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 (259271)	3/31/2009 3:28:27 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

No it doesn't prove it. Thank you for the concession. FPG 1, Elmer 0. Will you apply the same standard if there is no evidence that Intel, as a company, has a policy of encouraging illegal business practices? Why the fixation on whether it was "policy" or not? If there's no evidence that abuse of market power is "policy" at Intel, I can easily admit that there is no evidence that abuse of market power is "policy" at Intel. If there is evidence that Intel abused its market power, could you admit that Intel abused its market power, whether or not it was "policy?" There's the problem. You've already convicted Intel in your mind so why wait for proof? I'm not convinced 100% of anything. My world-model does not require me to dismiss significant historical facts and pertinent events, like yours does, however. In the AMD stolen IP case, you are saying that because the FBI could find no evidence that proves AMD had no involvement. Effectively, yes it does. We already know AMD has a history of stealing IP from Intel and those actions were with the full support and approval of upper level management. It's not much of a stretch to say that AMD is once again doing what they have already been shown to have done in the past. Uhh, it is a stretch, to think that anyone who matters will entertain your fantasy. In the Intel case, you have absolutely no evidence that Intel upper level management had any involvement or knowledge of any illegal activity and they have no history of such, yet you believe they are guilty because your mindset demands it. Again with the preoccupation with "Intel upper level management..." Is Craig Barrett your daddy or something? I don't (and the courts won't) need a handwritten note from Craigy proclaiming his personal guilt. A simple pattern of exclusionary contracts with OEMs will suffice. fpg

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (259271)	4/1/2009 7:11:23 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: No it doesn't prove it. Will you apply the same standard if there is no evidence that Intel, as a company, has a policy of encouraging illegal business practices? You're spouting nonsense. AMD didn't create contracts to steal information, while Intel created contracts to extort damages against AMD through tortious third party interference. There's plenty of evidence and that's why Intel has a big campaign going on everywhere to push lies denying it. Ever notice how terrified Intel is of the details getting out regarding its extortion driven contracts?