SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (255092)8/2/2008 2:21:30 PM
From: rzborusaRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
In your world, "bribery" is legal for anyone who isn't a monopoly. And that's the problem with your "bribery" analogy, or any other comparison with real criminal actions, because what Intel is being accused of would not be considered illegal if AMD did likewise.


What you are over looking is that, none of those tactics are practical or even possible for a minor player. Just once, look at it from that perspective.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (255092)8/2/2008 6:45:26 PM
From: Dan3Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Re: You think Intel can't pay your employer $500K to fire you, but you think AMD can because AMD is not a monopoly.

Oh come on, you know I never stated any such thing.

I made it clear that the issue was 3rd party tortious interference.

If AMD threatens or bribes all of Intel's customers to not use Intel's parts, then AMD would be guilty of the same civil tort, regardless of their monopoly status (or lack of same).


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News