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: fastpathguru who wrote (260357)5/18/2009 11:56:04 AM
From: TenchusatsuRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
FPG, > Intel, who wanted to exclude foreign claims from the US trial, now depends upon cherry-picked testimony from the US in the EU case.

You would have a point if you weren't exaggerating to the level of dishonesty.

Tenchusatsu



To: fastpathguru who wrote (260357)5/18/2009 5:37:00 PM
From: smooth2oRespond to of 275872
 
fpg: If that doesn't take the cake...

Intel, who wanted to exclude foreign claims from the US trial, now depends upon cherry-picked testimony from the US in the EU case.
I bet said testimony looks something like this:
"Mr. Dell, did you ever accept illegal bribes from Intel to exclude AMD from your products?"
"No, Mr. Sewell, I wouldn't put it tha..."
"Thank you Mr. Dell. No more questions."

And, I'll bet you have no clue as to what this said testimony looks like. And, I bet you do know that these are the same corporations listed in the EU complaint. And, I bet you do know that these are depositions made under penalty of perjury. And, I bet you do know that these testimonies are made before lawyers who can exact the truth. And I bet you do know that, in the end, they don't support the suppositions made by the EUC.

Smooth



To: fastpathguru who wrote (260357)5/18/2009 7:22:22 PM
From: Elmer PhudRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Intel, who wanted to exclude foreign claims from the US trial, now depends upon cherry-picked testimony from the US in the EU case.

While the US has custody of that testimony, I believe it involves activities in Europe. It is under wraps unless subpoenaed by the EU. Don't you find it odd that the EU would refuse to look at that testimony?