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: economaniack who wrote (165159)	7/13/2005 8:05:56 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

EC The AMD complaint is full of quite specific allegations of "strongarming, bullying, intimidation" While these constitute hearsay and are legally inadmissible in a court of law, they do represent evidence that we can use to shape our expectations about the course of the litigation. You have a different standard of what constitutes "evidence" than I do. I have some personal expertise on the question of whether the alleged behavior is in fact illegal, and I am quite sure that it is. Indeed as we start to see legal precedent for the AMDs claims (did you see the 3M tape case someone referenced?) it will become clear just how laughable Intel defenders' claims about tough but fair competition are. Clearly you have already made your determination without seeing any of the evidence (except AMD's hearsay) so there is no point discussing it any further with you. I will however wait to hear both sides of the story. That makes me rather unique here.

To: economaniack who wrote (165159)	7/13/2005 8:09:41 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

economaniac, do you know the relative market shares of 3M and LePage (was that it?) in that prior case? I mean if it was 95% vs. 2%, it might not be good legal precedent. Petz