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: Elmer Phud who wrote (254982)	7/31/2008 4:38:15 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>Total nonsensical Chewbacca defense. I love when Intel addresses the case by not addressing it. It's just that you can't grasp the point. If the purpose of the Law is to protect the consumer then the facts speak for themselves. The consumer has gotten more for less. If the Law has another purpose, such as for example disallowing any Monopoly, then I can see why you would react the way you have. Oh brother, not the EU vs. Monopoly narrative again, this time pulled out of thin air without even a misquote to base it on... Perhaps the EC is under the impression that the consumer could have gotten EVEN MORE for EVEN LESS had Intel not perverted natural market forces. fpg nsigtstesbhwwigtanbg

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (254982)	8/1/2008 11:49:53 AM
From: rzborusa	Respond to of 275872

Fuddy, The consumer has gotten more for less. If the Law has another purpose, such as for example disallowing any Monopoly, then I can see why you would react the way you have. The alternative is not in existence for comparison. We know what we got. Not what we might have had. A level playing field should be provided so evolution can take place. . You are more comfortable believing that what you have now is the best that could have happened, ... It is not about the technology. It is about social responsibility and power, how to balance ideals v power with principles. All the while those with levers bend the rules but supposedly do not break them. In so doing destroy the spirit of the rules, in which they were formed, ideally. Edited