Replies to post #84745 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Elmer Phud]

I don't(sic) you will ever be able to accept that Intel went a bit too far in its business tactics.

And you know this how? You haven't seen Intel's response yet you accept this as proof positive.


The evidence unveiled ( unless those emails are forged which I doubt ) plainly shows tactics which go beyond competing vigorously ( no matter how hard people on this board try to find a deeper meaning to suit their view, why not take the texts at face value ? ).]

Yes, cherry picked snippets can make a damning case, as long as you don't hear a rebuttal or other evidence to put those statements into perspective. You're right, why not take them at face value? No need to wait for the other side of the story when your mind is already made up.

[imho]

savantu,

You should slow down in your rush to judge Intel. That is all we are saying. For example,

Even Intel, instead of disputing the authenticity of the texts ( not even daring to touch their interpretation because they are so obvious ), claims " no consumer done, market works".

You probably meant, "no consumer HARM done, market works". See what happens when you rush through things. Haste makes waste. Hope this helps.

IMHO

[smooth2o]

sav: Basically an admission that those texts are true, yes, Intel managers, including the CEO itself, threatened their customers and forced their loyalty. But the market works, prices go down, so get off our backs!

You're funny. So what if Intel stepped over bounds of competing vigorously? Just how do you think these things transpire at the top, or even the middle for that matter? You sound very naive... Intel is right, no consumer harm, market works.

You can't sue Intel on the basis that they might eliminate AMD and therefore prices "may" go up. Nothing wrong with competition (in the US anyway, EU, another matter).

Smooth

[Tenchu]

Savantu, > I don't you will ever be able to accept that Intel went a bit too far in its business tactics.

To the point where Intel is fined $1.4 billion?

To the point where Intel has to fight lawsuit after "me too" lawsuit?

To the point where antitrust law is turned into a mockery of itself, where competitors who fall behind in efficiency and innovation can always turn to the government for help?

People who support this kind of nonsense obviously don't believe that Intel merely "went a bit too far." They believe that Intel should be punished for being "too successful." The more successful, the bigger the penalty.

It's that simple.

Tenchu