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 (255002)	8/1/2008 2:09:10 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I said that AMD benefits as a side effect of protecting the process of competition. AMD is the competition. There is no other competition so there is no distinction between protecting competition and protecting AMD. In this case they are one and the same. Is it because you're in love with your self-admitted employer Intel perhaps? I am not an employee of Intel Corp. I have never claimed to be an employee of Intel. I have, in the past, been compensated by Intel for my services and I have had access to inside information. Please don't make statements about me that I have never claimed. They want to protect the market from an abusive dominant supplier, an ideal I wholeheartedly agree with. To say "abusive dominant supplier" is redundant to the EU. Being a dominant supplier is in itself abusive to the EU. Their own statements reveal this. You have a different interpretation of certain statements. You are entitled to your opinion but I am entitled to mine as well and I am not alone. You have avoided the glaring issue involving competitiveness. As the EU demands competition, what responsibility lies on the shoulders of the competitor to be competitive? If AMD's own misdeeds create a competitive gap, there seems to be no mechanism to absolve the dominate supplier(Intel) when the competitor has rendered themself inept. If competition must be maintained then the only way to sustain competition is to punish the dominant supplier by forcing them to raise prices so that the competition can compete. The ultimate victim is the consumer. Your conspiracy theories are just as looney as the Area 51 and grassy-knoll nuts. It's funny how right-wingers can't stand the concept of evolution, yet when it comes to economics, use survival of the fittest to justify their pro-big-business pet policies -- You need to go back and get a new set of talking points from your think-tank, 'cause these ones aren't working. Thanks for this statement. It says far more about you than it does about me.