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: mas_ who wrote (255028)	8/1/2008 12:59:44 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

No ifs, buts or maybes, Intel bribed OEMs to only have Intel-only contracts and sold below cost none of which I agree with so I'm not the one confused here. Sorry mas but it doesn't wash. There is no detail as to how they determined Intel did these things. Did Intel offer such a good deal that the OEM just couldn't pass it up or did Intel walk in with bags of cash and insist that they stop doing business with AMD as you have claimed in the past? If Intel explicitly bribed in the true sense of the word then I agree that a crime has taken place here and punitive action by the EU is in order. The next question would be, was it a rouge agent or company policy? We all know that rogue actions can happen to any company and it is Intel's responsibility to take all necessary and proper steps to prevent such activity to the extent possible. But your arguments, and the incessant accusations of "evil Intel" require that it be an explicit bribe/exclusion of AMD and that it be company policy, not an implicit exclusion or the act of a rogue agent. Otherwise your theory of the evil empire falls apart and you have already gone on record as being opposed to any agreement that does not explicitly name AMD. So get your argument straight. Is it a bribe by a definition reasonable people would agree on and if so was it company policy? If you can't prove both then once again your argument is dust in the wind.