SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (275295)5/1/2016 11:12:10 PM
From: fastpathguruRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
PJ's lawyers could bend a jury but Intel's crack legal team with their supposedly airtight case, alibi, and evidence weren't so confident? Btw was this the same legal team that assured Intel that their business practices were above-board?

In the oj case, was it really the jury that screwed up, or was it the prosecution of the case that was botched? Are juries just supposed to go by their gut instincts Mr. Innocent Until PROVEN GUILTY? Or does the prosecution actually have to make a case that meets the burden of proof required, which In the oj criminal case was "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I LOL at you claiming Intel's case was so strong that any fool could see that Intel was innocent, yet simultaneously so fragile that the chance of getting an "oj jury" (i.e. a bad outcome) was very possible. You can't have it both ways.

You want justice for intel, but Intel got all the justice they could handle In the EU and decided they didn't like the flavor one bit.

fpg

PS: Your buddy OJ didn't fare so well in civil court... google.com

PPS: "For AMD, maybe it was the fact that no one has ever corroborated AMD's claims in a legal setting" Now why did you have to go and post some stupid untrue s##t like that? (That was a rhetorical question... Everyone knows that spewing garbage about amd vs. Intel is your whole mission in life.)