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 (261911)	10/14/2009 1:49:53 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Nonsense. When the EUC conducts their midnight raids do they identify each specific item they're after? Do they identify each specific email? So? Do you expect Intel to have power equivalent to law-enforcement agencies? Of course not. Exactly. Intel had no such power of subpoena equivalent to the EUC's blanket raids. Do you think private companies SHOULD be allowed to conduct such raids? They couldn't confront their accusers Their accusers were the EC, and they blew their chance to confront them. or put CEO's on the stand. Intel would never do that to their customers anyways. Right? It was a farce and you're happy with that as long as you got the decision you wanted. Farce shmarce. You're still clueless about the actual process. BTW, Intel itself does not complain about being denied anything like the ability to "put CEOs on the stand" or "conduct broad raids" in their appeal, even in the section related to procedural concerns: The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel's rights of defence. In particular, the Commission failed: to grant Intel an oral hearing in relation to the Supplementary Statement of Objections and Letter of Facts, even though they raised entirely new allegations and referred to new evidence which feature prominently in the contested decision; to procure certain internal documents from the competitor for the case file, when requested to do so by the applicant notwithstanding that, in the applicant's opinion, the documents: (i) were directly relevant to the Commission's allegations against Intel, (ii) were potentially exculpatory of Intel and (iii) had been identified by Intel with precision; to make a proper note of its meeting with a key witness from one of Intel's customers, who was highly likely to have given exculpatory evidence. So why are you? fpg