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: Elmer Phud who wrote (260161)5/14/2009 2:11:58 AM
From: fastpathguruRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Did you really think Intel was going to write contracts with stipulations that specifically demanded the exclusion of AMD? Even if this was Intel's intent, and it wasn't, who would put that in writing? Did you really think they were that stupid?

And the fact that Intel concealed their illegal rebates in contracts, but slipped up in emails couldn't silence the recipients, and couldn't pass an effects-based analysis (using discount attribution and equally-efficient competitor standards) of their rebates helps you how exactly?

Are you actually bragging about the effectiveness of Intel's coverup?

Is your denial of evidence now limited to confessions of illegal activity in their contracts?

Just asking, because there's so much more you could be in denial of... I don't want the greatness of your denial to be diminished in any way.

fpg



To: Elmer Phud who wrote (260161)5/14/2009 11:58:04 AM
From: combjellyRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
"Did you really think Intel was going to write contracts with stipulations that specifically demanded the exclusion of AMD?"

Elmer, they don't have to. The EC is claiming that Intel did that in a de facto manner. Which is still illegal.

"Even if this was Intel's intent, and it wasn't"

You know this, how exactly? Where is your evidence that it wasn't their intent?