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: fastpathguru who wrote (213102)	10/10/2006 2:52:08 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

fpg Dude, I'm going to argue like you now. Not even close. If you want to argue like me you'll have to do this: "Wait for the facts. It will all come out in the wash." I know that's a nearly impossible task when AMD is telling you what to think but it's the intellectually honest thing to do, if that matters to you. Wait for the facts before drawing a conclusion. It will all come out in the wash.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (213102)	10/10/2006 3:47:15 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Yes, using this Phuddian logic, let's look at a few examples of business practices that AMD argues about.. Phuddian template: 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. From paragraph 84, page 29 of complaint: amd.com X == a contractual agreement between Intel and IBM that prohibited IBM from endorsing AMD-based computers at a trade show Y == AMD says this constitutes interference with AMD's marketing efforts. Z == ?????????, perfectly legal (your guess as good as mine) From paragraph 86, page 30 of complaint: X == Intel threatened to raise chipset prices to Acer by $10 on ALL Intel chipsets if any processor business was awarded to AMD outside Europe. Y == illegal restraint of trade. Resulted in cancellation of Acer Athlon XP system shortly before launch. Z == "We were trying to protect Acer's reputation?" Any better guesses? From paragraph 88, page 31 X == Intel enterred into an exclusive relationship with Synnex, a major US parts distributor. ("exclusive" means that Synnex could not sell Intel processors if it sold any AMD processors) Y == AMD claims the deal is an illegal restraint of trade because there is no economic justification for Synnex to sell only one brand of processor. Z == Intel will probably try to claim some economic benefit to Synnex, but it escapes me what that might be. (Exclusive contracts are not always illegal. For example, school districts select either Coke or Pepsi and don't allow the other company to sell on school premises. But in that case, Coke and Pepsi have to bid against eachother for the contract and the lowest price always wins. Keen competition & lower prices are (theoretically) the result.) Paragraph 99, page 33 X == When Intel learned that Fry’s was very successfully marketing a Fujitsu’s Athlon™ XP-based notebook, it offered Fry’s a large payment to remove it from its shelves. Y == illegal restraint of trade Z == "we were just kidding" I could go on and on. Either Mulloy hasn't read the "business practices that AMD argues about," or he made an extremely careless, and probably "Freudian slip" type of comment accidentally. Petz