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 (213093)	10/10/2006 12:20:27 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

ephud, >What part of 'All the business practices AMD argues about," remarked [Intel spokesperson Chuck] Mulloy, "are lawful."' don't you get? I get it, too bad you don't. Intel says their actions were lawful, AMD says they weren't. A Court will have to decide who's right. Why is that so hard to grasp? Uhh, I don't think you're following along very well. What we're doing is moving beyond your childishly simplistic truism, which everybody including myself accepts, and exploring the implications and consequences of Mulloy's statement. BTW, you can quit with the little anthem of "You've only heard AMD's spin!", because Mulloy has effectively OFFICIALLY VALIDATED AMD's "spin", i.e. their allegations. He's read AMD's list of allegations, apparently mulled it over with Intel Legal, and proclaimed, "Yeah, so, we think it's OK to do that!" One implication of his statement is that Intel likely expects AMD to substantiate some, or many, or maybe even all of their allegations. Why would he even say that otherwise? It would be a far stronger statement to say that AMD's complaint is complete fabrication, as many Team Blue players like to portray. Mulloy's credibility, and that of the company for which he is a spokesperson, is inversely proportional to the likelyhood of any of AMD's allegations are actionable. Another implication of his statement is that if that is indeed Intel's position on the matter, i.e. the practices AMD alleges are actually legal in Intel's eyes, then are those beliefs reflected/reinforced in Intel's Sunday School antitrust classes? Are they teaching that the very practices covered by AMD's allegations are blessed by management? Yes, I expect any day now that Team Blue itself will label Mulloy's statement as "mere spin", rather than a serious statement, due to the implications that arise from it. AMD says Intel did X and that constitutes Y and it was illegal. Intel says no that's not true, yes we did do X but that constitutes Z and it's perfectly legal. You heard AMD say X=Y and you can't think beyond that point. No, ephud, that's not quite it. AMD is saying X happened, and X is illegal. Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy says no, X is actually legal behavior. There is no need to obfuscate with Y and Z. Let a Court decide what it was. Don't fret little ephud, that will happen whether we talk about it here or not. fpg