Intel's agreement with the FTC

Robert Myers wrote:

I have yet to read that any of Intel's actions caused harm to
consumers (from anyone credible).

LOL

"Because their dirty tricks *failed* to destroy AMD and consolidate
their monopoly, no harm was done! Let them go on their merry way!"

On Aug 20, 10:19*am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
I have yet to read that any of Intel's actions caused harm to
consumers (from anyone credible).

LOL *

"Because their dirty tricks *failed* to destroy AMD and consolidate
their monopoly, no harm was done! *Let them go on their merry way!"

Dr. Myers to you, whoever you are. No defense of Intel, just a
condemnation of business by litigation.

Robert.

On Aug 20, 10:15*am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:
Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a
joke.

LOL. *What a "surprise" to see Mr Myers rushing to the defense of his
beloved Intel.

What scummy behavior, on their part.

May I see your God credentials, please? Or are you totally
unacquainted with scripture?

Robert.

On 20/08/2010 10:15 AM, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:

Good news for fanboys. For the industry? For real consumers? What a
joke.

LOL. What a "surprise" to see Mr Myers rushing to the defense of his
beloved Intel.

What scummy behavior, on their part.

And if you replace the word "Intel" with "Microsoft" in all of those
cases, he'll be in the exact opposite corner. But of course there's no
hint of incongruity in Mr. Myers.

Yousuf Khan

On Aug 20, 12:42*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 20/08/2010 10:15 AM, chrisv wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a
joke.

LOL. *What a "surprise" to see Mr Myers rushing to the defense of his
beloved Intel.

What scummy behavior, on their part.

And if you replace the word "Intel" with "Microsoft" in all of those
cases, he'll be in the exact opposite corner. But of course there's no
hint of incongruity in Mr. Myers.


And Dr. Myers to you, Mr. Kahn. I'm sick of this.

The damage that Microsoft has done in the world of software is
extensive and perhaps irreversible. It is what it is. You can't
change it and neither can I.

Intel hasn't damaged anything. It gave you this little universe in
which you can be so self-righteous. Unfortunately, so did
Microsoft.

Its conceivable that, without Microsoft, we'd be in the increasingly
unattractive grasp of Steve Jobs.

What is the point of going on and on about it, especially when your
bleating provides nothing of your own insight but merely cuts and
pastes what others say and adds your moral condemnations?

On the processor end of things, we've wound up with a product that is
in some ways now so thoroughly optimized that serious people talk of
the end of computer architecture--however we got there.

On the software front, one thinks not of boring stasis but of
apocalypse. If it all just comes down to your own moral calculus, as
apparently it does, we have nothing useful to say to one another. Go
moralize to someone else, and keep your opinions about my character
to yourself.

An IBM architect asked me about the value of my grinding one of my
favorite axes on comp.arch. Needless to say, I've had some things to
say that are critical of choices that IBM has made. Those choices
have what I regard to be technical consequences that matter, and they
are being more often than not made with taxpayer dollars. I think I
get heard, and I can point to specific evidence that I get heard.

Where is the technical content in your endless moralizing? Whom are
you influencing?

Robert.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/19/2010 2:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
So now Intel, the invincible giant in the eyes of so many, is now
boxed into x86, with ARM, IBM, and still AMD all around it. Just the
perfect time for government regulators to step in and limit Intel's
power to bully.

Well, Intel decided to buy McAfee today. Maybe that'll get them away
from all of those bully-boys surrounding poor Intel. They can now
concentrate on ridding the world of the virus their architecture spawned.

??? For the most part the CPU is innocent of any virus issues, they are almost
all software, and almost all of that is software from one company. Compatibility
rules, AMD runs virus' as fast as Intel.

chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:

I have yet to read that any of Intel's actions caused harm to
consumers (from anyone credible).

LOL

"Because their dirty tricks *failed* to destroy AMD and consolidate
their monopoly, no harm was done! Let them go on their merry way!"

If Intel tried to destroy AMD all they had to do was lower their prices for a
year or so. There was no intent to *destroy* AMD, tricks were just a way to keep
them small without cutting the profit margin. I think you have missed the goal
of the practices.

"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message
...
If Intel tried to destroy AMD all they had to do was lower their prices
for a year or so. There was no intent to *destroy* AMD, tricks were just a
way to keep them small without cutting the profit margin. I think you have
missed the goal of the practices.
Intel was doing a good job at that until AMD bought ATI nearly destroying
themselves.

On 22/08/2010 3:56 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
If Intel tried to destroy AMD all they had to do was lower their prices
for a year or so. There was no intent to *destroy* AMD, tricks were just
a way to keep them small without cutting the profit margin. I think you
have missed the goal of the practices.

There's a reason why in the legal system, attempted murder is just as
serious as actual murder. Just because you didn't get away with it,
shouldn't let you off the hook.

Yousuf Khan

Bill Davidsen wrote:

chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:

I have yet to read that any of Intel's actions caused harm to
consumers (from anyone credible).

LOL

"Because their dirty tricks *failed* to destroy AMD and consolidate
their monopoly, no harm was done! Let them go on their merry way!"

If Intel tried to destroy AMD all they had to do was lower their prices for a
year or so.

Gosh, I thought they had!

There was no intent to *destroy* AMD, tricks were just a way to keep
them small without cutting the profit margin. I think you have missed the goal
of the practices.

I don't think your speculation is any better than mine.