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 (213161)	10/10/2006 2:57:01 PM
From: Rink	Respond to of 275872

FPG, Everyone knows. Please stop name calling. I do care whether it is deserved or not, but will act eventually even in case it is deserved. Regards, Rink

To: fastpathguru who wrote (213161)	10/10/2006 3:53:56 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

fpg We are discussing the credibility of Intel's statement, and of Intel itself. Why are you talking about whether proof exists or not? Apparently the concept is too complicated for you so I will try to give an example. Now this is an example only and not intended to represent the real issues: Intel gives a payment. AMD says Intel gives a payment. They agree on that point. AMD says it's a bribe to lock out AMD products. That's illegal in AMD's view. Intel says no, it's a rebate for advertising when Intel is the only product depicted in the add. There is no requirement that the company only depict Intel, just if they want the rebate they can't include AMD in THAT add. That's perfectly legal. Intel can say that everything they've done is legal without agreeing to AMD's spin. See, now was that really so hard?