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: fastpathguru who wrote (258917)	3/13/2009 2:23:19 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Implying Intel witnesses lied? Of course not. Implying AMD's paid translator selectively commented on sections that were favorable to his employer/sponsor. Never said it was "official." So what? I'm only pointing out what it says. You are the one making baseless claims about the accuracy of its content. No, you're pointing out what the commentator said, not what the document actually said. The firm is sponsored by AMD. So what? AAI itself is biased against monopolies. So what? Doesn't mean the translation is wrong. No, it could be perfectly fine. Would you be so generous if it as a commentary from a translator funded by Intel? I rather doubt that you would. No, it's an excerpt from the translation. I.e. "First, [...]"(38p-39p) “First, considering the fact that both Samsung and Intel Korea’s employees testified consistently that the defendants suggested rebates in exchange for abandoning AMD products in first quarter and second quarter 2002 continuously defendants’ employees describe it as “Full Alignment”) It is not testimony. That is a commentary from someone. People do not testify in the third person. When those people get on a witness stand under oath they can be question by Intel to clarify their comments in context. In other words, this "translation" was bought and paid for by AMD. Again, how willing would you be to accept this "translation" if the tables were reversed? Of course, your ORIGINAL argument, that Intel couldn't call witnesses and present evidence to the KFTC, has long since been abandoned... You're mistaken. Perhaps you should read what I said again: Intel has appealed the decision to an actual Court of Law where they can call witnesses and present evidence in their defense. One last point. Here's an poignant line from the article: AAI Research Fellow Byung-Geon (“B.K.”) Lee, a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow working with the AAI, provides his own translation of what he has determined to be highlights of the 133-page opinion.1 What would a paid translator think was a highlight? Would you call that cherrypicking? Would something that was favorable to Intel or something that cleared up some ambiguity be likely to be considered a highlight by a translator paid for by AMD?