It was a Commission, not a Court.Thanks, that was a perfect answer. You obviously haven't read my link - that was the antitrust court decision followup. You know, the one where Intel had to pay 1.06b .
And AMD just accepted $1.3Billion instead of waiting to be awarded $30+ Billion because their case was so strong.Yep intel just gave AMD 1+B of dollars just because AMD had no case. Perfect logic there :awe:. I'm just amazed by some poster on this board :thumbsup:
They could always file an appeal, like Samsung did, no wait that'd be silly because Intel was still not guilty & it'd be way too much of an effort to file appeal papers !And AMD just accepted $1.3Billion instead of waiting to be awarded $30+ Billion because their case was so strong.
Funny things can happen in a Court Case, we saw how the OJ Simpson jury got blindsided.
Why would Intel put their shiny Rolls Royce into a game of Chicken with AMD's clapped out rust bucket, when for them a trivial amount guarantees they don't have to worry about a lunatic in a death trap vehicle trying to run them off the road.
Without a Court to properly test this, only a blind partisan would make such a statement.Because court case like that can last 3-5 years. AMD needed the money and it would cost them tons of money to go to court in the first place. By the time the verdict could be reached AMD maybe be out of the business. That's why. And yes, intel most definitely broke the law, multiple times. They just have so much of it that they can bribe and buy their way out of the big black hole whenever they want.
If I get hit by a car I don't care if it was driven by a person or a dog. Your stance seems to be that as long as you think there is no car you will not get hit. Good luck on that.It was a Commission, not a Court.
They have filed an appeal.They could always file an appeal, like Samsung did, no wait that'd be silly because Intel was still not guilty !
After accepting the settlement or you're talking about the future indefinite tense here ?They have filed an appeal.
Do you like displaying how little you know about so many things?
The settlement money is held in a trust account, pending the outcome of the appeal.After accepting the settlement or you're talking about the future indefinite tense here ?
@Charles
@ Chad
Your quote in your sig can be modified you know (to reflect your blind fanboism in this particular case). Replace the AMDzone with AT/CPU&OCing subforums and you hit the nail on the head . Thankfully not all members think like you, only you and ... you. Wait maybe 1 or 2 more on this board but that's it.
And AMD just accepted $1.3Billion instead of waiting to be awarded $30+ Billion because their case was so strong.
@Charles
BD parts were launched in 2011... Check your facts first.
And what does that chart have to do with intel's illegal activities in the semi-conductor market?
Other than XS which turned itself into an irrelevant site by pandering to AMD fanboys, what other relevant boards do you believe I am blocked on?Yeah sure sure Chad. That's why you are only left on this board without a ban and on all other relevant boards you are blocked .
This topic is perfect example of all of this and your blind defense of intel now makes me think you are either just deluded in this case or have some money in stake( bought some shares?). Whatever the case might be, good luck man.
The fact that this thread is still going strong, tell us that the intel army is strong on this board.
Given that your post is contentless, that suggests far more that you are in an "army" than anyone else.
Maybe you can explain how it is that AMD had its peak of success right after the supposed Intel illegal activities, and therefore how that accounts for their decline years later?
I won't hold my breath.
You must be paid by Intel.
Wasting a lot of energy on AMD related threads much???
You accused Galego of being on AMD's payroll and just look at your own behavior.
I made a point, i'm entitled to am i not?
You couldn't help yourself hahahahaha big troll you
Yes, I would have loved to have Intel executives swear an Oath and state things. And so will Ted Waitt, HP CEO as well as Michael Dell. That would have made my day.What part of no Court Decision on these issues has ever been made, do you not understand?
You seem to think an untested allegation is all that is needed.
In a Court, witnesses can be cross examined, things taken out of context, can be placed in their proper context, etc.
I fail to see the correlation that you're trying to create here. You seem to argue that Intel hasn't done anything anticompetitive because AMD was still successful.Given that your post is contentless, that suggests far more that you are in an "army" than anyone else.
Maybe you can explain how it is that AMD had its peak of success right after the supposed Intel illegal activities, and therefore how that accounts for their decline years later?
I won't hold my breath.
And AMD just accepted $1.3Billion instead of waiting to be awarded $30+ Billion because their case was so strong.
Funny things can happen in a Court Case, we saw how the OJ Simpson jury got blindsided.
Why would Intel put their shiny Rolls Royce into a game of Chicken with AMD's clapped out rust bucket, when for them a trivial amount guarantees they don't have to worry about a lunatic in a death trap vehicle trying to run them off the road.
@Charles
BD parts were launched in 2011... Check your facts first.