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: Petz who wrote (213025)	10/9/2006 1:38:40 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

By Intel employee's silence, I am assuming that Intel did NOT teach that it was illegal, and therefore expect AMD to win the case on that ground alone, probably the most serious of all the charges in the suit. Petz You don't need any help to convince yourself that Intel is guilty. Your mind is made up so why bother rehashing this point? Let me ask you this, considering that you are absolutely convinced that Intel had a policy of violating the law, how do you think this policy was conveyed to those who carried it out? There was obviously a team of highly paid lawyers with very indepth knowledge in anti-trust law, so how did they train those sales people on how to break the law? Was it done on US soil or off shore outside US jurisdiction? How was this carried out? OR is it your position that they just didn't really know the law as well as you do?

To: Petz who wrote (213025)	10/9/2006 1:40:55 PM
From: Plissken	Respond to of 275872

It will all come out in the wash?

To: Petz who wrote (213025)	10/9/2006 1:54:56 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Golfbum shut up pretty quick when I asked him what Intel taught its employees on the subject of "first dollar rebates." Oh, it's better than that. Here's a post of my own that got zero feedback from Team Blue, despite its incredible implications: Message 22868195 The important part: "All the business practices AMD argues about," remarked [Intel spokesperson Chuck] Mulloy, "are lawful." Is this not portentious in its implications? That their defense will consist entirely of, "S'all good!" Here's another quote from the supposed lawyer ephud trotted out: investorshub.com "The truth is there weren't any such agreements, in any manner formal enough to prove* that in any way Intel used UNdue influence."* My guess is that the antitrust avoidance classes Intel has to hold every other month are geared towards indoctrination of the students into the Intel Interpretation Of Antitrust Law, and also How To Avoid Leaving Incriminating Paper Trails. fpg

To: Petz who wrote (213025)	10/9/2006 6:00:35 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, > Golfbum shut up pretty quick when I asked him what Intel taught its employees on the subject of "first dollar rebates." I'll let Golfbum answer for himself, but if you were ask me, I'd tell you that I never received such training, and thus I wouldn't know the right answer. But if you asked for my opinion, I'd tell you that I think volume discounts and comarketing agreements should be perfectly legal, even for a monopoly. Tenchusatsu