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 (213030)	10/9/2006 1:54:28 PM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Your point? Regards, Rink

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (213030)	10/9/2006 2:12:52 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

prudent for Intel to establish policy with the assumption they are a monopoly and will eventually be declared one? They have always argued vehemently in public that they are not. Any internal discussions they had about this are likely privileged (lawyer/client), and so will never see the light of day. If I had to guess (and it's no more than that) I'd say they proceeded as if they were not. My own belief is that the US case is not a short-term driver of either stock unless AMD finds a "smoking gun" in discovery, which is probably unlikely. Maybe news from Europe will come earlier. To my mind the case (when combined with Opterons) has already had the desired effect from AMD's perspective - the Intel iron grip that effectively kept AMD out of the commercial desktop and laptop market has been broken. Too bad (for AMD) it didn't happen when AMD was in the technological lead. Remember it's not just Intel's overt actions that mattered for AMD - it was also the perception (whether justified or not) by Intel's customers (like Supermicro) that they needed to "behave well" from Intel's vantage point. Peter