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: graphicsguru who wrote (237747)	7/31/2007 2:32:41 AM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Graphiocsguru: The customers who bought PCs were injured by this practice and many of them are in the Us and, more importantly, are US citizens who pay taxes. So are many of the OEMs who buy CPUs. Their profits were less than zero in the periods in question even with these illegal marketing payouts and many are US companies. You may have heard of some of them, IBM, HP, Gateway and Compaq (bought by HP in 2002-03 within the period in question). And your argument about where something is made doesn't take away antitrust issues that had effects here in the US. If Sony locks out Toshiba in the US, Sony is still guilty in the US of Sherman act violations. It doesn't matter if the products were made in Swahili or Notintheusa. The two companies in question in this case are both US companies. And the injuries continued through 2006. And since that is within 4 years of the suit being filed, Intel is liable for all of the injuries since the practice started times three. BTW, criminal antitrust has no statute of limitations, even RICO. And the period is commonly extended, if there was an ongoing government case and for a year after. So because AMD complained before and the government investigated, the 4 years are extended because the ongoing investigation puts civil suits on hold. So if AMD complained to the government about practices in 1999 and an investigation started in 2000 and ended in 2002, if the last act occurred in 1999, all of the ongoing period is still within the statute of limitations. All that is moot because there were acts being done even after the civil suit was filed. And that puts the whole period in question which includes K7s made in Fab 25. So more Intel school of denial, use red herrings when you know you are wrong. Pete