Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NYT]FTC Investigates Intel over Antitrust issues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NYT]FTC Investigates Intel over Antitrust issues - Page 4

post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steroids View Post
Im not gonna argue the fact they are guilty (i think they are too) but im gonna argue the fact of equality and fairness. And i didn't like the arguements by Funk as he was not understanding what master was saying, also telling eachother to stop acting like children all the while making a fake conversation making fun of him..
And when a 16 year old calls you a child.. Have a great day, think about it
Growing up doesn't mean you lose your ability to have fun with the situation. BTW, whose 16? I know it's not me, and unless you know Kromm personally then i don't see where you go that from either.

So please, educate me, what was I missing out on? I thought i had a clear grasp of what he was trying to say. I was simply asking for SUBSTANCE....over and over and over. Quite frankly, if he had come out stating what you just did, I never would have even so much as responded to him. Instead, he came on saying evidence didn't really exist, foreign courts don't require proof and the investigation is politically motivated by a senator that wants an AMD fab in his state. That is a far cry from what you posted.

So what did i not understand?
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 6/7/08 at 3:24am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Let me teach you how to debate. First you state your opinion. Then you provide proof/evidence/etc to back yourself up.

You have #1 down because you basically stated that you don't believe in the validity of other courts.

Ok, so now that we have that down, why don't you provide #2?
How do I provide poof when,

A) They weren't actually courts of law that found Intel guilty(Commissions).
B) None of the evidence/details/proof/ect have ever been made public thus it's really hard to provide what's not there... On that same note it's also hard for me to blindly accept the decisions of other bodies when the details are not known to me.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand my second point there. The rest of what you have to say is more nonsense and I really don't want to even comment, but...

Quote:
Do you get it now? YOU have the burden of proof in showing all of us that there is a reason to believe that those other courts opinions shouldn't count or matter. I could understand if it was the country of Kazakhstan, but Japan and soon to be the EU?! You tell me why i shouldn't take what is essentially 3 guilty verdicts against intel as proof in itself that intel is guilty. You continually chase your own tail because you can't, so then you act like a 5 yr old and try to point to me.

Well I've repeated myself because you still can't come up with a reason why these other courts' rulings don't matter or aren't valid. This is how our convo has gone:
you: I don't care about the other court's rulings
me: Why? They're about the same as our own.
you: Tell me why i should!
me: You made the claim that they're different, why don't you backup your statement
you: Dood, those courts are different cause they're foreign.
me: ok, prove it.
you: Uh, dood stop repeating yourself asking for all this 'proof'! Why don't you prove that I'm wrong!
me: it's a colossal waste of time when you could prove what you're saying much faster.
you: LoL***bbQ! You just triple posted the same thing, asking for proof! This is the internet, I don't need 'proof'.

I can't really provide proof of a negative. You have Bush logic. Really, this conversation reminds me of the Boondocks episode: The Health Inspector where Huey and Gin Rummy. I can't prove an unknown unknown. I don't know of any laws or rules that are fundamentally different in those countries than our own. So why don't you educate me. Please.
It's bush logic to want proof? Unfortunately your example is quite poor, there is only one unknown "Is there any proof evidence"...

Quote:
I mean seriously, your logic is so flawed that you should just copy Gin Rummy and start telling me that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Again the pot calling the kettle black,

I'm sorry I don't agree with your idea that 3 guilty "verdicts" by foreign commissions is proof in and of itself. Tell me oh master-de-bater is that logical?


Quote:
Your main points are flawed. Simple as that. WE helped setup Japan's system, it's not much different than our own and the laws themselves are virtually identical in regards to this case. The EU is the same as well. The US has not filed a formal investigation because the old FTC Chief BLOCKED the investigation, not because there was a lack of evidence.

BTW, nice of you to knit pick through my argument to find the small bits and pieces that you thought you could respond to. Must suck to be owned so hard in a public forum.
ROFL! touché

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
I completely agree with your opinion. However, as much as you'd like to play the 'innocent till proven guilty' ideology it lends strong 'perception' that they're guilty when being proven by 2 ( soon to be 3 with the EU ) independent courts with independent cases they've built. A suspected killer can't fight public perception of how he was found with a matching gun and with clothes that had the victims blood on them. There could be a logical explanation for all of that, but he'd better have a damn good story. However, you obviously mistook me because nowhere did i say that this earns them an instant guilty verdict.

