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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (226884)	2/26/2007 2:45:30 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"But I stand by my original point, that Sanders testified under OATH that Microsoft was NOT a monopoly." I don't think you have a point here. So what if an individual has stated his opinion? You know how many opinions are there, don't you? It does not change a thing. "but the attempt was as blatant as his hypocrisy." I though it is rather called "business interests of the company"... what do you have against this? Take it easy, - Ali

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (226884)	2/26/2007 2:53:22 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tenchusatsu, One variable is undisputed. Microsoft could have chosen whatever 64-bit standard was best for them. Itanium, AMD-64, Yamhill, whatever. And Microsoft chose AMD64. And AMD lives on. Under the other 2 scenarios, AMD dies. That's certainly an "incentive" for a founder of a company to do what he must to help his baby survive. But I stand by my original point, that Sanders testified under OATH that Microsoft was NOT a monopoly. There may be Intel executives under oath testifying the same way about Intel. What is their testimony going to be? Opinion? Perjury? Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (226884)	2/26/2007 3:11:46 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

But I stand by my original point, that Sanders testified under OATH that Microsoft was NOT a monopoly. Link please. I believe you're misrepresenting Sanders' testimony, and challenge you to prove otherwise. It was rendered in the remedy phase of the trial, after Microsoft had already been determined to be a monopoly as a "Finding of Fact", and was actually mostly about integration and why Microsoft shouldn't be forced to "dis-integrate" Windows (i.e. the remedies, not the allegations.) news.com.com news.com.com While the idea of defending Microsoft in an antitrust battle abhors me, Sanders didn't do what you say he did. fpg