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 (268976)	1/10/2012 10:53:52 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

>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? And this is proof to you? Intel isn't AMD. You expect a CEO to risk the company for pure ego? Adults acting like adults. Who would have thought it possible? Of course they could lose. You think juries always make the right decision? Do you remember the OJ trial? The jury could be populated with people like you. Why risk it? After Jerry Sanders and Hector Ruiz, I know this is inconceivable to the Faithful but the CEO has an obligation to the shareholders. Shocking, I know. Considering that AMD's fate was sealed, there was no reason to take the risk of a major damage award which could revive AMD. AMD was in a death spiral. Best to stand aside and let them crash. PO acted like an adult, swallowed hard and did what was best for his company. As you can see, it worked. LOL, I didn't claim that it was proof of Intel's guilt. It's proof that your excuse that Intel doesn't defend itself "for the sake of their customers" is complete BS that you made up. Let me recap for you: You say Intel avoids court trials because they don't want to drag their customers through the mud. Intel CEO Paul Otellini says they avoided trial because they might loose and be hit by triple damages. Once again, I find your relative credibility... Lacking. fpg