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 (268966)	1/9/2012 4:35:58 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 275872

You misunderstood me Elmer. The descriptions of the evidence could be substantiated in court with the actual evidence. (It's not unreasonable to assume that the evidence being used to build the case actually exists, even if it's being interpreted in a way that benefits the prosecution.) No, I understood you. Let me clarify: Evidence that could be presented in Court. You don't know if it(the charges) could be substantiated. Unfortunately for you, so far, nobody has presented Intel's side in "A court of law"... So your mystery factors have not ben enumerated or quantified, your rogue salesman has not been fingered, your "alternate interpretations" have not been elucidated... You are correct. The matter has never been aired in a court of law, and just how much worse off is Intel for settling? Intel is posting record profits quarter after quarter and AMD is no longer a player. That outcome was sealed 5 years ago for anyone who knows the business. AMD couldn't afford their own fabs and a contract fab couldn't keep up with Intel's process. Why go to the mat and take the chance when the inevitable was inevitable? Guilty, innocent or somewhere in between, the outcome was sealed. There's no law that says my personal opinion* of must be to consider Intel innocent until proven guilty.* No, but you consider them guilty until proven innocent. That's not right.