I guess I just took issue, not with the guilty-till-proven-innocent, part but the fact that MasterKromm was so dismissive of other courts' rulings to the point that it seemed very uppity. Like our courts are the ONLY courts that can determine true guilt. That and the fact that he just happens to know there isn't any solid evidence because it's not all over the web.

Either way, I'd like to see what the US actually does with the case.
Wait, so you now agree that they deserve "due process" and that there is "burden of proof"... This was your argument one post up...

Quote:
You tell me why i shouldn't take what is essentially 3 guilty verdicts against intel as proof in itself that intel is guilty.
Quote:
Either way, I'd like to see what the US actually does with the case.
That's all I ever said, let's see what the US brings up(it's where I live and it makes the rules/laws that matter to me), then you blasted me -> and now you're in agreement... Holy dogchit batman, you're . (OH and I like how added another two double posts )

BTW the FTC and other commissions don't really stand to help AMD. What will help AMD is winning it's civil case against Intel that starts in 2010.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that a major portion of antitrust laws(in the US) revolve around protecting the consumer. "Fundamental principle — consistent with the modern approach worldwide — that antitrust laws prohibit only conduct that unreasonably restricts competition, to the detriment of consumers."

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/204136.htm
Edited by MasterKromm - 6/7/08 at 6:54am
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Growing up doesn't mean you lose your ability to have fun with the situation. BTW, whose 16? I know it's not me, and unless you know Kromm personally then i don't see where you go that from either.
O I meant me.....
and it was about this conversation

"Well I've repeated myself because you still can't come up with a reason why these other courts' rulings don't matter or aren't valid. This is how our convo has gone:
you: I don't care about the other court's rulings
me: Why? They're about the same as our own.
you: Tell me why i should!
me: You made the claim that they're different, why don't you backup your statement
you: Dood, those courts are different cause they're foreign.
me: ok, prove it.
you: Uh, dood stop repeating yourself asking for all this 'proof'! Why don't you prove that I'm wrong!
me: it's a colossal waste of time when you could prove what you're saying much faster.
you: LoL***bbQ! You just triple posted the same thing, asking for proof! This is the internet, I don't need 'proof'. "

Then to say hes acting like a 5 year old...
So please, educate me, what was I missing out on? I thought i had a clear grasp of what he was trying to say. I was simply asking for SUBSTANCE....over and over and over. Quite frankly, if he had come out stating what you just did, I never would have even so much as responded to him. Instead, he came on saying evidence didn't really exist, foreign courts don't require proof and the investigation is politically motivated by a senator that wants an AMD fab in his state. That is a far cry from what you posted.

So what did i not understand?


And he was basically playing devils advocate was he not.. The idea was that he merely was pointing out both sides to the argument and saying just because other countries found sufficient evidence doesn't mean that we will because we have different things to look at, things that took place in THIS country and not others.

And about the senator, if someone possibly (i know its a stretch) but if someone were to be "helped along" in pushing an investigation with some incentive behind it, say o' i don’t know, building a fab in your state which would bring JOBS, and alot of taxable income. And make you look really good at your job. No this does not mean that he is in charge of the investigation, Kromm was just pointing out the fact that it is a small possibility. I think that most of us know that more half our house/senate are more run by lobbyist and the almighty dollar than they are representatives of the people BUT that is a whole another argument for a different day....
Juiced Up
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790K MSI Z97 GAMING 5 VisionTek Radeon R9 290X G.SKILL Sniper Series  
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung EVO 840 Cooler Master Seidon 120V – with 120mm Radiator... Windows 8.1 Corsair Professional Series HX650W  
CaseMouseAudio
Cooler Master HAF 932 Advanced  G500 XFI-Titantium 
  hide details  
Reply
Juiced Up
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790K MSI Z97 GAMING 5 VisionTek Radeon R9 290X G.SKILL Sniper Series  
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung EVO 840 Cooler Master Seidon 120V – with 120mm Radiator... Windows 8.1 Corsair Professional Series HX650W  
CaseMouseAudio
Cooler Master HAF 932 Advanced  G500 XFI-Titantium 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
How do I provide poof when,

