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 : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (18877)	4/5/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: David M Gambs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27012

Albert, You referenced my term of "functionality". That means precisely what it says. It does not state "architecture". If the amd chip was not *functionally* equivalent to the Pentium®, then the chip could not run Windows, NT, and other applications. Therefore, amd is the 'Johnny come lately' who is building on someone else's ingenuity. This is accepted fact. As to your allegations that INTeL® has improperly taken technology from amd, if that were the case, amd would have filed a law suit over this. To my knowledge, there is no litigation pending between amd and INTeL®, therefore your statement is without merit or substance. As to your allegation that INTeL® improperly took technology from dec, there indeed was a law suit. It has a pending settlement. As to who 'had to settle out of court' - no one can say upon whom the onus fell. I firmly believe that INTeL® did not act improperly - ie: did not violate patents. You obviously feel different. As to why INTeL® would settle out of court when they are in the right, I would say money. Litigation is expensive. It can also hurt branding. The settlement (of a suit that was 'sprung' on INTeL® in total contradiction of Silicon Valley custom) is to INTeL®'s benefit. DEC has gone under (I consider them being bought out as going under). It is no longer a viable corporate entity. So please, do your homework properly before you make statements such as you did. Remember, some people use the English language to mean what is written/said - not what you wish to interpret. regards, dmg (Go INTeL® Go to $200 - [post all splits: past, present & future])