Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
On 6 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jul 2005 05:40:23 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >George Macdonald wrote:
>> >> On 5 Jul 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I can't stop you or others from carrying on, gloating, obsessing,
>> >> >speculating or otherwise satisfying your own emotional needs by
>> >> >discussing this case. Have at it. It just doesn't interest me that
>> >> >much, and I don't see that I have any chance of persuading you that you
>> >> >are looking at the world with a strangely distorted perspective.
>> >>
>> >> Oh com'n cut it out. It "doesn't interest" you but you'll write 4 paras of
>> >> diversionary padding. Are you just trying to disrupt any serious
>> >> discussion of the issues?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not diversionary, George. Prophylactic.
>>
>> Intel needs prophylactic protection?
>>
>
>No, I do. Intel can clearly shift for itself. Some business methods
>are plainly harmful to society and society has to act against them. I
>don't see Intel's alleged actions as fitting into the Enron (or even
>the Microsoft) category. AMD has a right to sue, the courthouse door,
>as my lawyer told me, is always open, and they've sued. I just don't
>have to be a part of the cheering section, but neither do I think that
>means that anything goes.
I haven't seen any strong partisan opinions expressed here at all... apart
from your zealous defence. Since you appear not to have digested things
yet, taken at face value the charges are that Intel has indulged in
corporate terrorism, behavior more associated with the likes of organized
crime syndicates. Whether it can be proved is something we'll have to wait
for.
>> > Plenty goes on in the world
>> >that I disapprove of. I'd say I disapprove of Intel's marketing
>> >tactics, but saying so would make me sound sanctimonious. In today's
>> >society, it would be like disapproving of divorce. The fact that a
>> >particular business practice is common doesn't make it right, but I
>> >want to keep my sense of perspective, even if no one else does.
>>
>> Your comparisons get weirder and weirder. No I don't think Intel's tactics
>> are as common in business as you suggest - the Japanese have made their
>> decision on it.
>>
>
>Uh-huh. I wouldn't let GWB decide what I think is right or wrong,
>worth acting on or not acting on. I don't see why the Japanese should
>have any more standing.
Irrelevant. The fact is that the JP FTC indicted Intel; it would appear
that the U.S. FTC likely declined so AMD took matters into its own hands.
I doubt that your perception of Japanese "standing" matters much in the
grand scheme - we'll also see how much the Japanese courts award AMD in
their civil damages suit... or if Intel will settle out of court. Whatever
the amount, though it may not hurt Intel significantly financially, it will
blacken the corporate image. Somebody in Hillsboro should have thought of
that *before* the fact - talk about reckless endangerment!
Since we live in the most litigious country on Earth, I expect to see a
follow-on to AMD's accusations in the form of class action suits - the very
form of the AMD complaint, as a narrative of specific events, invites it;
Intel's chance of prevailing there is near zero.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram