SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Elmer Phud who wrote (253020)6/7/2008 11:59:18 PM
From: Dan3Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Re: Regrettably for you, and another here who makes that claim, you have no evidence.

Elmer, Intel's non-conus operations have been getting convicted and fined left and right due to the evidence. The recently re-opened FTC investigation means that evidence and the fact that there have been convictions resulting in penalties and fines can be used in some domestic civil litigation.

The bar is a lot lower in civil litigation (just ask O.J.).

I don't think it's a question of if Intel's going end up paying AMD some money in a couple of years, it's a question of how much money. It might just be a couple hundred million or it might be that they take the actual damages of $10 Billion and triple them.



To: Elmer Phud who wrote (253020)6/9/2008 3:50:53 PM
From: gvattyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Elmer would you agree that a rebate of x is legal if the oem bought y number of chips from Intel(as long as the rebate didn't drop the chip price below Intel's cost)? Would you also agree that a rebate paid by Intel of x in exchange of a promise by the oem not to use AMD parts is illegal?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News