Intel just came up and GAVE them $50 or so milliion dollars with no Objective Performance Requirement? Confused? Bothered by lack of conformance with modern management theory? Feeling she wasn't needed, perhaps? So Intel did the ethical thing and provided those requirements thus making the OEMs feel good and avoiding embarrassment to AMD. Re: <I bet Intel's lawyers wish they had thought of that, so they could have responded with more clarity and sanity, to AMD's lawsuit, instead of the feeble answer they gave.> I wish you hadn't pointed that out. I really FEEL for Intel. And if the above thesis is true they deserve our thanks and admiration. But all in all I'd prefer they continue the vast ignorance they demonstrated yesterday even if they are corporate GOODFELLOWS. -tgp