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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (27010)	12/20/1997 11:55:00 AM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579893

Re: "Kevin, If you intentionally drive a tiny competitor out of business how is that seen by the DOJ, esp when there are so few in the pond." Your guess is as good as mine; I'd imagine the DOJ wouldn't like it very much, but intent is a difficult thing to prove. On the upside, AMD isn't going to be driven out of business any time soon. In fact, AMD may be the low cost producer in .25u. Kevin

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (27010)	12/20/1997 1:24:00 PM
From: greg nus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579893

Bill, Let Intel diversify non of the diversification products have the same high margings CPU's enjoy. Eventually they dilute there margins and look like a normal company.

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (27010)	12/20/1997 2:23:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579893

Unfortunately for AMD investors, the DOJ isn't out to punish success. Intel does not sell its products below cost, far from it. They are up against AMD, NSM, IDT, Motorola, Samsung, TSG and other industrial giants. AFA broadening its market, are you suggesting the government define what chips they can and cannot make? The fact is, the PC is an open architecture and Intel has not been responsible in any way shape or form for the failure of TI, IBM, AMD or anybody else in this space. For all intents and purposes, the only practical OS of choice for software developers is Windows. It's as if MSFT is the only practical CPU and they control the surrounding architecture. They also compete in the peripheral market by way of applications. So they control the CPU, the architecture, and they make all of the external products as well. That has to change for several reasons, not the least of which is their architecture is a brittle, archaic, badly designed, poorly implemented and bloated morass.