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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (256977)	11/6/2008 5:12:31 PM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

exactly an answer one would expect from an intel employee. good job.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (256977)	11/6/2008 5:15:47 PM
From: mas_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Since when did AMD have their hand in any cookie jar ? No-one is even making that claim except you Intel employees. The guy did it all by himself without AMD's knowledge and the last ex-Intel guy who tried that with AMD was turned in straight away by AMD.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (256977)	11/6/2008 5:28:01 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Now that AMD has been implicated, if not outright charged with a Criminal offense, I wonder if Intel will sue in Civil Court? The burden of proof is not so great in Civil Court and although there may or may not be enough evidence for an outright conviction in Criminal Court and hence no charges, at least not yet, Intel may well win in Civil Court. How may Billions do you think it will be worth? Will Intel get the Fabs? I think they'll just sell them off because they're obsolete to Intel now anyway.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (256977)	11/6/2008 11:30:58 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer was pointing out the hypocrisy of those on this thread who find conspiracies in everything Intel does, but looks the other way when AMD has its hand in the cookie jar. Elmer (and Mahmoud, and you too) are full of it. Nobody on the AMD side is proactively declaring AMD's innocence in the Intel IP matter, it was Mahmoud that brought up the subject with the groundless accusation. Get it? Let me make it simple: A) Intel dude groundlessly attacks AMD. B) AMD dude responds with fact of the explicit lack of evidence/basis for attack. C) Intel dude responds with anti-AMD innuendo. vs. A) AMD dude points out fact of Intel's multiple antitrust struggles. B) Intel dude responds with groundless defense of Intel. (Attacks strawman, etc.) C) AMD dude points out fallacy of Intel dude's defense. You know how they say "reality has a liberal bias?" Well, in this case, reality has an AMD bias. Hypocrisy is claiming that: A) It's simply not possible for Intel to have done anything wrong ("Their lawyers would never permit it!") when accused (and found to have broken, in some cases) the antitrust laws of several countries, while B) AMD just MUST have been involved (even with the explicit lack of any evidence by any enforcement agency) with the theft of Intel IP just because he knows it in his heart to be true. fpg