SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)


 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  
To: rzborusa who wrote (269709)4/26/2012 3:00:06 PM
From: Elmer PhudRead Replies (2) of 272559
 
The dollar amounts you seem to have agreed to, except for the "spin".

That's right.

Intel agreed not to do it again, though they didn't admit it was wrong in the first place.

On this point you are mistaken. Intel did not do it in the first place. I'd ask you to try and get your facts straight but you wouldn't be arguing here if you could do that.

There is no spin to the fact that huge amounts of rebates were given more or less based on product loyalty, I mean statistically

I suppose so, but the claim has been that the agreements required exclusivity. That was never a requirement, despite the spin claims. No one has ever said it was a requirement except those wishing to prosecute Intel. No OEM has ever said that and it would be very easy to just ask the companies if it was a requirement. The only record we have of an executive being questioned was with the EUC and they withheld the testimony, one can only guess why! It was an act that was severely criticized as withholding potentially exculpatory evidence.

what they did with the rebates was probably their darkest hours.

You mean what you think they did with the rebates.

What have they done to make you such a reactionary lapdog, snapping and snarling defending against any an all criticism?

I want the truth to be known. What makes you so eager to judge when you don't really know what happened? Losers hate winners and want to see them knocked down a peg or two. Could that be the simple explanation?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.