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 (252227)	5/21/2008 1:42:44 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>> You haven't provided any justification for your high level of confidence in this statement. And since it's the foundation for the rest of your argument... << Are you persuaded that Intel has bundled products of types that AMD makes with products of types that AMD does not make into the same rebate bundle ? I am persuaded that this is the only way that the LePage precedent will apply to AMD vs Intel. Are you persuaded otherwise ? meaning that simply more quantity of same product constitutes a "different product" to which the entire extra rebate should be applied, a-la LePage ? I think that is your point of view. And I also think it has less chance of surviving than a snowball in hell.

To: fastpathguru who wrote (252227)	5/21/2008 2:08:15 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Even if the 9th circuit's discount attribution standard is applied? You seem to have think that because you have found a new standard among your legal sleuthing, that it must be something new that nobody knows about, and Intel must be guilty of it! As for myself, unless there is a specific incidence that is known to the public that we can analyze as amateur lawyers on this forum, then it does not make sense to point to every new piece of jargon you find and proclaim it as the latest smoking gun. If you have a specific incidence that you know Intel has violated, then please present it here. Otherwise, you are not arguing anything new. It's just as easy to speculate that Intel is innocent of this "9th circuit's discount attribution standard" than it is to speculate that Intel is guilty. And that ambiguity through lack of facts is what makes this argument moot.