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: Jim McMannis who wrote (166146)	7/19/2005 12:33:23 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

We don't really know how involved Intels Lawyers are in all of this. Sigh.....

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (166146)	7/19/2005 12:39:19 AM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Exactly. And you can imagine the conversation: "Well, it would only be an antitrust violation if we were shown to be a monopoly, and that hasn't happened yet, so go ahead with it, we need to maintain share..."

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (166146)	7/19/2005 12:59:39 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Intel's lawyers are so awesome, and Intel is squeaky clean huh? Guess they were using the lazy B-team in Japan, where they decided that running away was better than standing and fighting. Not very "budo"... fpg

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (166146)	7/19/2005 1:02:31 PM
From: muzosi	Respond to of 275872

considering that law is even a murkier field than engineering, i'd suggest phud and others to read a book called "challenger launch decision" to understand how frogs don't notice that the water they are in is slowly heating up. i had a lot more faith in nasa making sure that a ss wouldn't blow up than intel lawyers making sure that they are not a monopoly. it also turns out that ford knew about the pinto gas tank problems but they calculated that the legal costs of even killing some customers were lower than a redesign. there you go.