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 (33902)	7/3/1998 11:32:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

Re: "Group one finds out that the two CPUs are the exact same, just marked as 266 or 300. Note this refers to the exact same die, made on same line at same time tested to same specs, but marked differently. Intel had excess stock of unsold 300 and there was low end demand and their line was tuned to make high speed parts and did so. They would have to make special batches of slow parts to fill slow orders as their normal bin mix made too few high speed parts, they did not do this as the real task is faster better. " Exactly the same? How do they know? Do they have a multimillion dollar tester and a test program as exhustive as Intels? They'd better if they're going to prove their claim. Your synerio is seriously flawed as you have no means of showing there is no difference between the 2 parts. How are you going to prove this? EP

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (33902)	7/3/1998 12:17:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574005

Bill, Thanks for the clarification I knew the B & L case was real, but I didn't remember the specifics. But here is the difference. The case against Intel has no damages. Intel sold a 300mhz (marked as 266mhz) for the price of a 266mhz chip. Where are the damages? Intel sold a 300mhz (marked as 300mhz) for the price of a 300mhz chip. Again no damages. Intel, in other words sold to some, a deluxe product (300mhz) at standard (266mhz) prices. No damages. The B & L case was less distinct. They called the product a deluxe and a standard at the same time. There was no clear definition. A product cannot be a deluxe and standard simultaneously. So those that paid the deluxe price actually got the standard product. They are entitled to damages. To sum it up: Intel sold a verifiably genuine deluxe product (300mhz) at standard product (266mhz) prices in some instances. No damages. B & L called a standard product a deluxe product in some instances. Damages Dale