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 (260192)	5/14/2009 3:10:31 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Not exactly an "economist," but another legal expert who sees things my way: The "legal expert" whined about antitrust enforcement and Kroes joke. He said nothing about the actual Intel case. I.e. another windbag. fpg

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (260192)	5/14/2009 4:06:33 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I see the Intel FUD campaign is in turbo mode. 21 posts from you, an Intel employee, on SI/IHub today before lunch. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (260192)	5/14/2009 4:09:48 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 275872

"I think Intel would be wise to seriously reconsider its conduct before these penalties begin to mount up," said David Balto, former policy director of the US Federal Trade Commission, which, along with certain US states, is investigating similar allegations. "This case is much more straightforward than the [much-appealed] Microsoft case in Europe," Mr Balto said. "It's simply a form of strong-arm tactics to coerce manufacturers and retailers only to use Intel, so I don't think its chances on appeal are very promising." ft.com