A) They weren't actually courts of law that found Intel guilty(Commissions).
B) None of the evidence/details/proof/ect have ever been made public thus it's really hard to provide what's not there... On that same note it's also hard for me to blindly accept the decisions of other bodies when the details are not known to me.
I'm not talking about blindly accepting anything. I'm also not asking you to provide proof of guilt/innocence. You just straight up came into the convo and did 2 things. 1 was to down other countries courts as seeming to be inferior to our own and 2 was to paint this as a political move. I was asking for you to provide proof that there's some fundamental difference from their courts to our own that you seem to be referencing. That's all. That's why i repeated myself 3 times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand my second point there. The rest of what you have to say is more nonsense and I really don't want to even comment, but...

It's bush logic to want proof? Unfortunately your example is quite poor, there is only one unknown "Is there any proof evidence"...

Again the pot calling the kettle black,

I'm sorry I don't agree with your idea that 3 guilty "verdicts" by foreign commissions is proof in and of itself. Tell me oh master-de-bater is that logical?

ROFL! touché
First off, I've responded to the entirety of every single post you've made so you can't say i skip around.

It's not Bush logic to want proof. It's Bush logic to make accusations and then when the other side wants proof, instead of providing said proof, you ask for proof that it DOESN'T exist ( WMDs for Bush, or in this case, differences between court systems ). It's a reference to the above. Maybe you simply forgot what you said but:

"Found guilty in other countries" doesn't really mean much, as accusations and conjecture alone warrant a guilty verdict...

Again, i will say that I am not arguing against due process or the ideology that you are innocent until proven guilty. I am arguing against your insistence that there is any real difference between those 3 international courts and our own.

So i may have not stated this correctly but Intel being found guilty in ( soon to be ) 3 separate courts is proof in itself, although it is not infallable evidence of guilt. But what's the likelihood that if the EU finally does give that guilty verdict that 3 separate courts just decided to make stuff up?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
Wait, so you now agree that they deserve "due process" and that there is "burden of proof"... This was your argument one post up...
Read again man, i clearly stated that your burden of proof was in proving there was some difference in the court systems or laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
That's all I ever said, let's see what the US brings up(it's where I live and it makes the rules/laws that matter to me), then you blasted me -> and now you're in agreement... Holy dogchit batman, you're . (OH and I like how added another two double posts )
Wow, if you had said this then I never ever would have even bothered to respond to you. What you said was much much different.

Again, From the start I've been crystal clear that I am disputing your disrespect of other court systems. Our court system is FAR from perfect. Our business courts are even worse because it depends on the administration on how much they want to favor business. The US tends to punish offenders so far after the fact that in many cases it doesn't even matter at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
BTW the FTC and other commissions don't really stand to help AMD. What will help AMD is winning it's civil case against Intel that starts in 2010.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that a major portion of antitrust laws(in the US) revolve around protecting the consumer. "Fundamental principle — consistent with the modern approach worldwide — that antitrust laws prohibit only conduct that unreasonably restricts competition, to the detriment of consumers."

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/204136.htm
I know what the Anti-trust laws are designed to do. Helping the consumer goes beyond giving the Govt the money. Altering the marketplace to what it 'should have been' if laws weren't broken would go far further to protecting the consumer and keeping up healthy marketplace competition, as well as providing the offending company with a TRUE incentive not to ever break the law.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steroids View Post
And he was basically playing devils advocate was he not.. The idea was that he merely was pointing out both sides to the argument and saying just because other countries found sufficient evidence doesn't mean that we will because we have different things to look at, things that took place in THIS country and not others.
But can you agree that what you stated is a farcry from:
Quote:
"Found guilty in other countries" doesn't really mean much, as accusations and conjecture alone warrant a guilty verdict... If there had ever been any solid proof to back the claims that OEMs procured massive "rebates for exclusivity" they would have been leaked to the WWW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steroids View Post
And about the senator, if someone possibly (i know its a stretch) but if someone were to be "helped along" in pushing an investigation with some incentive behind it, say o' i don’t know, building a fab in your state which would bring JOBS, and alot of taxable income. And make you look really good at your job. No this does not mean that he is in charge of the investigation, Kromm was just pointing out the fact that it is a small possibility. I think that most of us know that more half our house/senate are more run by lobbyist and the almighty dollar than they are representatives of the people BUT that is a whole another argument for a different day....
You say "Saint Diego", i say "A whales Vag"...agree to disagree.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post
Wow, if you had said this then I never ever would have even bothered to respond to you. What you said was much much different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterKromm View Post
"Found guilty in other countries" doesn't really mean much, as accusations and conjecture alone warrant a guilty verdict... If there had ever been any solid proof to back the claims that OEMs procured massive "rebates for exclusivity" they would have been leaked to the WWW
Sorry, I didn't realize it was my delivery you took issue with,

