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 (261965)	10/15/2009 11:44:24 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

To make a point. It seems you are conceding that exclusivity does not necessarily mean coercion. Now that wasn't so hard was it. I never said otherwise. Do you think some Intel manager may have listed 100% share at Apple as one of his accomplishments for the quarter/year? That was one of the things you listed as "proof" of Intel's wrongdoing at another company. One did, I showed you the excerpt. Here it is again: (541) [Intel executive] wrote into his Accomplishments Report for 2006: "Top 5 ACCOMPLISHMENTS in 2006: 1. Achieved 100% Intel NB CPU MSS in '06 in Lenovo's full NP product portfolio, including […] branded notebooks sold worldwide. Received Division Recognition Award at 3Q'06 BUM for creating comprehensive meet comp response that enabled Intel to win two key "at risk" Lenovo notebook refresh designs and maintain 100% Intel NB CPU MSS at Lenovo worldwide. (…) 2. Reached formal agreement with Lenovo (signed MOU) on '07 deal that awards Intel 100% Lenovo NB CPU business in '07 and grows Intel '07 DT CPU MSS to […]%729, enabling Intel to increase YoY CPU volume sales to Lenovo by over […]%".730 Can you not read? "The meet comp response enabled Intel to [...] maintain 100% Intel NB CPU MSS at Lenovo worldwide." Q) What enabled Intel to maintain 100% Intel NP CPU MSS? A) The meet comp response this Intel executive won an award for creating. And this is just one of many emails that are co-corroborative on the subject. The EUC asked a Dell executive that same question and they had to hide his testimony. ... According to Intel, who's characterization of that meeting is speculation based upon statements the same executive made right at the beginning of the period the EC's decision covers, and on a document entitled “Indicative list of topics to be discussed with Dell Meeting of 23 August 2006”. Speculation as in, Intel doesn't actually KNOW what was discussed during that meeting. They're just guessing. Given that even Intel doesn't know what was discussed in that meeting, how is it that you are so confident about what was discussed? Do you have some kind of proof you could point to? 'Cause, you know, your standard of proof is so high. fpg