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 (268967)	1/9/2012 4:44:41 PM
From: rzborusa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

That would involve dragging their valued customers through the process and Seems like some were of Much Greater Value than others. So, you think there are more revelations behind that Intel protective shielded. I don't doubt it.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (268967)	1/10/2012 9:26:07 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

So why didn't Intel go to the mat on this one and prove they never broke the law? That would involve dragging their valued customers through the process and leave Intel no better off than simply agreeing to not do what they never did. It's an easy decision, especially if you value your customers. If you have an AMD mindset and don't give a damn about abusing your customers, even when there's noting to gain, then it's hard to understand. Why not drag them into this? AMD would in a heartbeat so why wouldn't Intel? The answer is obvious but not to you. A) Intel wasn't even a party to the SEC case against DELL. Why didn't DELL & co. defend themselves? Seems nobody wants to defend agasint those charges. B) Why would Intel's customers mind helping Intel vindicate itself (and themselves, from the implication of complicity)? It should be simple, given how pure Intel is! C) ALBNL, Why did no less than Paul Otellini say that Intel settled the AMD case because they feared a jury might find them guilty and award triple damages? reuters.com Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini denied any wrongdoing by the company but said it decided to settle the dispute with AMD to avoid the risk of a triple-damages finding by a jury. That is the definitive explanation by the CEO of Intel. I find it more persuasive than yours. fpg