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: gvatty who wrote (253092)	6/9/2008 5:17:34 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

gvatty 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)? Unlike several others on this board, I do not pretend to be a legal expert. Also, unlike those same self anointed experts, I do not see Intel as the embodiment of evil and I don't think they set out to violate the law. So all I can do is assume that Intel had their business dealings scrutinized by legal experts. Who in their right mind would do otherwise? 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? Again, my non expert opinion is that it would seem that way but do you have any evidence that this is what happened? In fact, no one has even seen the Official KFTC findings. As long as we're asking questions, do you think Intel is that dumb? Do you believe the claim made here that Craig Barrett had his underlings carry in bags of cash to bribe companies? Do you believe Intel would be dumb enough to send emails detailing nefarious plans? What kind of justice is it when the defendant hasn't had the opportunity to present evidence and question witnesses? It is the kind of justice those same pundits applaud.