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 (260414)	5/19/2009 11:53:52 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 275872

FPG, > So you know what the subject of this alleged meeting was then? The antitrust case. Duh. Tenchusatsu

To: fastpathguru who wrote (260414)	5/19/2009 4:58:15 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

electronicsweekly.com Intel Cheeks The Beak Normally, when you're up before the beak, the rules are simple: wear your best suit and call him 'Sir'. Intel has been doing none of this during its spat with the EC, and things were no different yesterday when the EC imposed its €1 billion fine. In the Red Corner, EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes accused Intel of: 1. Giving rebates to manufacturers conditional on them using a limited number of AMD chips; 2. Of paying a manufacturer to delay the launch of an AMD-based PC by six months; 3. Of trying to hide evidence. In the Blue Corner, Intel's chief lawyer, Bruce Sewell was in fighting form responding: 1. "We have never conditioned a rebate on an agreement not to buy from AMD." 2 "I can absolutely and categorically deny it, and I do deny it." 3. "I know of no instance when Intel has tried to hide something." The most puzzling thing about all this - when the investigation has been going on for nine years - is that Sewell said he didn't understand what it is that the EC wants Intel to stop doing. Asked if he'd had discussions with the EC about this, Sewell replied: "We have had no discussion with the Commission on any aspect of this." For God's sake, why not?