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 (255128)	8/3/2008 10:20:54 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: Mafia's sins listed Those actions were just pure criminal extortion, there's no need for subtle explanations and discussion. And I heard similar stories directly from technical staff at Appro, Supermicro, and others. The sales guys were always careful in their wording, but the techs apparently hadn't been "trained" to keep that stuff secret (or, being engineering types, refused as a matter of principle to keep that stuff quiet).

To: mas_ who wrote (255128)	8/3/2008 11:33:18 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

"Intel's Alleged Schemes Affected U.S. Consumers" papers.ssrn.com fpg

To: mas_ who wrote (255128)	8/3/2008 11:45:07 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Bad link. It times out.

To: mas_ who wrote (255128)	8/3/2008 11:45:21 AM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

For some reason you left this part out: "AMD claims its larger rival Intel has used..." siliconvalley.com If all of these "AMD claims" are true, why did AMD ask for a 1000 depositions and another year of discovery? If AMD had evidence instead of "claims, AMD would be begging for an early trial date so it could strike down "evil Intel" (tm AMD and sycophants). Everything AMD says in court documents is absolutely privileged and can then be passed along in public statements. Absent the privilege, the San Jose Mercury would not print the "AMD claims" for fear of legal liability -- not just with Intel but with the alleged co-conspirators who cooperated with Intel. Note that none of the named other Parties will confirm AMD's claims: "executives at HP, Tech Data and First Data of Colorado, where Capellas now is CEO, declined to comment on the suit. Officials with other companies mentioned in the case didn't respond to requests for comment." Everything reported in the article are nothing but allegations from AMD. And AMD was so shy about its statements that the original Complaint was not affirmed under oath by an AMD officer. Such an oath would leave the officer exposed to a perjury charge when the charges are proved false. The Complaint and other public documents are just signed by AMD lawyers.