Replies to post #85415 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[fastpathguru]

Once again you are terribly confused. You made a statement that there will be more legal action of Intel doesn't "cut the sh*t":

But if Intel doesn't "cut the sh*t", they will find themselves back in court again.

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=26098068

You refer to section 3.5 as proof. Can you show us where in Section 3.5 it is established that any sh*t, as you put it, actually took place? That was your wishful thinking and you mistook it for reality as you have a way of doing. If Intel breaks the law in the future then obviously they will be accountable but the same goes for AMD. So to use your reasoning, if AMD doesn't "cut the sh*t" they will find themselves back in court again. Read section 3.5

Are you contending that Intel never used rebates of the forms described in section 3.5?

I.e. Forms of rebates they A) contend are legal, B) reserve the right to use, C) won't agree not to use, D) were accused by AMD and the NYAG of using, and E) have been found by the EC, Korea and Japan to have used.

You are really treating the items in section 3.5 the same way as the items in section 2?

What do you think the purpose of section 3.5 actually is?

fpg