Windsock, thanks for making my point! Now, I wouldn't state it in the way you did, but you are shadow-boxing a phantom. Let's look at the quote from me that got you going:
Anyone who claims that Intel doesn't test the limits of the law in their competitive practices is being overly naive or disingenuous.
This is about an innocuous statement one can make, one which you obviously agree from your following diatribe:
The idea that Intel should not compete vigorously with all its competitors because poor little AMD can not keep up is ludicrous.
That is essentially the same assertion.
The only part of what you say for which we are in disagreement is that you seem to think the law is a clear line drawn in the sand. It is more like a 'demilitarized zone', and one with conflicting maps showing the boundries in different places. It is often hard to know when you are violating the law because the law often conflicts on points, and there is economic incentive to quote the law which agrees with one's position. (Ever hear of case law? Often, opposing case law is quoted by each side in litigation.)
So, while I find you view of the law more than naive, we agree that it is Intel's role to pursue their markets aggressively and AMD's role to do the same.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
