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: Elmer Phud who wrote (165217)	7/13/2005 10:26:26 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I have a difference standard LOL. Good job, Elmo.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165217)	7/15/2005 6:50:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

All we have heard is AMD's spin. This is not sufficient to persuade me Then from your perspective it would be "insufficient evidence" and maybe even "flimsy evidence", but it wouldn't be "no evidence". Tim

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165217)	7/15/2005 7:35:43 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

re: I require greater proof. would ruling from US court qualify as "greater proof"? Japanese ruling, obviously, did not qualify as a "greater proof", LOL

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165217)	7/16/2005 3:10:34 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

You've made it clear that you don't think Intel broke the law. But, irrespective of whether it is legal or not, do you think Intel should be allowed to: 1. Estimate the quarterly computer sales of an OEM, N 2. Grant a 10% rebate on the entire quarterly purchase of CPUs, but ONLY if the OEM buys a total of at least 0.9N CPUs from Intel in that quarter. If it is two weeks before the end of the quarter and the OEM has already bought 0.8N CPUs from Intel at an average price of $150, and 0.1N CPUs from AMD at an average price of $100. How much will it cost them to buy 0.1N more CPUs from AMD? How much will it cost them to buy 0.1*N more CPUs from Intel? Do you honestly think this SHOULD be legal? Petz

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165217)	7/18/2005 3:06:32 PM
From: inex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Ephud, My understanding in AMD's lawsuit is that, like most civil suits, there only has to be overwhelming evidence of Intel's actions. AMD does not have to prove its case without doubt. The fact that some journalists, (Mike Magee of The Inquirer...theinquirer.net is one example that I can immediately think of...) have reported similar findings PRIOR to AMD's suit lend credence to AMD's claims. I'm sure that the reason most on this board accept AMD's claims as true is because we have followed AMD for quite some time and have heard most of the allegations in a more general manner (i.e. "one OEM who refuses to be named claims..."). It surprises me that with the JFTC investigation complete (certainly no evidence there???) you would feel that there is "no evidence". Certainly Intel "disagreed" with the JFTC's findings, and, this is why AMD announced its suit in Japan as well (IMO). By forcing Intel into litigation where there would be a monetary settlement, Intel can no longer say "we disagreed with the JFTC's findings but, don't think that the resolution will change our ability to conduct business as usual..." This sounds as though it just wasn't worth Intel's while to pursue its innocence. If/When Intel has to fork over $50M, this will be taken as definitive proof of Intel's guilt in Japan... AMD will then be able to take the results of this litigation into its U.S. case and be able to say that Intel was found guilty even after Intel tried to defend itself...