Replies to post #64597 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[tecate]

Really, I guess you don't understand the difference between a short answer and a long answer and waste of bandwidth, people here seem to like to ask questions of me, so I answer, my point was I don't waste a lot of bandwidith replying, just short answers, now I did waste bandwidth here, but I thought you deserved a fuller answer since you had a comprehension problem here. No problem.

[wbmw]

Re: Those companies didn't refute anything, they merely objected to the subpoenas on technicalities.

Here's the meaningful parts which you might have missed:

It objects to the definition of microprocessor, to the definition of financial inducement, it objects to the definition of "your company" in the subpoena. And after 24 of these general objections, it starts on specific objections numbering 17.

Barring the usual Inq sarcasm, it sounds like NEC firmly disagrees with the terms and actions required by the subpoena. Not quite fitting behavior of one who can't wait to get out from under the thumb of the Intel monopoly.

And this:

Toshiba America said the subpoena wants documents that it can't supply because they're in the possession of Toshiba Corporation. It objects that some of the people named in the subpoena don't work there any more. It also says that the burden and cost of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Again, if Toshiba had any reason to purge their conscience over Intel's unruly behavior, they aren't at all enthusiastic about doing so.