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: Time Traveler who wrote (33849)	7/2/1998 4:44:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574059

Time traveller, not so. There is a famous landmark case where Bausch and Lombe took the same contact lenses from the same line and sold them in 2 packages at 2 different prices and had a nice fat bill to pay to the lawyers. I am aware of the LM123, 223, 323 type of nomenclature reflecting parts for Mil, Ind or consumer uses with different temp and voltages ranges. I feel they do not just take random x23 parts from the line and mark some 123,223,323 . I think they test batches from the same die and use accelerated temp tests and other degradation tests to see what batch falls where. The different parts may well be made with a variation of the process to achieve the higher temp capability, in addition the MIL parts require individual tests of parts at various stages which greatly adds to the cost. No this lawsuit is all about the same identical parts coming down the line that meet all the sames specs being labelled as different, like the B&L case. If Intel can see the same parts for two prices why should those who paid more not complain?, and why should they not band together and sue. Bill