^That was meant as hyperbole... No doubt I exaggerated, but I have searched for both Korean/Japanese commissions findings and aside from their claim that Intel was in the wrong I have yet to find where they cited/referenced any proof/evidence. Not only that, but wrong doings in those countries don't necessarily mean the same illegal acts were done here.

Quote:
Read again man, i clearly stated that your burden of proof was in proving there was some difference in the court systems or laws.
It's not logical to assume laws are the same across 2 separate/distinct/independant countries. You've made an illogical assumption; similar court systems ≠ the same laws. Why should I assume the burden of proof, aren't you the one trying to discredit me(and I already provided one example of a different law, it only takes one to establish reasonable doubt)? I've only raised doubts and suspicions your language thus far has been one of absolutes.

Quote:
I'm not talking about blindly accepting anything.
Then please, explain this comment.

Quote:
You tell me why i shouldn't take what is essentially 3 guilty verdicts against intel as proof in itself that intel is guilty.
Guilt in this country is not determined by a guilty verdict in another... Different laws, different set of circumstances.

Quote:
So i may have not stated this correctly but Intel being found guilty in ( soon to be ) 3 separate courts is proof in itself, although it is not infallable evidence of guilt. But what's the likelihood that if the EU finally does give that guilty verdict that 3 separate courts just decided to make stuff up?
You equivocate within the same sentence...

- Intel being found guilty is proof in itself ->
- It is not infallible evidence of guilt.

What you should have said:

- Intel being found guilty is probable cause in itself ->
- It is not infallible evidence of guilt.



Quote:
The FTC investigation was launched in June 2005. And three years of investigation and thorough data collection, domestic and international economic prominent enough to argue with Czech scientists said after the final conclusion.
http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I just wanted to see real concrete proof, the Japanese and Koreans made a strong case based on circumstance and numbers that worked to support their claims... But "smoking gun evidence" has never been released, supposedly AMD might have such info but it will undoubtedly remain hidden until their civil case.

BTW I'm officially done with this thread... Funk you can have the last word if it suits you.
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
Calculon Ω
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6700 @ 3.7Ghz 1.37V DFI LT X48-T2R vNB 1.24 EVGA 460GTX 4x2GB Patriot 1000mhz CL5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
2x x-25m Vista x64 24" BenQ G2400WD Corsair VX550W 
Case
CM Cosmos 1000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt View Post


You say "Saint Diego", i say "A whales Vag"...agree to disagree.
I can agree, and for now i'll leave it at that.
Juiced Up
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790K MSI Z97 GAMING 5 VisionTek Radeon R9 290X G.SKILL Sniper Series  
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung EVO 840 Cooler Master Seidon 120V – with 120mm Radiator... Windows 8.1 Corsair Professional Series HX650W  
CaseMouseAudio
Cooler Master HAF 932 Advanced  G500 XFI-Titantium 
  hide details  
Reply
Juiced Up
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790K MSI Z97 GAMING 5 VisionTek Radeon R9 290X G.SKILL Sniper Series  
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung EVO 840 Cooler Master Seidon 120V – with 120mm Radiator... Windows 8.1 Corsair Professional Series HX650W  
CaseMouseAudio
Cooler Master HAF 932 Advanced  G500 XFI-Titantium 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [NYT]FTC Investigates Intel over Antitrust issues