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 (255059)	8/1/2008 5:48:19 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, > I think it's useful to understand their position, then we can debate if it's good or bad. The problem is, I don't think they really know what their position actually is. They're making it up on the fly. If they did know then Intel would have tailored their business practices to conform. How do you tailor your business to conform to a notion that any dominant market share position is bad? Remember that a duopoly is out of the question as long as your chief competitor is running a virtual "crusade." Tenchusatsu

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (255059)	8/1/2008 6:45:09 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I think it's useful to understand their position, then we can debate if it's good or bad. The problem is, I don't think they really know what their position actually is. LOL but you do. They're making it up on the fly. If they did know then Intel would have tailored their business practices to conform. The relevant position is codified in law. Everyone interprets laws their own ways and argues their side in a case, but in the end it's the Judge who has the definitive interpretation. If Intel needs guidelines, they should interpret the laws conservatively if they want to minimize their risk and not see how far they can push the envelope. fpg